Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

"Komm rein, mach mit", meaning "Come, join us".

Well, now, this is ridiculous.... (Susan B. Anthony issue)

...Would you believe that there isn't a single image in the article on Susan B. Anthony of any real quality? The lead image is a mediocre reproduction of an engraving. There's an awkwardly composed shot of her and Elizabeth Cady Stanton (which would be fine if this didn't exist). It uses a rather good, but nonetheless drawn image of Stanton, and the other two images are mediocre, even if I'd keep one. The best thing in the article is a coin.

So, let's fix this, shall we? Here's some proposals, tell me what you think:

  • Lead image: Either or - Vote now on which you prefer!
  • Current lead image moved to section about the book it appears in. It's probably notable enough there. The image in THAT section can go pretty much anywhere, it's not particularly relevant there.
  • Image in "Early Life" stays where it is.
  • The Elizabeth Cady Stanton image could stay with the drawing, or be swapped for File:Elizabeth_Stanton.jpg - we don't have anything that great for her yet. perhaps? It's a painting, though, which might be too visually noticeable for someone not the main subject.
  • The image in the anti-slavery section is kind of arbitrary, and not well reproduced. What about or ?
  • The "Split in the women's movement" image is kind of meh, but I guess it's okay for now.
  • The next few images are fine...
  • Stanton/Anthony Group photo replaced with as discussed above.
  • It's not a huge upgrade, but can replace File:Portrait_of_Susan_B._Anthony.jpg
  • In "Death and Legacy" - do read the description of this, the title is hugely misleading - would be a great addition next to the discussion of the phrase "Failure is impossible".
  • In the memorials section, add and  Done

...For such a prominent leader in American suffrage, I think this will greatly help. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 21:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Would you believe that AdamC posted a whole thread about the Susan B. Anthony article without posting a single link to it :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds like a thing that idiot would do. Someone Who Is Not Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs, totally is Adam. 21:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I prefer the 3/4 view (image 02005) to the profile (02036). It's less detached, impersonal, and formal that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm with David, prefer the 3/4 image to the profile. SusunW (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Reportedly Susan B. Anthony was vegetarian. MaynardClark (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I've started this. Hester C. Jeffrey now has a rather nice image. It's going to take a bit. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 13:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I've finished the memorials. I'm kind of trying to do the images that serve the most double-duties or which are quick first. I don't think the one sculpture will pass at FPC, Leila Usher well might. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 09:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Playing catchup on some older stuff. Will be getting back to this soon. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 12:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This week's Featured picture update

Alright. So!

Future nominations

Some statistics

For the purposes of these statistics, I'm just looking at the subcategories of WP:Featured pictures/People. I'd also presume there's going to be a certain amount of error, as I'm making snap judgements of gender based on appearance, since otherwise this will take hours.

Division Total images Women Mixed gender Percentages Comments
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers 98 34 2 34.7% female, 2% mixed. This is a start, but should probably be better.
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Business 5 0 0 0% non-male A terribleness only matched by the relative ease of fixing it. We only need five.
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment 130 54 3 41.5% women, 2.3% mixed Close to even, but this is probably the field where women are most recognised historically.
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military 48 3 1 (technically) 6.25% women, 2.1% mixed Not entirely surprising. The gallery is heavily biased to historical military leaders of high rank. Could be improved.
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political 158 15 4 9.5% women, 2.5% mixed Numbers are somewhat biased by a giant set of engravings of U.S. presidents and their historical appointees, but this is still not great. It seems to be improving, though, with more women in more recent featured pictures. This is almost solely because of my work, though.
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Religious figures 16 0 0 0% non-male ...Really?
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty and nobility 55 23.5 2.5 43% women, 4.5% mixed. Best of all the categories. Half figure is for File:Bronzino - Eleonora di Toledo col figlio Giovanni - Google Art Project.jpg, where the inclusion of a male seems to be more about motherhood symbolism.
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering 52 17 1 31% women, 1.8% mixed. Improving: More recent results bias much more towards women than earlier results.
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport 60 17 1 28.3% women, 1.7% mixed Improving: More recent results are mostly women.
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Traditional dress 37 9 3 24.3% women, 8.1% mixed I have no idea how to interpret this one.
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Others 34 9 1 26.4% women 2.9% mixed I don't know if one can actively populate the category "Other".
Totals 714 181.5 18.5 25.4% women; 2.6% mixed Well, it's a start.

To make a start, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sue Gardner Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 23:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how to nominate, but for 'business', perhaps Muriel Siebert? She was the first woman to get a seat on the NYSE. We'd need to source a photo though! Moira Paul (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@Moira Paul: It's a good suggestion, but my checks for possibilities came up blank at the moment. Anytone else? She's in that period where she died long enough ago that we don't have free images taken by photographers for Wikipedia, but is too recent to have anything obviously in the public domain. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 21:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Help to progress some article outlines started at an editathon?

Morning folk,

Myself and Thoughtfortheday ran an editathon last week in the UK - details here

It was a great event, but as is often the case we hit some snags! I think we were a bit ambitous layering other elements into the time we had, the perenial 'IT problems' and just generally thinking that new editors would be able to get a draft ready for mainspace from a standing start as non editors.

I would love to go back to the young men and women who attended in a couple of weeks and show them how their drafts have been picked up and developed into stubs/articles in mainspace by the community. I've listed out the draft work they did here

If anyone feels able to 'Adopt a female scientist' from here and work up to the point where it can be reviewed or straight publish, can you pop your user name and a link to your draft next to them in my sandbox and drop me a note when you're done? We can then share on our participants talk pages.

Thank you to anyone who has a bit of time to pitch in! Leela0808 (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Leela0808: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. It is indeed difficult to bring completely new participants up to the level where they can write acceptable articles at editathons. For most of them, it is quite an achievement to get them to add acceptable additions to existing articles. I've looked through the drafts on your list but the only one approaching mainspace standard was Evelyn May Cridlan, which I've now tidied up and moved. I'm afraid that for the others, it would be easier for me to create biographies from scratch - and in any case I am not too keen on working with BLPs. Maybe you could provide further guidance to your participants by email, encouraging them to improve their drafts.--Ipigott (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey Ipigott! Appreciate the quick reply. Unfortunately I don't think posting on these users talk pages in the way you suggest will be as effective as linking to a worked up article in mainspace and encouraging them to expand it. So, the type of help I'm looking for is simply anyone who can make time to develop articles based on the work already done - some are more complete than others. The Evelyn May Cridlan one you have approved (thanks!) was written by me and is an example of the type of help I am looking for from other editors. If you (or others) don't like BLP write ups, no problem, I think at least one article (Isabel Harwich) isn't a BLP. If you dont have time or inclination to develop one then again, no problem, but that is what I was asking for in terms of support. Leela0808 (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I have tidied up this one Draft:Yuki Okoda, which is promising. Theroadislong (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Leela0808:This is a fascinating list that deserves to be studied. It shows exactly how much you can achieve in one day. It gives a snapshot of newbies impressions of the way forward- FE teaching of volunteers is like herding cats! You can expect them to lose focus and follow their dreams.

The secret of FE teaching is preparation, so you as the tutor appear competent. You must remain focused on what you want to achieve. The technology must work-- passwords, firewalls and wikimedia restrictions. The tutorial material must work and not just look good. What are we trying to do explain what Wikipedia in about (irrelevant), explain how to use an arcane markup language (painful) or a half developed visual editor (more painful) or the content we want in the style we want or just defend our corner. Or do we want a nice talk about the achievements of the hosting department- or just to get through to coffee. Focus- and give the students the tools they need to do the job, and monitor them to keep them on task. They are volunteers so we have a professional duty to do our job professionally so we don't waste their time.

As you know I have produced a handbook File:Women in Red Creating an article-8 Mar 2017.pdf- but no longer can recommend it- it is too broad. The grey WMUK does not stay on focus- it is publicity material that encourages the student mind to wander. We need better.

It seems that the students had access to a departmental facebook- with minibios.

  • Activity. Turn these CVs into real sentences with verbs, full stops, and paragraphs. (Or cry for help- if you are not a native speaker)
  • Activity. Write it in the style and general reader will understand.
  • Activity. Put in references- No fancy style <ref> Book Name </ref> at this stage.
  • Activity. Add wikilink brackets for every term that the general reader may need help with- and no more

I wasn't there and normally avoid WP:BLP but there obvious sections. Birth and early Education. Education. Research Career. Consequences of Research-- tell the student to stay on focus, and ignore the twiddly bits. Just get down the interesting facts, reference them, comment and question in the edit summary

  • Activity. Add the standard categories[[Category:1889 births]] [[Category:1961 deaths]][[Category:Liverpool University alumni]] [[Category:People from Liverpool]]:[[Category:British women physicists]]

Real life is constraining me at the moment but I will have a look in greater depth in the next two days, lets not waste the learning opportunity, greetings to yourself and your students.ClemRutter (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Leela0808: From your list, I have an interest in working on Anne Kelso and had already collected info on her, after I added her to the List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science mid-2018. I'll see how I go editing in my research. I will, however, need to see help here with assessing the move from sandbox to mainspace. Oronsay (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Leela0808, A big thank you to you and Thoughtfortheday for facilitating the editathon. I know this takes time and commitment, and I hope there are opportunities for you to continue doing so in 2019, e.g. perhaps for Ada Lovelace day. Feel free to reach out again, either here or on my talkpage, if you'd like to brainstorm. As for the list you provided, I will see what I can find on the non-BLPs, e.g. Isabel Harwich. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Leela0808: Thanks for organising this and trying to recruit some new young editors! I hope they will stay around.
Something they don't seem to have taken on board is the importance of references, especially for BLPs but for anything else too. The article I'm looking at has detailed dates of her career, which must have come from somewhere, but no indication of where. If there's no time to complete an article it's useful to stick the list of sources into the talk page as "sources for potential article expansion", or alternatively to over-source the first line of the text by citing all available references, to get them into the article and allow other editors to pick them up to develop the article.
I've yet to find a source for the detailed cv-type content which the article creator put into what's now Draft:Angela Seeney, but I'm piecing together a few sources and I think she might just pass notability. PamD 08:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Leela0808 moved Cleone Benest to mainspace. ODNB is sufficient for notability, but there were other sources as well (and a photo!) SusunW (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
That is a fabulous, fascinating article! Nice work! valereee (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, I think it might qualify for DYK -- it's got one more day since it's been expanded five times valereee (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Valereee all good, it was only moved to mainspace today, so it is effectively created today. Time in the sandbox doesn't count for DYI timeline. If you want to nominate it, feel free. I am sure Weronikagrocholska would be happy for the exposure. SusunW (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Angela Seeney now in mainspace, though just a stub. PamD 10:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Would someone care to take a look at Anne Kelso and, if acceptable, move to mainspace? There are several redlinks for her, including at her workplace, National Health and Medical Research Council. I believe it's ready, but if not, do please let me know. Oronsay (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott, SusunW - Not sure whose attention to attract but hopefully one of you can move the draft of Anne Kelso into mainspace, if you feel it meets requirements. See my earlier request, immediately above. Oronsay (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Oronsay Moved; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Tagishsimon - Many thanks! Oronsay (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Oronsay sorry, I have been off quite a bit since mid December due to real life commitments. Tagishsimon Thank you so much, you are much faster than me. SusunW (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's standardize our Wikidata-generated lists

I attempted to add a column for # and another column for sitelinks to Law (WD) so that it would look like Peace activists (WD). But I didn't do it right. My intent is to standardize our WD lists so that they are identical in how they present information, e.g. (a) size of images (smaller is better IMHO as we basically want to know if there is an image or not, vs. how lovely it might be), and (b) column names/ordering. As creating/editing Wikidata lists is not my area of forte, perhaps someone else would be interested in taking on this task. Thanks in advance for doing so. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep: While I am all in favour of standardization, the problem here is that editors have different ideas about how these lists should look. Not too long ago, the # column was deleted from many lists as unnecessary and there have been variations in where the image column should be placed and how large the images should be. For this reason, I am not too keen to embark on further standardization until there is clear consensus by all concerned. Perhaps more is important is feedback on what is missing from specific lists.--Ipigott (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I didn't realize that the # column was deleted from many lists as unnecessary. I must have missed that discussion. But I won't argue in favor of it if it's already been settled. I think sitelinks is an important column, but it's a relatively new column, I think, and I seem to have missed that discussion, too.
So, pagestalkers, what are the best practices? What are the favored ideas? What makes sense for us? Let's talk about it. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I also agree that sitelinks is a useful addition, particularly as there are more and more Wikidata entries based on outside sources rather than Wikipedia articles in the various languages.--Ipigott (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that editors have different ideas about how these lists should look. For the most-part their development has been undertaken by using an existing list for a new scope; because, for the most-part, editors have negligible understanding of SPARQL and of {{Wikidata list}}. To the extent there is variation, it seems to me to arise by the happenstance of which list was used as the source. Lists seem to vary in the following respects:

  • Whether or not there is
    • an index number column
    • a sitelinks column
    • an occupation column
    • a nationality column (e.g. tends to be excluded from the 'by country of nationality' set, for obvious good reasons)
    • place of birth & death columns
  • Order of columns
  • Size of image - I've seen 40 and 120 px image sizes
  • Selection criteria - specifically whether there is a requirement that the wikidata item has at least a single sitelink
  • Whether or not autolist=fallback is used - using this provides machine-generated descriptions where there is not an en.description on wikidata
  • Order of rows - seems to be by DoB except for the by-country lists, which are alpha on the fullname

Of these:

  • the main drawback of the index number is that it make seeing changes in diffs difficult, since the addition or removal of a single row causes changes to all subsequent rows, and so one cannot see the wood for the trees. Unless anyone feels that the index is important, I suggest we remove it and instead include a table total at the foot of the table
  • sitelinks clearly convey very useful information; difficult to see an argument against
  • occupation occasionally imparts info on other things the person is known for: suggest we add this to all non-occupation lists
  • nationality - seems generally useful, except on the by-country lists
  • place of birth & death - not sure how useful, but doesn't seem harmful
  • order of columns - probably not worth fighting over
  • size of image - probably needs consensus but I agree with Rosie's take; whether or not an image exists is the most important thing. Thinking about very long lists with very many images, inflicting larger images is unfair to users with slow internet connections or metered bandwidth
  • selection criteria - we have for the most-part moved away from the 'needs a single sitelink'; it didn't strike me as either useful or clever, being mainly a way of excluding EN type people who are unlikely to feature on non-EN wikis - i.e. self-defeating.
  • use of autolist=fallback - seems mainly harmless & sometimes possibly useful; I've started adding it as I make changes - see e.g. Law
  • order of rows - probably needs consensus, but by DoB works for me.

There do not seem to me to be any additional properties in e.g. which beg for inclusion in our lists, not least since the majority of rows will lack data for potential additional properties - e.g. educated at, award received, notable work. One exception might be a column providing a count of external identifiers on a wikidata record (i.e. VIAF, ORCID, etc) which might be a proxy for the quantity of sources of info. But it might just confuse? --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: I agree with your analysis and suggestions and appreciate the earlier improvements you have made to many of these lists. Your idea of including a table total rather than a number column is very sensible. Maybe we could include the total at the top of the list rather than at the bottom so that it appears on the first screen display. Just to make sure everyone is in agreement, I suggest you give us two or three examples of exactly how you think typical lists of different types should look. That will provide opportunities for any further comments before we agree on a common format.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Tagishsimon: Thanks for your understanding of the different issues and being able to describe them so clearly. Here's my feedback to your questions: (a) total (at top, like Ipigott suggests) rather than index numbers makes sense; (b) I personally prefer smaller, e.g. 40px, images; (c) I like the look of Law, if that's what you mean by autolist=fallback, (d) regarding order of rows, the Law one looks fine. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Sadly {{wikidata list}} offers the summary count only at the bottom of the table. Does that still work for you? Implemented on Law as an experiment. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thumbs up. Yes, that's ok, Tagishsimon; not a deal-breaker. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

This may take some time. I'm taking the opportunity to rejig the sets of occupations that make up lists, in general to include subclasses of occupations, and/or exclude occupations from list A that are covered in list B. Some samples of the current look of the by occupation lists are below. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Tagishsimon: I think we can live with the total at the bottom of the list. All your examples look fine to me. I note that there were 33 names on Peace activists compared to only about 21 containing "Peace" in the description on the main Activists list. There therefore seems to be a case for establishing more specific lists within a more general category. I have suggested that we should cover Environmentalists in the coming months -- so there might be a case for adding a more specific list on Environmentalists too. I can only find about 20 on the Activists list which seems surprisingly few.--Ipigott (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Redlist removals?

In which I may from time to time suggest the removal of a redlist, as I'm going through them.

  • We have Art critics (138 people, excludes anyone not specifically labelled as an "art critic") and Critics (1086 people, includes art critics). Might we remove the first of these? Wikidata knows of 22 classes of critic; it's not clear to me why one of these has special handling, beyond limited curation of the lists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we created "Art citics" a while back became of Art+Feminism but I don't have a strong allegiance to retaining it when you can find Art Critics within a Critics WD-list. That said, we do have a lot of sports-related (and artist-related and writer-related) WD lists so hope others give their points of view on this issue. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Tagishsimon: I'm not too happy about deleting any of these lists. Nearly all of them were created for a reason. The more specific lists are easier to use than the more general ones. For example, terms such as art critic may not appear in the text descriptions of critics but might appear in the Wikidata details. See also the example of peace activists vs activists.--Ipigott (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Mmm. I did come to the realisation, after posting the above, that redlists are linked to, from event pages, and so deleting them would be a very bad thing. Ian's point that whilst individuals may be found in Critics, they'll not be distinguishable because their description does not make clear that they're Art Critics is also valid. So, consider the redlist removal trial balloon well & truly shot down. Of course, there are issues about how many redlists we list ... at what point does the size of the list of lists become bewlidering ... why do Art Critics get promotion but Wine Critics do not. We can worry about that sometime later. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon, Ipigott, and Megalibrarygirl:, certainly the Redlist Index has become enormous (yay!) so I wondered if in the future, we might want to have tabs at the top (clickable buttons like on our events pages) with the different categories, e.g. geography, occupation, etc. This would help with showcasing the particular lists in new ways. For example, on the Occupations page, just as we have Sports in a subsection, we could have subsections for Art and for Writing. We could even have a subsection for Critics if we decide to break those out further. And, IMO, a particular list could appear multiple times on such a page, e.g. Art Critics could appear in a Critics subsection as well as in an Art subsection. Regarding a Redlist Index page devoted to Geography, we could include the Universities, although those could also be on a separate Redlist Index page. If we enact this idea, I think it would lead to more redlists as we notice other opportunities (missing lists). --Rosiestep (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Yup. Jane is touching on the same area of thought in her post below. There's much to be said about all this, but just right now, too little time; irl getting in the way again. It needs some serious thought, and there are, of course issues. I get the impression we're all supportive of more redlists, more granular detail, better navigation. Now we just need to work through the business of figuring out the detail. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


Nice to see some work done here on organizing red lists! It would be nice at the same time to discuss occupations. I know lots of writers here are interested in various types of writers, but it would be nice to set up an overview of how we want to categorize all women in such a way that we help people find all of them. I suggest for occupation for including any occupation under a "major occupation section". I can think off the top of my head there are these: writers, sportspeople, artist/entertainers, politicians, scientists, religious figures, and society figures/nobles/consorts. Each major category needs an associated Wikidata item for occupation or position held, and then these should be able to correspond to some major wiki category, and then we should agree that all women be given a major occupation on Wikidata plus whatever sub-occupation reflects her field of work. This should be the bottom-up approach to fixing the lists, to determine on this side what we want to track from Wikidata, and not the other way around. I am seeing a lot of really weird occupations in Wikidata coming from (I think) lead sentences on Wikipedias. Jane (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I like this idea, Jane023. Tabs for subject headings are a great idea. However, I would like to point out that for me, having an index of all lists in alphabetical order is also useful. I wouldn't want to throw that away, but maybe keep it as one of the tabs. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm interested right now in journalists, and it would be great to have that standardized so I know I don't have to check out every woman whose occupation is listed as writer in order to find what I'm looking for. Add educators and businesspeople as major occupation categories. Also, would nurses and mathematicians fall under scientists? Would philanthropists fall under society figures? Where do inventors go? Military? And has someone else already invented this wheel? valereee (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Ooh Valereee I am also interested in journalists but sadly many women lack bylines/kayrons (I don't even know how to spell kayron because I just watch these flip by on CNN or other news stations but the thing itself is never named). We now have a property for muckrack so that can be added as an id. For news journalists that are known mostly from TV, they are still writers (however strange that may seem). So I would suggest, in order, a wikidata occupation of writer, then journalist, then TV personality (if applicable). Jane (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Apropos this general discussion, here's a wikidata report providing counts of the number of women withough articles, by occupation. Quick take-aways are, 107,163 such items have no occupation specified (encoded rather opaquely as "concept of unknown value in Wikibase"); there are 3,350 distinct occupations in the list; but there's a power law / long tail pattern. The bottom line, as Jane alludes, is that occupation coding in wikidata is primative and mostly absent. Although there are other properties we can look at - such as genre - these too will be primitive and mostly absent. So, silk purse / sow's ear territory, I'm afraid. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes Tagishsimon, I agree. The state of User:Jane023/Number of women per occupation is a huge mess near the bottom. I do try to pick at it once in a while, but it is pretty thankless work. Jane (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Female biography count

I am new to the WIR project and I want to be sure I'm doing this right. Is a biography only going to count in the stats of male vs. female biographies if it's been tagged appropriately in Wikidata? MPJ-DK (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

By & large, yes. It will appear on the monthly metric stats if it is listed on one of the subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics (although they for the most-part are fed by Reports Bot, which works from wikidata), but overall counts such as WHGI are wikidata based and require instance=human and gender=female. That said, quite a lot of effort goes in to making sure that wikidata has items for all female biog artices; a few fall through the cracks, and it may take some weeks or months for items to be updated, for two main reasons: poor categorisation of articles, and because articles linger in draft space for long periods. It is absolutely the case that wikidata handling of female biogs is better than for male biogs, where there are tens of thousands awaiting an item, or a correctly coded item. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Is there a way to find the wikidata entries that either missing a gender parameter or has a gender parameter but are not linked to any of the wikipedias? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: I put together Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/Wikidata listing various Petscan reports looking at articles where there is no linked item, or where there is a linked item lacking gender, but kinda ran out of steam on it, mainly because Petscan can take so long to run and the toolserver frequently errors. In the other direction, it's possible to run SPARQL reports in wikidata looking for items with no article, but one needs to select a subset of humans (e.g. by country, by occupation) since the report service does not allow enough time to query all humans listed in wikidata. All of our wikidata redlists are based on such reports. And, equally, it's possible to use the wikidata report service to look for items about humans, with no gender, with or without sitelinks - example. So, yes, with patience & a modicum of deviousness. For my sins, I run a couple of petscans on roughly a daily basis to add correctly coded items to articles, and to add gender to items with sitelinks but lacking gender (although I've been a bit lax over the last few days). --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I've been doing Petscans, following Tagishsimon's advice and adding gender info where necessary. I've also been going back through previous Meetups and manually adding descriptions and items to Wikidata. Perhaps I should note this on the Talk pages of the relevant Meetups? This might avoid several of us covering the same ground. I also check the #1Day1Woman meetup every few days. Oronsay (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
That's good to hear, Oronsay, thank you; I'm glad I have company. Yes, it's well worth annotating meetup pages to specify what sort of work has been done in wikidata, against the off-chance that anyone else joins in. Petscans against non-gender-specific categories such as Category:Births by year, Category:Deaths by year, Category:People by this & that & the other, and Category:People in sports are probably where we'll probably find the undiscovered women biogs; sadly it's all somewhat needle-in-haystack stuff. Equally, nil desperandum - instructive to look at the histories for monthly metrics pages such as January_2017, where a couple of years later Reports Bot is still finding new additions, indicating newly completed wikidata items. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
A while back Jane023 put together this Wikidata list of humans with no gender. It provides a fairly straightforward basis for ensuring recent additions are properly coded for gender. I tried to made several corrections a day for a time but unfortunately have not kept it up. Others are welcome to participate. The benefit is that our stats depend on correct inclusion of gender.--Ipigott (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Mmm. Couple of issues with that report. 1) it's reporting on items added in January 2018, not the most recent additions 2) despite the blurb saying "and one sitelink" it is not requiring items to have at least one sitelink, much less requiring items to have an sitelink. To be sure, adding gender to any of the records is a good thing, but by & large it will not affect WiR stats. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe with your expertise, Tagishsimon, you could make the necessary adjustments and ensure it is updated on perhaps a monthly basis. I found it very useful when it was first introduced. At the time, it included many new articles from the en wiki. I probably dealt with most of them myself and then forgot to update the list. But it would of course be even better if it could be adapted specifically to the presence of an en wiki sitelink.--Ipigott (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
If only, Ipigott, if only. Jane's report just about scrapes in under the 1 minute report run-time allocation, occasionally. If you check out the report history you'll see that what should be a pattern of updates-every-day is very patchy - it works when server load is low, fails when server load is other than low. Now add the requirement that a check is made as to whether there's an sitelink, and you produce a report which by & large will not run, ever, within 1 minute. And that holds even if you reduce the limit to, say, 500, according to some tests I've just done. Bottom line is, it's a very inefficient report - not Jane's fault; it's just the way SPARQL works. Although Petscan (or more properly toolserver) can be a monumental pain, with its Error 502s, and the need to wait whilst it runs, it is a much better route for this sort of thing than SPARQL on its own; various of the petscans at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/Wikidata do exactly this: look for items linked to women or human bios, where gender is missing from the item. So, sorry about that; but my recommendation is to use petscan. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, I see what you mean. I'll use your links in future. There were surprisingly few women in the lists I looked at.--Ipigott (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Yup. Very few women with western names. I couldn't swear what the position is with Asian & Chinese names is - not so easy to spot, through lack of familiarity. I'll maybe do some more work on the /Metrics/Wikidata page, given time. Make sure you have WiDAR enabled, if you're doing other than picking them off one-by-one. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I've tidied up the page - Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/Wikidata - and added a new Listeria game at the bottom of it - Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/Wikidata humans no gender. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

noting AfDs in articles lists

I think Hijiri88 makes a very good point. We don't want WiR to be seen as a place people get canvassed from. For those who would like to be able to see that an article has been nominated for deletion, you can put Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Women on your watch list. (I did that very recently and man are there a lot of crap articles about women out there.)

Also, if you install this script User:Anomie/linkclassifier it will turn articles that have been nominated for AfD bright pink. I did that a couple of months ago when it was mentioned here, and it's really great. It also puts a yellow highlight behind links to disambiguation pages, which has kept me from making some errors, and turns redirects green, which I've found helpful in noticing women who aren't in red but don't have their own article. valereee (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

ETA damn, I just put this on the wrong talk page, sorry valereee (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Valereee: no worries and thank you. I'm glad you posted it here as I've just installed the script, and it is awesome to see the links in bright colors! It truly is a "link classifier". Just goes to show that mistakes aren't always mistakes. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Good grief, Rosiestep. Where have you been? All the cool kids, etc. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder about canvassing, but even more for the script User:Anomie/linkclassifier. It's already 2019 here in Sydney and my lifelong learning continues! Oronsay (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Someone here -- maybe Joseph2302 ? -- was who posted that script link a couple months ago when I mentioned that I wished I could tell when an apparently bluelinked woman was actually a redirect to some more-famous relative. valereee (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes. The 25th of November. <swishes cloak of invisibility> --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy 2019!

Happy New Year to everyone at Women in Red,
and thank you for all the amazing things you do for our project!

--Rosiestep (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy new year 01.svg

Thank you Rosie, you too!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Redlist header template changes

I'd like to get some changes made to redlist header boxes; before doing so I'd like to get consensus here. The changes suggested here are with a view to providing facilities for further standardisation of redlist formatting. None of the changes will affect existing uses of templates, nor the ability to continue to use the template discussed exactly as they are now being used.

Redlists have header boxes, provided by Template:Women in Red redlist header. That template in turn uses the blank Template:WiR-HeaderBox, which can take three parameters, one of which provides the descriptive text seen in Template:Women in Red redlist header.

If we look at, for instance, the Peace activists redlist, we see there is additional text after Template:Women in Red redlist header and before the wikidata list. Without, in this discussion, concerning ourselves with what the text says, I think it would be ideal if such text were within the header box.

We have two sorts of redlist, crowd-sourced (CS) and wikidata-based (WD).

My proposal is that we make amendments to one or both templates such that we can have parameters enabling 1) inclusion of descriptive text, exactly as we now have it 2) addition of redlist-specific text - i.e. Template:Women in Red redlist header having a parameter facilitating description of selection criteria of the redlist on which it is used, and 3) a parameter that indicates whether the redlist is CS or WD, so that standard text that pertains only to one or other of those classes (e.g. "this list needs manual editing" versus "this list is bot maintained, don't bother editing it") will be included. Parameters 2 & 3 can probably be combined, so that, for instance CSText= will include whatever text is provided per redlist and will also include the standard form CS-specific text; and WDText= will include whatever text is provided and the WD-specific text ... and finally, perhaps CSText=yes will include only the standard form CS-specific text, ditto WDText=.

And, for completeness sake, having pointed to Peace activists as an example of what I see as poor format needing fixing, I should also point to the Afghanistan redlist as an example of a class of redlists that use a second header box formed by ad hoc code. For me, this is less ideal that containing all the information about the redlist in a single redlist header box.

All this said, I lack experience of making changes to templates, so the whole exercise depends on a) consensus here, and b) finding someone to do it, or c) me educating myself on template-fu. --18:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talkcontribs)

Thanks for bringing this up, Tagishsimon as I've noticed the same, and favor all 3 of the amendments you describe above. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Tagishsimon: These all seem sensible suggestions. The only problem I can see at the moment is that there are a number of CS lists which also include a WD list. Perhaps the best solution here is to delete the WD list if it already exists in its own right, making sure it is linked from the CS list. If it does not yet exist as a separate WD list, it should be created (although I don't know of any specific cases). In this connection, I think it is useful for the CS lists to include links to any appropriate WD lists. I think many already do so but it might be useful to make this systematic.--Ipigott (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Actor or actress?

In response to the encouragement of this group, I am currently working on a biog of a female actor. However she has exactly the same name as another woman whose biog is on Wikipedia. So should I title my article "female name (actor)", or "female name (actress)"? The WP biogs of Judi Dench and Meryl Streep are both described as "actress" in their first paragraph, but this appears to conflict with information about the word, "actress," in the article, Actor - hence my wish to get this right. Storye book (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I always use 'actor' unless it's a trans woman, in which case I prefer 'actress'. It's an outdated term but in the case of a trans woman could cause confusion on whether offense was intended. valereee (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
We appear to have articles using both conventions e.g. Nancy Allen (actress) and Amarilis (actor), although "(actress)" appears more frequent at least among the American female actor categories that I scanned to find these examples. Because we have both, I think it's something for the editor creating the article to choose. My own choice would be for the more gender-neutral "(actor)". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I've been checking through a number of category listings and the common practice is actress. Amarilis (actor) seems to be an exception. (The first line of her bio is "Amarilis is an American television actress.") I know Wikidata doesn't allow actress as an occupation but in my experience, in English we nearly always refer to female stage or film performers as actresses. I think we can overdo the gender avoidance game. How about governess, empress, headmistress, priestess, waitress, etc., etc.?--Ipigott (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata tells me that 1159 article names use (actress) and 16 use (actor), for the set of records having gender=female and occupation=actor/actress. Make of that what you will. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Because I'm usually writing about 19c/early 20c women, I use "actress" as the description in the top; but I'll still write, "Mary married fellow actor John" or "Mary was one of the fifty actors who signed the petition." So I guess, for most of my articles on this topic, she's an actress, but she's also in the larger category of actors. Penny Richards (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be a general lack of societal consensus about it. "Actress" is used by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, and in most articles I've seen. I did find one old archived discussion on it, but no definitive guidance. Nick Number (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WHAAOE Actor#The term actress, per Storye book. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
My goodness, so the usage pattern on WP is so various as to leave us with a choice? Thank you, everybody for all this information - it is much appreciated. In the case of the biography I'm working on, and in view of what you have told me, I think I now know what the woman concerned would wish me to do. Storye book (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Update: well, here she is - Alice Marriott (actress). Enjoy. And thank you, Women in Red, for prompting me to do this. I found her in a random search for "Mrs" in the British Library archive, and thought I'd be smirking at yet another British eccentric - but the research has given me great respect for her and her achievements. So, power to the Women in Red movement. Storye book (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
That's an epic article, Storye book. Thank you & very well done. Hats off to you. (And she'd be chuffed to bits, I reckon.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Storye book (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Focus on suffrage

For our focus on suffrage: --Rosiestep (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I added wording that the campaign would also include anti-suffragists. I hope that was ok. I've come across some anti-suffragists in the last few years and I thought their points of view shouldn't be left out. I was bold in making this change without seeking consensus, but I am open to the opinions of others and am ok with being reverted.
  • I was wondering if we wanted to create a special logo for Template:WIR-107, perhaps a black heart with white woman silhouette or black woman with white heart? At some point, suffragists were encouraged to wear white, ergo the suggestion.
I'll try to work up a graphic, Rosiestep. It'll be a day or so. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with you on the anti-suffragists, Rosie. I've included them in the intro.--Ipigott (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad you mentioned the logo for WIR-107. I noticed higher up on the page under Add to article talk pages, it lists a template as WIR-01-2019. Are the WIR-01-2019 and WIR-107 templates the same thing? Is there a way to distinguish which should be used? Thanks! Knope7 (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Knope7: Thanks for bringing this up. I think I must be to blame for this. When I created the Suffrage page, as it is to stretch throughout the year, I based it on Meetup/00/2018 for #1day1woman and called it Meetup/01/2019. After Rosiestep moved it to the more standard meetup designation of Meetup/107 and moved the template to WIR-107, I tried to make the necessary changes but failed to spot the article banner. I have now changed it to WIR-107. In fact, Knope7, it doesn't really matter whether you use WIR-01-2019 or WIR-107 as they both work but I think that from now on it would be more logical to use WIR-107 -- so I've now changed those on the articles already created.--Ipigott (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

WIR-108 #1day1woman2019

In this connection, Rosie, I see that although you changed the meetup page for #1day1woman to WIR-108, you did not change the template which is still WIR-00-2019. Maybe this is intentional in order to maintain more or less the same format as last year?--Ipigott (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott - I should have changed that one, too! I will do so now. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Update: I have created WIR-108, updated the WIR-108 event page to reflect this new template, and changed the revised the template on all the talkpages associated with this event. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Rosiestep - I am confused. The meetup page for #1day1woman still shows both WIR-00-2019 and WIR-108. If we are supposed to be using WIR-108 the incorrect one needs to be removed and banners changed on talkpages using the incorrect one. Oronsay (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Oronsay, thanks for noticing and you are right. That task still needs to be done. I think I've made all the necessary changes but if I missed anything, would appreciate anyone else making the fix. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Separate question concerning talkpage banners, when I add an image to an article, should I add the relevant banner to its talkpage? Oronsay (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Can Wikidata handle multiple wikisource entries

Jane023 and/or others: If a person has multiple English Wikisource entries, it seems like you can only add 1 to her Wikidata entry, and so I've placed the extra ones in the External links section of the EN-WP biography, e.g. Elizabeth Stuart Phelps Ward. Or is there a more proper way of handling this issue? --Rosiestep (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

What you've done is appropriate, Rosiestep. The wikisource sitelink in the wikidata item for the individual is supposed to point to the individual's entry on wikisource - which it does. Each of the articles on wikisource about the individual are listed in her wikisource page in the 'Works about Phelps' section (well, three of the four are, the other should ideally be added), and can optionally be added as ELs in her article, as you have done. Optionally, wikidata can have a discrete single item for each of the works, which would point to her wikidata item, and be pointed to from her wikidata item, using a property such as 'described at URL' or somesuch. DNB articles, for instance, tend to have discrete wikidata items; but in this case it does not look as though the wikisource articles have wikidata items, and so it will remain until someone decides to 'fix' that lack. Thank you for coming to my TED talk. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Thumbs up Thanks, Tagishsimon. BTW, nice Ted talk. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft article for Kathy J. Warden

Hi there! I work for Northrop Grumman, and I'm working to improve a few Wikipedia articles related to the company. I've drafted a new article about Northrop Grumman's CEO, Kathy J. Warden. Here's a link to the draft article --- User:JanAtNorthropGrumman/Kathy J. Warden. I believe she meets Wikipedia's eligibility criteria and I've tried to be neutral and objective here.

The draft summarizes her educational background, career, board service and recognition based on reputable sources. I've disclosed my affiliation with the company on my profile page as well as the draft page. I've posted at WikiProject Women, and I think WikiProject Women in Red may be interested in this draft as well. I know I should not make the article live on my own, so are any editors willing to take a look and update the article for me? All feedback is welcome, and thanks! JanAtNorthropGrumman (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you User:Rosiestep for moving the draft article into creation. Would you be willing to update Kathy J. Warden's title in the article to "Chief Executive Officer and President" in the text and infobox? This change went into effect on January 1, 2019. JanAtNorthropGrumman (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
JanAtNorthropGrumman, sure; done. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiCite offers inspiration for future Wikidata projects

This blogpost by LiAnna (Wiki Ed) talks about WikiCite and Wikidata, topics which interest me a lot, and perhaps some of you. It contains a mention of and link to my presentation during WikiCite 2018's plenary (thank you, LiAnna!). In my presentation, I talk about Women in Red, the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group, and more. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Notable female sociologists lacking a Wikipedia article

Cross-posting from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women# Notable female sociologists lacking a Wikipedia article with thanks to Praemonitus. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

While investigating an article for Dr. Susan Myra Kingsbury, I chanced upon the following paper:
Luo, Wei; Adams, Julia; Brueckner, Hannah (2018), "The Ladies Vanish?", Comparative Sociology, 17 (5): 519–556, doi:10.1163/15691330-12341471 Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFLuoAdamsBrueckner2018.
It specifically mentions certain notable women sociologists who are lacking articles on Wikipedia. Just thought it might be of interest. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 10:36 am, 19 November 2018, Monday (1 month, 17 days ago) (UTC−8)
@Praemonitus: It's even open access too! I downloaded a copy and going to extract the names. Thanks. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
It's at PamD 16:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Women in Green - 2019 Goals

As a quick update for the new year: in 2018, Women in Green participants submitted a collective total of 27 new GA article nominations about women. For 2019, group members have agreed on two separate goals: (1) submit a collective total of 20 GA article nominations about women and women's works related to suffrage, and (2) submit a collective total of 20 "Wildcard" GA article nominations about women and women's works of any kind. All interested editors are welcome to contribute to these goals and Women in Green as a whole (there is a participant list on the project mainpage!), and the Talk page is open for questions and discussions about the GA nomination/review process. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Discord link

Hello. I was wondering if anyone would like to join me on WIkipedia:Discord. Me and a couple of WIR members here chat here very frequently on the #general and #english_wikipedia channels. It'd be awesome if other members joined as well :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Notable American Women books

Came across this 5 volume book while at the Resource Exchange. They are available on the Internet Archive (requires account:) Volume 1-3 covers deaths from 1607-1950, Volume 4 covers deaths between 1951-1976 and Volume 5 finishes up the 20th century. There are other similar naming books as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a wikilinked list of women covered in the first three volumes, too. (Though be aware that not all of the redlinked women are actually missing articles, since there are a lot of naming variations between the book and Wikipedia.) TheCatalyst31 R articleeactionCreation 04:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

New Statesman article

That'll be Dr. Alice White - User:Zeromonk - (and friends) again - a NewStatesman article: From Chinese spies to award-winning geologists, we’re making women visible on Wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I've just posted a link to this article to a Facebook group that I administer, Women Write Wiki, based in Sydney, Australia. And I also tweeted it to my followers to spread the word. Oronsay (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
and Ewan McAndrew who organises the only monthly Women in Red meetup I know. Great coverage and well balanced IMO. Well done all. Can anyone add this to wiki articles - it should be reffed in Gender Gap IMO? Victuallers (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Victuallers: Yes, I agree. It's one of the most comprehensive articles on the Wikipedia women problem. I've added it to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2019 and to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Press (which is seldom viewed) but am not sure what you mean by reffing in Gender Gap.--Ipigott (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh I meant here, I should have been more thorough. At the mo' "journalists" like to say that the lack of women on Wikipedia is due to the lack of editors who are women. This argument is silly but is a nice hooky "story" so its repeated. To my mind this wiki article puts forward that myth but I feel too close to it to edit it myself. Pleased to see that WIR has been tacked on but it doesn't mention that we have a different approach of using editors of any gender because systemic bias cannot be addressed by just changing our editor's gender choice. (Altho obvs diversity is good too). Yep I know I'm preaching to the choir/converted. Cheers. Victuallers (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I would be very wary of dismissing the link as a 'myth' used by journalists. Yes, the gender gap in biographies has complex drivers, but the gender gap in editors is one of those factors. It may get simplified in reporting, but that does not diminish the validity. There are plenty of academics who study Wikipedia who make the connection (cf. Konieczny & Klein 2018). As editors we should avoid being sanguine about the causes of the disparity. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Welshwomen is a new list of 50 historic and 50 current important Welshwomen. Haven't yet checked how many are already blue links, or perhaps on PamD 16:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps not that new - goes back to May 2018 apparently. Did we notice it then? PamD 23:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
We did, albeit w.r.t. a Wales Online article, not the dedicated website. But the names are the same, I think. Archive_42#Wales_online_list. Equally, Welsh Women; can't get enough of them, frankly, and there's clearly work still to be done. Rosiestep went through the historic 50, and found the following still required articles ... and it's not clear that anyone has yet been through the present-day women. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Twitter header image

Recently joined Twitter, for my sins, and am following the Women in Red Twitter a/c. I was surprised to find that the image header shows the lead of an old version of Fran Walsh with the second & third sentences reading "She is the partner of filmmaker Sir Peter Jackson. They have two children...[names redacted]"

I thought this was the kind of writing about women -- defined by their relationships -- that we were struggling to avoid? Indeed the lead was edited nearly a year ago to remove this infelicitous effect [1]. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I see the image has now been changed, although tbh I did a double-take at the choice of Princess Stéphanie of Monaco, who, quite apart from her inherited position, is described in the lead of her article as "the youngest child of Rainier III, Prince of Monaco, and the American actress Grace Kelly. She is the younger sister of Albert II, Prince of Monaco, and Caroline, Princess of Hanover. Currently 13th in the line of succession to the Monegasque throne", before an addendum of "she has been a singer, swimwear designer and fashion model." I'm sure she has. I'm equally sure there are other candidate women who are NOT MAINLY DEFINED BY THEIR RELATIONSHIPS. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed! It looks like it changes ~daily, which I hadn't realised when I noted the above. It does seem to be driving quite a bit of traffic (perhaps more than the main page, which I think might be more important for long-term editors than the great bulk of casual editors & readers). Does anyone know how the women are chosen? And on a sidenote, today's highlighted article on Evelyn Dove was getting a spate of racist vandalism this morning, which is another thing to watch out for. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Days of the year

I’m working steadily on adding existing women to the Day of the Year posts, and checking the balance of the associated anniversaries content (which then appears under ‘on this day’ on the homepage). For example, I added two events to January 13 and made some tweaks to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 13. I’m going through by day, but I’m happy to start going through the women we turn blue (prioritising the GA nominations) to check their births/deaths are listed and suggested for the anniversary section. I’ll probably get to it once a week or so. That should mean women’s biographies become more visible. Moira Paul (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I've made a start and added the born/died dates for Aletta Jacobs, Hannah Arendt and Ruth A. M. Schmidt to the relevant anniversaries pages. I saw some redlink names in the Aletta article, in the section on Dutch suffrage, so I'll add them to the relevant redlist. Moira Paul (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this, Moira Paul. Certainly I think we should prioritize women's biographies at the GA level, as well as suffragists. I got some pushback when working on this task myself a few months ago (adding women writers) so I stopped. Perhaps some tips/tricks might be useful for those of us who aren't as familiar with this area. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed some pushback on my first attempts too, Rosiestep, which is why I've decided to focus on GA first as it is harder for those to fail the 'notable' criteria. I'm also going to try some notable anniversaries for the 'on this day' events as I already have a list of some. I'll report back on how it is going in a few weeks and maybe add some tips here for biog authors. I also need to work out how to make a redlist - but that's for another night! Moira Paul (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who used to patrol main-page errors, where there used to be long & occasionally acrimonious debates over these (and not in any sense on behalf of those who administer this area): (1) make the suggestions well in advance so that everyone has a chance to check the article; (2) make sure the GA is truly acceptable quality for the main page (ie fully referenced, including lists of works, & not drifted into disrepair since it was last reviewed); (3) don't push too hard -- I don't believe there was consensus at Errors for having 3 women, or even 2/3 women more than occasionally back when I was last looking at this regularly; (4) make sure the bios chosen are actually likely to be *interesting* to a general reader; when I've had to choose these at the last minute myself (after something was pulled), I've sometimes gone with a short but well-referenced B-class article on someone with a fascinating story over a dull but worthy GA/FA; (5) bear in mind that there's more to balance than just the m:f ratio (era, field, region of world are the usual ones). And finally, adding reliable references to candidate articles is another way of improving their likelihood of appearing. I notice for example that Agatha Christie is queued, yet has a section tagged for lacking references, which makes it susceptible to challenge. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Would there be any interest in including a section somewhere on Women in Red identifying "Women of the month" based on the dates of birth, etc.? It may also be interesting to add something similar on suffragists and suffragettes to coincide with our month-by-month coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Espresso Addict, those are good tips. I agree with the need to balance on several axis. If there are multiple women eligible in the born/died section for a day, I'll look to suggest one or two who are may be more interesting for being less obviously known. For example, I added a woman from Africa in the January 13 page so there was someone from outside the European or North American spheres. Not sure it got there, in part due to the short timeframe. I'm starting with the GA to help me create short lists to try this with. I did briefly look at women who have turned from red to blue this month and realised it would be a Sisyphean task to go through them all! Moira Paul (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
That's a great idea, Moira Paul! People with interesting lives that the average reader won't have heard of before is exactly what the slots are there for. Winnie Byanyima, yes? Looks like Howcheng has picked it up for this year. The suggestions stay in place for future years, so those passed over might well feature next year. The other thing you might think about is checking errors a few times the day beforehand to see if anyone's found a problem, but beware it's quite intense there; it can be a bit abrasive. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
At the same time, I don't think there is consensus to NOT have 3 women either. We've run several days of all women in the births/deaths, for example. In the regular blurbs, there is a preference for topic variety, so if there are for example two blurbs about suffragettes, that wouldn't fly. But let's say you have one scientific discovery, one crime, and one war item (all involving women) that would be totally fine (assuming of course they meet article quality standards). As for notability, that's certainly more subjective, but I'll pass over decent articles in the births/deaths if it's just random noble for example. howcheng {chat} 01:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both! I think I’ll be sticking to making suggestions rather than getting into the Errors chat simply due to how much time I have. I’ve already identified the extent to which I could happily disappear down the rabbit hole on this and neglect the work I should be focussing on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moira Paul (talkcontribs) 07:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Heather Unruh

I've cleaned this up & added an infobox but it still has an orange tag for not having an encyclopedic tone if anyone wants to a bit of work on it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the tone tag. The article is short, and in a sense each section is shorter still; but there's nothing wrong with the tone. (Don't let its tagless status dissuade you from adding to it, though.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

FPs for January 11th

Let's see. Since last time, the Leila Usher and Sue Gardner images failed to pass. Might tweak the first a bit more, and renominate the second later. The status of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Maddison Elliott is complicated.

We have two new FPs. File:Masih Alinejad.jpg (8 January) and File:Hou Yifan (29762728494) (cropped).jpg (9 January).

At the moment, the only nomination of interest to us is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Carrie Chapman Catt redux, already featured over on Commons. Please remember this is meant to be informative, not a guide to voting, and don't vote just because I link something. At the same time, I don't want to "ban" anyone from participating over there. It's a pretty friendly community, even if we do have lots of arguments over encyclopedic value and procedure. Plus, lots of really pretty birds. Worth a look. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 12:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Just realised that in the context of Women in Red, I should probably specify I'm referring to literal birds, not being massively misogynist. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 12:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Nora Femenia

[2] Rather surprised to see that Nora doesn't have an article yet. I would have written when but I suppose I have a WP:COI as I have known her for a number of years. Is this the place to suggest an article could be possible? WCMemail 15:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster Is this the place? Not really. There are tens & tens of thousands of women - and men - who meet general notability requirements yet do not have an article. Special pleading probably confirms your COI. Maybe add her to an appropriate redlist? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
OK no worries, I'll leave it at that. WCMemail 20:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

A question on quality

Hi there,

This project does phenomenal work (in fact in terms of content-focused projects, it probably makes the most global difference). However the % of female bios, as a proportion, has only increased slowly over the years despite large numbers of articles.

I was wondering whether there was any firm thought that due to the work of WIR, the quality of bios was significantly higher - lots of male bios are 1 paragraph footballers and just-included politicians? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I tend to doubt that any claim can be made that women biogs are of higher quality than male. I've coded thousands of women biogs for wikidata, necessitating at the least a quick glance at them; there are plenty enough 1 paragraph footballers and just-included politicians amongst them. Equally, the quality of all biogs steadily increases, and WiR plays its part in that, not least by encouraging a community of editors with sufficient skills and interests to produce higher quality biogs - as do other specialised projects, such as women's literature or the woman's classical committee. Sorry if that's a disappointing answer, but the wikipedia ecosystem is so large that any project has a relatively small impact, overall. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the quality has been studied. Articles about women on WP typically are longer and more in-depth, despite the difficulty in finding sources. However, due to those same sourcing and systemic biases, there are less notable women evident in the historic record.[3][4] However, that being said, I know of no study that attributes the phenomena to WiR. My guess would be that as more sources are required to satisfy significant coverage for women, more detail about them is learned and since women's articles appear to be more likely sent to AfD, editors take more time crafting them. But that is wholly a guess, with no basis in research. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Nosebagbear: Thanks for this interesting question. As an active contributor to Women in Red since the beginning, I must say it certainly appears to me that articles created under the project are in general of significantly higher quality than the average Wikipedia biography. Indeed, if you look at the biographies listed in Category:All WikiProject Women in Red pages, you will find that there are comparatively few stubs, most of the articles being rated as start class with quite a number rated C. Furthermore, thanks to the involvement of several WiR editors in Women in Green, we have succeeded in bringing quite a few up to B class. Of course only about 16,000 of the 280,300 women's biographies have talk pages specifically noting creation under the WiR project although several of us have worked on improvements to many of the others. One way in which we could further improve the quality would by means of a de-stubbing exercise under which we would try to bring a fair number of stubs up to at least start class. (Perhaps we could focus on de-stubbing in April or May.) As for Tagishsimon's work on Wikidata, it could well be that many of the women's names he has been adding have come from articles which were not created under WiR or were completely new WiR articles which were still in the process of expansion. (I have seen that some of my new bios have been added to Wikidata when I have just completed the lead.) In conclusion, I must say I would not have stuck with the project for so long if I had not believed we were making not only a major improvement in quantity but also an overall improvement in quality.--Ipigott (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
In many cases (maybe as many as half) de-stubbing is as easy as noticing that the article is already up to a higher class, removing the stub tags, and/or changing the classification on the talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Assessing quality via ORES

If you add the ORES tool to your Special:MyPage/common.js, you will be able to view two new lines directly underneath the article name: the ORES-predicted article quality, and the Class= rating from the article's talkpage. Note, my personal assessment doesn't always agree with the ORES prediction, but mostly, we agree. This makes updating the article page (e.g. removing the stub template, if applicable), and/or updating the talkpage templates easy-peasy, gnomish work. For "Edit summary", I do a copy/paste of the ORES prediction (e.g. "ORES predicted quality: Start-Class article Start (3.35)"). I'm looking at the article page for Women in Red and these are the two lines I can view immediately under the article name:

ORES predicted quality: Start-Class article Start  (3.35)
WikiProject fixing the Wikipedia gendergap (Wikidata). A start-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  

I should mention at this point that I've got Preferences --> Gadgets --> "Show page description beneath the page title (not compatible with Page assessments gadget)" turned on, so the second line under the article name also includes (as you can see) the 'Short Description' from Wikidata (e.g. "WikiProject fixing the Wikipedia gendergap"). BTW, DYK that Bobo.03, who helped us set up our semi-automated recruitment project, is now working on improving the ORES AI (m:Research:Applying Value-Sensitive Algorithm Design to ORES)? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Another quick note on this that might be worth pointing out: because the underlying algorithm changes over time, tomorrow's ORES predicted class for an article might be different to today's prediction, even if the article content has not changed. Not a big deal, but perhaps unexpected for editors new to using ORES. Bakazaka (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy 18th birthday, Wikipedia. Let’s celebrate the Internet’s good grown-up

Thank you to the author, Stephenbharrison, for a new article published today in The Washington Post, mentioning Women in Red, plus co-founders, Victuallers and me: "Happy 18th birthday, Wikipedia. Let’s celebrate the Internet’s good grown-up". --Rosiestep (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There's also an interesting article about Primer and Quicksilver: AI Solves Gender Bias, Puts Overlooked Women Scientists In Spotlight. Have any of you used these tools to write biographies of women scientists? If so, how would you assess the level of assistance provided?--Ipigott (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon in Scotland?

Hello all, does anyone know if there is currently (or recently ended) an edit-a-thon affiliated with Women in Red going on in Scotland? Also, does Wikipedia curate a list of editathons? Thanks.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

You can find the editathons for 2019 under Category:Wikipedia meetups in 2019. You might also be interested in Wikipedia:GLAM/SLIC/Events and UK Events. Last October, there was an editathon on women from Skye: see Wikipedia:GLAM/SLIC/Events/Women of Skye Wikipedia Editathon. Unfortunately, not all editathons are properly announced in advance. Delphine Dallison and Sara Thomas (WMUK) may be able to provide more information.--Ipigott (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm in Edinburgh, if that helps. I'd be glad to help out a bit, or just meet up for an evening and work on stuff. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 12:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi @SamHolt6 and Adam Cuerden:. For Edinburgh, you might want to bookmark these pages: Wikipedia:Meetup/Edinburgh and Wikipedia:University of Edinburgh/Events and Workshops/Women in Red. Another good point of contact regarding Scotland is Stinglehammer who is a Wikipedian-In-Residence there. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Love to see you both (more?) at these meet ups. They are help at Edinburgh University's Library and the only trick is to make sure your name is on the guest list. It attracts between 12 and 50 with some travelling from England! I am nearly always there and Ewan McAndrew gives excellent tutorials on editing the 'pedia and Wikidata. (Adam on pictures???). Books are available and if you look at Scottish suffragettes template or Eagle House then you will the kind of stuff we've achieved. Old lags benefit from giving out tips to each other. We always give notice of these on our Twitter feed @wikiwomeninred (which has over 4700 followers and 23K hits yeaterday). Victuallers (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Next one is Feb 1st
@Victuallers: Shove me on the guest list for the 1st. What time does it start? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 16:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi SamHolt6! Is it anything in particular you're looking for or are you just interested in taking part in some events? If it's events, I think all the places where we generally advertise them have been listed above, but if you have a more specific event or project in mind, please feel free to get in touch and we'll see how best we can assist? Delphine Dallison (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Anyone over there in Scotland with a pic of art historian Romita Ray? I understand she has been all over the UK doing research on history of the British Empire and the tea trade in portraiture, among other artworks. Was shocked she wasn't even on Wikidata yet (until today). I guess because she seems to have no social media presence. Jane (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for the answers above. Unfortunately I will not (to my knowledge at least) be in Scotland anytime soon; it seems you have a good community going. Best.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Jane this sometimes works] to get pix from Flickr. Victuallers (talk) 20:01, 16 January

2019 (UTC)

Ha Great tip! I noticed she is now following me on the social media site. That doesn't do me any good though because I only became a member so I could download texts. I don't plan on publishing anything myself. I wish whoever tipped her off here would just take a pic and upload it ;) Jane (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

FPC report for 17 January

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Carrie Chapman Catt redux is passing; as is a new one, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Edith Kermit Carow Roosevelt. So, two new FPs are on the way, it looks like. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 06:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello! About "socialites"

I'm starting to think about my speech at Wikimania this year and I want to focus on the issues around gender representation in Wikipedia. I have as an idea for a sort of case study the term "socialite" (see also Category:Socialites).

Kardashian, a disambiguation page for the famous family, neatly sums up what I'm thinking about. The father, a famous attorney and businessman, is called that, and properly so. Of the children, 3 of them - the daughters, are called 'socialite'. The son, Rob, who as far as I can tell "spends a significant amount of time attending various fashionable social gatherings" (the key phrase from our definition of the term) as much as his sisters do, is not called 'socialite'.

If this were an isolated case, I'd just move on. But I started researching how we use the term, and I'm not at all happy with what I found. While the Kardashian family is actually a very good example of "socialites" (were it to be applied in a gender neutral way) I suppose, I think it is far more often used (by the tabloid media and non-serious media in general) as a subtle "put down" for women who are successful in their own right but who also attend fashionable events and come from famous families.

It is seldom used for men, regardless of their social life. (I did a spreadsheet and looked at about 30 examples from our category, just to confirm the pattern.)

My current view is that this is an old fashioned term which might properly be applied only to members of aristocracy in the distant path who didn't have any other career or accomplishments other than being prominent by virtue of their social standing, hosting parties, and so on. Even in this case, I would personally cast a critical eye on older sources which may have used the term as a way to "pooh pooh" the independent accomplishments of women of high social standing through birth or marriage. I hasten to point out that we need not slavishly follow the particular language of older sources - we don't call Martin Luther King, Jr. a "negro" even though contemporary media about him back in the day of course used the term extensively.

I'm actually not here with a particular proposal, and I don't even know if I'm in the right place. I just wanted to think about this with people who may also be concerned about this kind of issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Another data-point, fwiw - counts of people with occupation=Socialite grouped by gender from wikidata gives us male=213, female=685 ... and Rob Kardashian gets the socialite appelation on wikidata. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
And a couple of temporal analyses based on date of birth for people with occupation=socialite - remembering that wikidata occupation coding is a very blunt instrument indeed:
absolute values
  • from 1400 to 1499 - 1
  • from 1500 to 1599 - 2
  • from 1600 to 1699 - 6
  • from 1700 to 1799 - 46
  • from 1800 to 1899 - 247 (Normalised= ~1250)
  • from 1900 to 1999 - 532 (Normalised= ~665)
  • from 2000 to 2099 - 1
normalised values based on [5]
  • from 1900 to 1910 - 1003
  • from 1910 to 1920 - 734
  • from 1920 to 1930 - 929
  • from 1930 to 1940 - 424
  • from 1940 to 1950 - 406
  • from 1950 to 1960 - 350
  • from 1960 to 1970 - 423
  • from 1970 to 1980 - 407
  • from 1980 to 1990 - 672
  • from 1990 to 2000 - 322
  • from 2000 to 2010 - 112
And an ngram. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to interpret the data on occupation coding without normalizing on the number of people in total. What I mean is that I think there are a lot more people of all sorts ("socialite" and "not socialite") in wikipedia in recent times.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Yup, good point. I've normalised the 1900-2010 values, in a rough & ready fashion, based on biography volumes indicated in the WHGI all time gender at date of birth graph, and done the same for two of the centuries. And by the same token, we know that only 17.83% of biogs are women, so normalising the m/f counts gives us a ratio of 259:3842, which rather speaks to your initial gender representation concern. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it's an outdated terminology we should relegate to the leaving behind in the 20th century. "Socialite" to me meant women like Barbara Hutton (whose 3rd husband Cary Grant was never called a socialite). If America can be considered to have an "aristocracy", it was generally white wealthy people, women who inherited wealth and were groomed to marry the right people. The Vanderbilt family would be a prime example. Along the way, many of them contributed to our culture, such as Doris Duke. Does anybody ever call Elizabeth II a socialite? I'm not suggesting that it's correct to categorize the term as "white", but how many persons of color in past centuries can you think of being called "socialite"? But what we have today are people famous for being famous, selling their names, images and likeness wherever the dollar turns. Perhaps we should not use the term on anyone born after a certain decade.— Maile (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This does seem to be a heavily gendered term. When a man is mostly known for his socializing he's more likely to be called an epicure, courtier, and bon-vivant, or some such. But I think "socialite" has more than one meaning. Beyond the "aristocracy" or "famous for being famous" people we seem to be mostly talking about, it has also been applied to quite a few 19th- and early 20th-century American women who were prominent in the social clubs of their locale, because that was the only thing most women of those times and places were allowed to do. For these women, I think it acts more to describe how they made the most of the opportunities they had, than to be dismissive of their other accomplishments. On the other hand, it can be a danger sign for the article. Many Wikipedia editors tend to believe that being prominent in women's social clubs is not a thing one should be notable for, and so apply strict standards for what level of coverage is needed to have articles on such people. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isophene Goodin Bailhache for a recent example of an article that was deleted for this reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, you comment on Cary Grant not being called a socialite, but neither is Mary Pickford. I think the term may be alright as a catch-all for historical women who both fit into the category and don't have another, more specific classification (writer, actress, investor), but the term should be limited to those cases where it's actually a good description, or as part of a complex listing, e.g. as in Paris Hilton, where the term is used as part of a long list of other notable roles she fulfils (and it's probably arguable as to whether that really adds anything more than "media personality" does). Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 09:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, Jimbo. I'm really pleased to see that you intend to address the Wikipedia gender gap in your speech for Wikimedia. I agree that discussion of the term socialite is a good starting point as it covers the main (often only) "occupation" (rather than profession) of many of the women whose articles carry the category. Allow me to point out that Category:Socialites dates right back to May 2005, when it was added by Cleduc with the definition: "A socialite is a person of social prominence who is considered to be an influential social figure." His edit comment is "An occupation, not a profession." At the same time, he added the following to the article Socialite: "The word may also be used to describe a person's occupation. A person who does little more than attend society functions is often considered a socialite." See: [6]. A brief examinitation of Category:Socialites by nationality shows that it has been applied above all to those living in the English-speaking countries, especially the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada (in that order). A fair number of socialites have biographies created over the past couple of years by members of Women in Red such as Elisa.rolle and Rosiestep who have drawn on biographical dictionaries which are now in the public domain. It seems to me that the category Socialites has frequently been used when more precise occupations/professions Category:Philanthropists, Category:Writers were not appropriate. That may be one of the reasons why there are considerably more women socialites than men in the English version of Wikipedia, although I have not undertaken a detailed examination. Interestingly, there is no equivalent to the Socialites category in French and German. It is used in Spanish, but mainly for articles about Americans. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
True re your comment about Mary Pickford. An odd bit or trivia comes to mind re the past acceptance of the term. I haven't read the book on which Alfred Hitchcock based the film Marnie. Granted, movies make their own reality. The title character is a thief, a woman who works as a typist as an foot in the door to stealing any company's cash stash. She's caught by company owner Sean Connery, who eventually marries her. On their honeymoon cruise, she tells her new husband, "What do you mean what will I do with my life? I assumed I would be society hostess." From clerk typist felon to wealthy society hostess via marriage. Odd as it is, maybe not so off base for its time period. — Maile (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yesterday, I participated in an event about women in engineering. My plan was to focus on Sarah Guppy – an influential member of Bristol society who was an associate of Brunel. When dealing with such subjects, we must be wary of credentialism because such women were often denied formal qualifications. Such people are often the most interesting subjects but may be difficult to classify and categorise. Other types which may have such issues include:
We should not require everyone to fit into a formal professional structure. Jimbo himself is a good example of someone who made a difference by being different and doing something new. Andrew D. (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Is that a common problem? I haven't seen it often, but then, I do image work, so I'm not always paying attention to infoboxes. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 13:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • We've discussed "political hostess" here before - no article, but Category:English political hostesses now has 13 members (I think it was 3 before), which is still way too low. There's a small category tree (Category:Political hostesses), though apparently they are entirely an Anglophone thing! We might make more use of "hostess", though obviously this is so far a gendered-only term. Personally I think "socialite" is pretty much gendered, certainly in British usage (though it's really an American term - UK newspapers never call anyone here one). Modern English rather lacks terms for rich people with no real job, which is a pity as there are so many of them. I've noticed "philanthropist" is now essentially a non-gendered term for this in American usage. There's not much we in WP can or should do to influence gaps in the language - no doubt something will emerge. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • That brings to mind Mrs Montagu who is categorised as a salon-holder as well as a socialite, and that's another type of hostess. That then reminds of the "Ladies of Quality and Distinction" that were the subject of another recent event. There were indeed many such women who were formally in the shadow of their husbands but still managed to make a difference, by using their social standing and connections. Andrew D. (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed - that exhibition closes on Sunday, btw. Apart from the questions of what we call people in the first line of a bio, or what categories we put them in, there is a serious lack of general articles on this area of women's history - so political hostess etc. This is all too typical of WP's approach to social matters, which is far too much led by biographies. Of course there are always exceptions, like the epic Women's literary salons and societies in the Arab world. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I'm very glad to see you here, @Jimmy, and addressing this topic. I tend to write about pre-XX-c women. As others have mentioned, and you might inherently know, the opportunities for women in terms of education, occupation, and profession were limited in that time. What was possible for some women was to develop a circle of friends and acquaintances who would meet and discuss topics of interest to them, the "salon". The salonist would have had to have financial means, e.g. an appropriate home to host such gatherings. How many of these circles, large or small, existed we will never know as the greatest triumph of a salonist was to make it into the "history books". Some did so in their own right, while others did because they were a daughter or wife of someone who was "notable". From her wiki article, we know that the salonist Germaine de Staël (1766–1817) began attending salons as a child, sitting at her mother's feet. Apparently involved in some scandals, I think she would have been characterized as a "socialite" or "celebrity" if the term were in vogue in her day. Germaine's mother, Suzanne Curchod (1737–1794), held various salons, the first being a literary group. Mother and daughter were both writers. And not just writers, but women writers who were published, no small feat in their day. How many women were published in the pre-XX-c era, we will never know. This is because many of them took on a gender-neutral pen name in order to get published. Take, for example, Eunice Eloisae Gibbs Allyn (1847-1916). She wanted to become a teacher, but her mother opposed this, instead, wanting the daughter to "enter society". Acquiescing to her mother's wishes, Eunice did not become a teacher. Instead, she started writing. But as her brother didn't want a member of the family to be known as a "Bluestocking", Eunice had to take on a pen name in order to get published. She went on to become a part of the Dubuque Ladies' Literary Union, and eventually published using her real name. Mark Twain had a copy of her book, The Cats’ Convention on his bookshelf. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA