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".

April 7: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#12)

From: Katherine Maher

I apologize that we have not had a formal update the last couple of weeks — with Wikimedia Conference, the associated Board meeting, and our regular annual planning, I dropped the ball. The good news is that — as you have probably seen and heard — a lot of discussions are taking place!

This week, I’m experimenting with a different type of update: now that the conversations have launched, I will be sharing fewer bullet points about the process, and more paragraphs about the overall work that is going on around the movement. As more conversations happen, I hope future updates will continue to be substantive, sharing key themes and discussions as we see them emerge.

Last week, more than 350 Wikimedia community leaders from 70 countries and many different stakeholder groups converged on Berlin, during the annual meeting of movement affiliates, the Wikimedia Conference. This year, leaders from movement affiliates were joined by an additional 200 leaders from across the Wikimedia movement to participate in a program track focused on movement strategy. In addition to participating in some in-person discussions about our shared future direction, volunteers also discussed ways to help spread this effort across their activities and groups.

You may be wondering — where are the minutes from our meetings in Berlin? Great question. Unusually for our community, the Berlin strategy track was almost entirely analog, with markers and paper and sticky notes. The facilitation team is in the process of digitalizing all of these materials, from session notes to summaries and final statements. You can keep an eye (or watch) on the Sources page[1] to keep track as additional materials are posted - and jump in to respond and discuss as appropriate!

The discussions in Berlin are just one of the many ways people across the movement have been able to engage in the strategy process since my last update. Approximately 50 volunteers and groups are helping coordinate discussions and several on-wiki discussions are already underway. This cycle (the first of three) will run until April 15th, so there’s still a week to share your thoughts - please do!

All of these are opportunities for you to contribute your thoughts on the question, "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?" For example, if you think we should go to deep space (after all, we've gone to the Moon[2]), tell us more! Have a quick thought you want to contribute? We want to hear it! Check out the participation page on Meta-Wiki's movement strategy portal for more information on where and how you can engage in this global conversation:

As conversations continue, we are busy following along. Summaries of the on-wiki discussions are being posted on Meta-Wiki,[3] along notes from 64 recent discussions (and counting!)[1] We are thrilled to see the many different ways and places our community are finding to have this important discussion about our future. As key themes emerge across communities, I hope to share them here.

About communications: recently, Nicole provided an overview of the progress and plans for Track A during our monthly activities and metrics meeting.[4] We are also working on a blog post announcing the official start of the movement strategy process. In addition to these communications, we’ll keep updating these weekly updates. We appreciate all the positive and constructive feedback we have received on these updates so far, and invite you to send us more on-wiki.[5] As we know, the more communications about what is going on, the better.

Thank you for your continued engagement in this process. I have to confess that while I’ve been excited about these conversations, I wasn’t fully certain how everything would go once we launched. There is a big difference between having a lot of notes on a whiteboard, and actually starting a free-wheeling, global, multilingual community conversation with such a wide and diverse group of people. Three weeks into the launch of the first discussion, I’m genuinely humbled by what everyone is bringing to the conversation. This community is brilliant, our vision is inspiring, our challenges are great (and exciting), and we have so much opportunity ahead. I’m grateful to be able to work alongside you.

Schönes Wochenende! (German translation: “Have a good weekend!”)

Cheers, Katherine

PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[6]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Lists of first women lawyers and judges

Montgomery28 has created six well prepared lists with extensive references: List of first women lawyers and judges in Asia, List of first women lawyers and judges in Africa, List of first women lawyers and judges in South America, List of first women lawyers and judges in North America, List of first women lawyers and judges in Europe and List of first women lawyers and judges in Australia and Oceania. It looks to me as if many of the individuals listed deserve biographies. Any ideas on how we should proceed?--Ipigott (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Montgomery28, Ipigott these lists are informative and admirable. I just added Jean Vaughan Gilbert to Hawaii in the US. However, I have a concern about the size of these lists, especially considering there aren't even any redlinks adding to the size. The one for the US is 413,120 bytes. Because of the size, it is very slow going into the edit window and very slow typing text and saving. And I have a fairly new system. Assuming these are worklists in the idea of creating articles about the names, editors are going to be having a difficult time managing input on them. Per WP:SPLIT, is there anything we can do to facilitate potential editors? — Maile (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
We have an upcoming editathon on women and the law. Not sure what month. SusunW (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Maile66: I am pleased to report that we now also have more manageable lists for those who want to compile or add to red lists. It looks to me as if most of the lists could be used directly as a basis for creating articles. I am simply amazed at the amount of useful work Montgomery28 has been able to achieve on all these lists in such a short time. I suggest we make lawyers and the law our top priority for September.--Ipigott (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott, I second the kudos about the work of Montgomery28. SusunW might it be helpful prior to the editathon to have some sort of navbox with links to the geographical area lists? I realize it would be too much to make navboxes for for the sub categories. I'm thinking individual editors might be interested in more than one geographical area. — Maile (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Maile66: I seem inadvertently to have deleted the link to all Montgomery's lists; it's here. The ones on the individual US states should be particularly useful.--Ipigott (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott, the category link is (IMO) even better than a navbox. Nobody has to constantly maintain and tweak the category formatting. It just is there ... — Maile (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott Wow! That category link is great! You are right Ian, in that the editathon is scheduled for September. I cannot wait, have already picked out my first woman (if I don't write her for indigenous women in August.) ;) SusunW (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

From Goodknight to Good Knight

For her important diplomatic contributions to Serbia, our coordinator Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight has been knighted today by Ivica Dačić. See her biography for emerging details.--Ipigott (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Such interesting people you meet when fiddling around here. :-) @Rosiestep: congratulations! And because I don't know Serbian, I can say to you in Georgian, instead, mravalzhamier (it's a toast meaning "many years")! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Excellent, Rosie! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations! —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
More congratulations! --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep, I've never known a Knight before! This is so cool! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations Rosie! Such an honor. SusunW (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Very cool! Penny Richards (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Wow!!!--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
This is amazing! Keep up the great work. :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, everyone!!!!! I'm still floating in a bubble over this once-in-a-lifetime event, but I want you to know how much I appreciate all the kind words and the wiki-love. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd like to report this in The Signpost, so if there are any English language press mentions, please reply here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Redlist index

This project has lots of redlink lists, and an index is obviously essential to be able to get to them all. However, there are two indices at the moment. One is the one linked at the top of the project page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index. One can get to various redlists there. But on many of those list pages, the path at the top does not take you back to the same redlist index. For instance, at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Activists, if you click on “Missing articles by occupation”, you end up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Worklists/Index, which is another index of redlists.

It seems clear to me that the two indices are inadvertent duplication, but I’m fairly new to the project, and there may be reasons to keep two lists. Please let me know if there are!

If however, this is unnecessary duplication, I propose to:

  1. fix the header breadcrumbs to point to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index
  2. carefully merge the two index pages
  3. organize the links so that the Wikidata lists are in one section and the crowd-sourced links in another
  4. put every list we have into the index; those that are not ready to go live yet can be commented out, but they need to be there so we are aware they are being worked on

I would like to do this task. But I know many of you may have objections or ideas or questions about what I’ve set out here, so take it away! I have a series of chores to accomplish today, so I will be back here only intermittently, but I’m eager to see what everyone comes up with. Thanks! — NotARabbit (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime, I created/populated Category:Women in Red redlink lists (by occupation) to make those easier to find. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Headbomb, for all your work on the red lists, especially categorization which is really useful, but also the headers, etc. I don't know whether you picked them all up, but over the years I have created quite a number of Wikidata lists which either produced no results or contained only one or two entries. I really don't think they should be included in our categories, listings, etc. Maybe the best way to deal with the problem would simply be to delete them? Alternatively, in some cases the lists could perhaps be expanded by extending the search to related terms, especially in regard to occupations.--Ipigott (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we need Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Animators and cartoonists as it is a combination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Animators and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Cartoonists. Perhaps we should simply delete it.
I also suggest we delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Worklists/Index as the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index has now been substantially improved. There is absolutely no reason to maintain two lists.--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott, I agree, but let me go through it one more time with a fine-tooth comb to make sure we’ve transferred/merged everything to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index. I have some time today to do this. I’ll also fix the breadcrumbs link to go there. — NotARabbit (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
NotARabbit: Your assistance is always welcome. Please also let me know if you come across and important occupations or countries that are still not listed. If you have time, you could check to see whether all the Wikidata links from the World Contest have been integrated.--Ipigott (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

On that note, do you need Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality? That seems mostly useless given your other lists. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Headbomb. I see no harm in keeping any lists that have already been created until I or someone else can migrate the redlinks to another list. Especially crowd-sourced lists like that one. I’m still deep into the organization and linking of the index page, and it’s (of course) a much slower process than I expected, but it’ll get tightened up eventually. NotARabbit (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@NotARabbit:, take a look at Category:Women in Red redlink lists and it's subcategories then. I've added Education/Identifiers based on your updated index. Those may help to find missing ones. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Headbomb:, those categories are going to be essential for wrangling all the lists. Thank you so much for keeping them up. My head is starting to swim with all the lists of lists of lists! ;-) NotARabbit (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Cambridge Orlando

If anyone is interested in applying to a Wikipedia Library subscription about women writers, there's a new one from Cambridge University Press named the Orlando Collection. Apply here. @Rosiestep: @Megalibrarygirl: --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, MrLinkinPark333! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, MrLinkinPark333. I've applied! It'd be very appreciative to get this access. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


FYI, m:Talk:Toolhub#WikiProject Women in Red. (cc: @Camelia.boban and Nattes à chat) --Rosiestep (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Good idea, Rosie. It would also be useful for us to maintain a list of tools. Maybe we could start our own tentative list, perhaps together with guidelines. We might be able to obtain advice and suggestions for technically-oriented experts from other language wikis such as Jane023, Emijrp and Envlh, as well as from Wikidata and MediaWiki. It would be useful to have a list of technical editors who are willing to help us (and others) with the creation and development of tools we need. Among those who have assisted us recently are Isarra, Tagishsimon, Headbomb and Maximilianklein. Pigsonthewing and John Cummings may also be able to assist. I've no doubt forgotten quite a few others.--Ipigott (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The Earwig wrote some of the bots, I think. Definitely recommend talking to him about that sort of thing as he's quite knowledgeable in that department in general (maybe you're missing some you should be using, too). -— Isarra 10:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, The Earwig has also been a great help. I'm sure there are many more. I was just mentioning those I could remember off the cuff. Let's see how this evolves over the next day or two, then we can start searching in more detail. Maybe Victuallers can help out here too.--Ipigott (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems like there is a tagging system that might allow Women in Red to have a list of tools. I'd also recommend looking at the Wikimedia Resource Center, it may be useful to document resources here also, (I think the separation between tools and documentation is very fuzzy). John Cummings (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes I agree about the line between tools and documentation. Actually what is even more interesting than the tools themselves are the workflows used by Wikimedians, no matter what project they work on. Has anyone here experimented along the lines of a Wiki dojo? It is a humbling experience and very educational. I think it is important to indicate what we would like to have in tools (e.g. the "ask" has been around for years) and don't have yet. We always bemoan the fact that the editor base is declining, but the lack of tool builders is more dire I think. I often feel like we are the last ones using a land line while all over the internet people have switched to cell phones with built-in navigation apps. Jane (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for jumping in, folks. We've made a good start with these comments. Note, too, I've been in off-wiki communications with Harej (WMF) about how to develop the list. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, let's wait for feedback from Harej before we start on the tools. It would nevertheless be useful to have the names of any other technical experts here.--Ipigott (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I've just remembered Bobo.03 who has developed our recruitment tool.--Ipigott (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi we talked a lot about an interractive calendar mapping all events gender gap (or even all wikimedia events ) like this one: on meta but also this one on the project page of les sans pagEs: Shouston was also involved. I have made a report of my attence at the conference in Berlin here: à chat (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

=== Background ===

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Transhumanist: Many of the categories we use link to pertinent portals. Is there an up-to-date list of those which are still active and those which are scheduled for deletion?--Ipigott (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Women in the Solomon Islands

Found a couple of resources regarding notable women from the Solomon Islands: Being the First: pioneering Solomons women and Women in Solomons politics. Some interesting material here for future development, surely. Especially for an area of the world for which we lack coverage. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I love these links Ser Amantio di Nicolao just wish we could access the book "the first published historical account of achievements by local women over the past 50 years".[1] Like many small islands' publications, it doesn't seem to be digitized. SusunW (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@SusunW: Or available on Amazon, far as I can tell...more's the pity. I'll do a bit more research - it might be worth dropping a few bucks on, depending on the cost of shipping. (OK, OK, would be worth dropping a few bucks this point it's becoming a question of finding room in my house for stuff. :-) ) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.
I promise, we are working on the library. If we can just figure out how to do it...SusunW (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@SusunW: No rush. For me, there's enough tactile pleasure in a book that I'll probably end up buying things sooner or later, anyway. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm all about touching and even smelling the ink on a real book, but totally get the value of digitization to share knowledge much further. Besides, if I have a book here doesn't mean another editor can access it, so I'd far rather our solution happen sooner ;) SusunW (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up about this book - I'm really interested in Pacific stuff, and there's a university library down the road that has a copy, so I might have to take a wander over there soon. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
So that we don't lose track of them, I've added their names to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest/Missing articles/Oceania. Only one, Hilda Kari, has been covered in Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl - While I'm grateful that Ipigott has added the redlinks to the World Contest redlist, I'm wondering if, for the sake of naming convention/consistency, are our crowd-sourced redlists being shifted to "The World Contest" as part of the name now? --Rosiestep (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep: The World Contest lists appear on our Redlinks index under By geographical region. Several of us spent considerable time and effort putting them together for the contest. The problem is that the World Contest lists draw heavily on our other lists by nationality or region, both the Wikidata and crowd-sourced ones. I think it would be quite a lengthy task if we wanted to adapt them to WiR crowd-sourced lists while avoiding duplication. Maybe we could embark on this one continent at a time, perhaps in connection with future geofocus priorities.--Ipigott (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott, certainly I recognize that crowd-sourced redlists require a huge effort, and I thank you for adding the names to the list so they don't get lost in the shuffle. The inquiry directed to Sue, as our Librarian in Residence, was rather about WiR redlist naming conventions from an ontology perspective, specifically, what is the most direct/controlled name for a WiR redlist? I think we all agree that crowd-sourced redlists should be named differently than Wikidata redlists, dictionary redlists, and so forth. I also think that how we use the lists (contests, monthly events, and so forth) is a separate point from how we name the redlists. I think it's best to hear Sue's perspective before anyone starts moving/renaming/splitting. --Rosiestep (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I see absolutely no problem with having duplicated links between the Wikidata and crowd-sourced pages- all the more attention drawn to articles that need creating. (And the more the crowdsourced lists get used and developed from these kinds of sources, especially in places like the Solomon Islands, the better, being that Wikidata has always been totally useless in this part of the world.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Rosiestep: The World Contest list was largely compiled from crowd-sourced lists. Some of the smaller pacific island countries I actually pulled from red-linked articles already on Wikipedia. Many of the names from other countries I pulled from our crowd-sourced lists and stripped the sourcing. As for naming conventions, that's not my area of specialty as a librarian, though I can definitely look into it. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, Megalibrarygirl. Appreciate it. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl and Rosiestep: By contrast, I happen to have quite a background in the categorization field since the mid-1970s but it seems to me this is more a matter of pragmatics than linguistics. Dr. Blofeld, in particular, picked out lots of names from the Wikidata lists for the smaller countries, supplementing Sue's excellent crowd-sourcing efforts. We tried to offer at least a few names for every country in the world so as to encourage global coverage. I think there are two things to be taken into consideration here. The first is the need to be prepared for further contests, whether repeats of the World Contest or, perhaps more probably, contests on continents or regions. Although Dr. Blofeld is no longer active, we might be able to organize support from other WiR participants. The second is our continuing expansion of the wide range of redlink lists specifically for Women in Red. One way forward would be to try to put together a genuine crowd-sourced list for Oceania, drawing on Sue's World Contest work but also drawing on (or linking to) other crowd-sourced lists. I think this would be particulary useful for Oceania as the inhabitants are generally English-speakers with the result that the Wikidata lists are not very helpful (except perhaps for sports). But the deciding factor is time. Can we afford to devote effort to this in parallel with all the other work we have lined up from month to month? It looks as if we would need to do quite a bit on New Zealand which, thanks to the World Contest, is now empty. We could, of course, solve the immediate problem by simply creating a WiR crowd-sourced list of the Solomon Islands. Maybe that is the most sensible thing to do. As Sue has been by far the most active contributor to our redlink lists, it would be useful to hear how she thinks we should proceed. (Sorry for this rather confused, lengthy reply.) --Ipigott (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Rosiestep: In order to add more to various countries, I usually do a search on a particular topic related to that country, then start checking if the names of likely notable women are in Wikipedia yet or not. It's the kind of work that I like doing from time to time, but it's not necessarily fun for everyone to do. It can be a little tedious, though it's also very rewarding. It has the advantage of finding potential articles that wouldn't turn up on Wikidata. I don't mind doing these kinds of searches at all. If anyone sees there's a need for an area to be filled in, all they have to do is ping me and I'm on it. I'm not always attentive to what is missing since I tend to be doing a zillion things at once, but as soon as something is pointed out to me, I'm happy to fill the gap. Perhaps I should set a reminder to go through the lists on a monthly basis and prune them, add to them, etc. That might help a lot. :) (Setting reminder right now...) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

New index page

I’ve been working on a new organization of the Redlist index, and there’s a draft version ready to check out at User:NotARabbit/another sandbox. I felt it was more effective to combine the crowd-sourced and the Wikidata lists where possible; I did so by labeling the links accordingly. (This may speak to what some of you were discussing above.) I’d love to get feedback about this arrangement, and how to improve it. — NotARabbit (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I really like it, NotARabbit. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Ooooh, NotARabbit! I like! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Me three! Really like this NotARabbit SusunW (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
NotARabbit: As we all agree this is a considerable improvement, you can go ahead and replace the current list on WiR. Well done and thanks for your enthusiasm. It's great when a new member comes along and shows us what we should have been doing from the start.--Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Wow, such enthusiasm! It’s nice. :-) I’ll transfer it to the index page. NotARabbit (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Emily Hester Brodrick

I just declined this draft. Is this something that could be salvaged? FYI, I see reviews of one book here and here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This one was created by Charles Matthews who is very much still active and I assume has moved beyond needing to use AfC for his new articles. We should perhaps leave it to him to decide whether/when he wants to move it to mainspace. I'm not sure why Shadowowl submitted it in the first place. – Joe (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Processwise, this is what happens, it seems. It is clunky, for sure. I preferred the notifications from User:HasteurBot, but it seems those have stopped. I would hope that the alternative route becomes the standard. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
It was up for G13 and would have been deleted if I didn't submit it. -- » Shadowowl | talk 11:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@Shadowowl and Charles Matthews: All you have to do to exempt a draft from G13 is edit it. Not all drafts have to or should go through AfC. I don't think it's good practice to submit drafts on others' behalf if they haven't previously indicated that they want to use AfC, especially not when they're experienced content creators like Charles. – Joe (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I have expressed my feelings about the process a number of times, as for example here to @Legacypac:, one of those who think deletionism in the Draft: space is significant maintenance. I find my drafts are still sent to AfC, whether I want that or not. When the namespace was first set up, we were encouraged to move drafts from our personal userspace into it. Then it turned out that there was the downside, that draftspace was patrolled in this fashion, with AfC-declined articles then speedied.
I spend less time here than I did before I undertook big tasks on Wikidata; and then became a Wikimedian in Residence. So some drafts hang around.
I see that Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#Template for promising drafts offers a more sensible route, to WP:MFD. I do wonder why that was not applied to my Draft:List of the masques of Inigo Jones, which had a list needing format, by @Shadowowl:. Since I'm an admin I can revive any of these drafts, at any time, and don't necessarily lose work, though keeping track becomes harder. Others do not have that luxury, and may be discouraged. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I regularly submit viable looking drafts to AfC for feedback and/or promotion. This not only postpones deletion but generates a note from a reviewer (often me), onto the creator's talkpage if we don't end up accepting it after copyvio and other checks. I don't check the user rights of the creator, I handle the draft on it's merits. Any user who resists other users moving their pages forward or preventing deletion of good topics should not store their drafts anywhere on site. It is unreasonable to expect reviewers to recall the personal preferences of individual users who abandon the occasional draft. Legacypac (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Clara Moyse Tadlock

Anyone want to take this one on? Is this a viable article? Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Tidied & moved to mainspace. – Joe (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Anne Shymer

How about this one? A chemist of unclear significance. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems so odd that there is so much detail in the Lusitania piece, but I can not find much to verify those details. Her aunt sued (tried to?) Kaiser Wilhelm for her death. First husband doesn't appear to be a nobleman. 2nd husband had estates in Jamaica? but was born in New Jersey, per the marriage record. [2], [3], [4] [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] [11], [12] SusunW (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I started an article last year about her sister, a screenwriter named Maibelle Heikes Justice, in case any of those links are useful, but I don't think they said much. I left her redlinked in case someone else could find more. Penny Richards (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Penny Richards There may be enough (just) to do the article, though it seems so odd that more cannot be found. (Could always be my location). But, right now my plate is full and I am stretched to the limit with 2 GA reviews going on. Hopefully someone can help with her. SusunW (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Frances Florence Lowe

Yet another... Any takers? Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this one is a lost cause. There are no sources in the draft to go off and I can't find anything at all online. Not even in this seemingly exhaustive list of SOE agents. – Joe (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Irene Simmonds

One more abandoned draft for your consideration. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Jan Gardner

Jan Gardner was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan H. Gardner. She is the "first elected executive of Frederick County, Maryland". Can anyone find more sources about her? Cunard (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Mary Kircher

I just declined this draft. Are there more sources out there that could be added? Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Calliopejen1: There are certainly other sources but those by Janet Abbate are significant. She is also mentioned in other books covering Los Alamos. You have to remember that most of the publications from those years never made it to the Internet. That does not mean her work was not significant. It looks as if she was something of a pioneer in her field.--Ipigott (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Are you talking about the Abbate reference that is already in the article? She is barely mentioned in the book. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Calliopejen1: You should look more carefully at the sources you are supposed to be examining. Abbate was behind the widely referenced interview and also included what in my mind is quite an important snippet in her book. She was also the one who conducted the interview with Tsingou mentioned below. The first question Tsingou asked was: Have you also been in touch with Mary Kircher?, clearly indicating that Tsingou too thought her work was significant. I would welcome comments from SusunW on this.--Ipigott (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I looked at the interview, but I did not memorize who conducted it. It is my understanding that an interview on a wiki cannot support notability. To be honest I'm skeptical of the sourcing of Mary Tsingou. And I certainly don't think we can make a case for notability based on the order of questions in the wiki interview of Tsingou. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not sure why you are being so condescending toward me. I brought the article here to seek input on improvement, and I am explaining my view of the current sourcing of the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Calliopejen1: Sorry about my rather direct reaction. I certainly appreciate your bringing this to our attention.--Ipigott (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Interviews are WP:PRIMARY and as such oftrn heavily discounted for notability. I often delete them from business-related articles as a type of on-wiki PR. Not saying that is happening in this case but the problem of sourcing to the subject herself remains. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Having re-read the AfD comment, I partially agree: a lot of the article is sourced to an oral history. But the issue is that it's too close to the subject, i.e. PRIMARY as noted above; not that it's an oral history per se. The key part of the NBIO guideline is support from independent reliable sources. An oral history of a national institution (LANL) published by the institution is definitely in RS territory. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I've just seen from here that she was signed on at the same time as Mary Tsingou whose biography is based on a similar source.--Ipigott (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott, I've looked in all my usual places, Hathitrust,,, newspaperarchive, Muse, jstr, and am finding nothing. As you say, it is quite likely that sources in her time period are not digitized and I would have no access to any physical copies here. SusunW (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Far-right groups in the UK - help needed

In the wake of last year's Manchester Arena bombing and 2017 London Bridge attack. Certain splinter far-right groups were formed and held marches including the Football Lads Alliance. I've been trying to create / expand existing articles on these groups. I would be grateful for contributions to this discussion which appears to be placing an impossibly high bar on both WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. The underlying reasoning being applied seems to be "if you say anything at all about these groups it equals an advert" which is just nonsense. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I also created a re-direct for the People's Charter Foundation. From their list of beliefs, FAQs: Do you support women’s rights? We support human rights for all, including women. As an organisation opposed to cultural Marxists, we do not support feminists who push concepts such as “patriarchy theory”, because all they want is destruction of the family unit. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
TVF: I will probably post at the talk page when I've worked out the specifics/if I have time, but I am struck by the comment that "Just because you can prove something happened doesn't mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia". That is true, but it seems to be extended absurdly in this case. WP:NNC explicitly states that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article ... Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." As far as I see it, if the Football Lads group is notable (and I believe it is) then information about rallies and major activities are probably worthy of inclusion if reliably sourced (it is, after all, a grassroots campaign); the statement about only 200 people turning up etc is significant and I'd probably include it. That sort of information will potentially be interesting for commentators and useful for future political scholars. --Noswall59 (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC).

Abandoned drafts on women

Copying the following advert here from WP:Women, in case there are more page watchers... I've recently postponed G13 deletion on the following drafts about women, if anyone is interested in adopting them:

Thanks, Espresso Addict: I'll try to tidy Eklund up over the next few days and move it to mainspace. There are plenty of sources in Swedish, including press articles, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I've made some improvements to Rakuraku. She looks notable to me (three award-winning plays, and some other incidental news coverage). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
David Eppstein: Thanks for your additions. But I don't think we can expect those who created these articles to resubmit them. Most of them disappeared from Wikipedia over a year ago. The best way to save them seems to be to tidy them up and move them to mainspace. If you do not feel like taking this one any further, I'll try to get back to it tomorrow and see what I can do. She certainly seems notable enough.--Ipigott (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and moved it to mainspace. But other improvements are still welcome. In particular, the new article Maraea Rakuraku has been tagged as an orphan and I'm a bit at a loss for pages that might reasonably link to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
David Eppstein deorphaned file. Linked to List of women writers. SusunW (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Also Gu Byeong-mo already exists and I think the draft doesn't bring much more, so that one can go. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Female candidates

There are a lot of women in primary races in several U.S. states tonight. Running for office alone is not enough to confer notability, but many candidates will receive enough press coverage to make them notable. I will call attention to Mikie Sherrill, who before tonight had a redirect. I am receiving some push back. There are over 9,000 news articles mentioning her on google and many articles are calling her race one of the most watched in the country. If anyone would like to help me improve sourcing, I would appreciate it. Knope7 (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You're going to have a rough time, to be honest. The usual consensus at AfD, if the candidate doesn't meet WP:NPOL, is to discount coverage relating to the election as WP:ROUTINE. So you're looking for preexisting notability before they stood for office. Even then editors tend to set a high bar. It's quite difficult to get any biography of a candidate for office to stick. (I'm not saying I agree with this, it's just my experience of AfD). – Joe (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, the second part of this is the problem. I had a look at Deb Haaland earlier - until yesterday the article was a redirect to the article about the congressional elections in New Mexico. Quite apart from any other consideration, she's a former chair of the state Democratic Party, which to me should a.) confer automatic notability, and b.) have resulted in an article, not a redirect. Often, I think people are focusing on the candidature to the exclusion of all else. Plenty of failed congressional candidates are state legislators, after all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 23:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Another side of the issue is that a small-ish number of additional participants at AfD make a significant difference. If you aren't familiar with AfD, the most vocal participants (myself often included) often speak past each other as they (we) work with very different assumptions, so don't worry if some one (or ones) vocally disagree with you. Also, don't sweat it if editors seem rude or haughty, just give as good of a reason as you can and be ok with it if others, including the closing editor, disagree. Also, consider watching your Project deletion sorting lists, for instance Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women, so you can find the AfDs that might most interest you. /PSA Smmurphy(Talk) 01:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

WiR list of tools and technical support

In connection with the Toolhub section above, I've created a draft of list of tools and technical experts. I hope you will all help to improve the list and/or make suggestions on how to develop it further. I'll wait a few days for reactions and then email the editors listed, asking for their own reactions and their willingness to provide further assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It would also be useful to know if there are any other tasks for which we need technical support or new tools. I believe Rosiestep was interested in more statistical analysis work. I was wondering myself if it would be possible to enhance our Wikidata redlink listings by drawing attention to women for whom there are GA or FA articles in other languages. Or perhaps we can simply draw on GA/FA biographical articles on women in other languages in order to see which ones are still red-listed in English. But I'm not too sure how this could be done.--Ipigott (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I added some info, but I think the usefulness is zero for people who have never worked with this stuff before - this is where in-person meetups are so much more efficient at transferring such knowledge! Jane (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for starting this, Ipigott. I added two to the list. Would it be ok to make the page a WiR subpage? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Thanks for contributing. I certainly created it as a WiR subpage. Before I move it, I'll ask all the editors mentioned if they agree to being listed. They might also have useful additions of their own.--Ipigott (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

British Library librarians

Some missing here: Caroline Brazier is soon to retire as Chief Librarian, to be replaced by Liz Jolly. Claire Breay is Head of Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern Manuscripts, ie in charge of probably the world's best manuscript collection - her predecessors Janet Backhouse and Michelle P. Brown have articles (though not Scot McKendrick immediately before, who also deserves one). Caroline and Claire are Friends of the Wiki btw. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles about women submitted through AfC

I review articles and I try to focus on the submissions about women that have been sitting in the queue for a while. They tend to be the articles that need work, or they're on subjects with borderline notability. Since the editors who created the articles don't know to add them to to the list of new articles here, should I add them myself? (Just accepted articles on Rabia Nasimi and Sylvia Barack Fishman.) I do add the WikiProject Women template to the talk pages. Thanks, Julie JSFarman (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

JSFarman That's a hard question to answer, as some people prefer not to participate in editathons and have had strong negative reactions. I believe that if you tag them with WP:Women or one of its affiliates, it will be counted in our matrices on women's articles, but someone more technical will need to confirm that. You might want to just post a link to our editathon page and invite them to add the article or join the project. Your work is appreciated! SusunW (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
SusunW, Thank you! I will definitely add the invites/links. JSFarman (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
JSFarman: Your work in trying to revive draft articles about women is much appreciated. Many of them are created at editathons or are the result of refused submissions. As you probably know, adding WikiProject Women on the talk page is certainly a help. If the articles are threatened with deletion, we are then notified. If the articles are biographies, it also helps to add one of many subcategories under Category:Women by nationality and occupation (not forgetting the parent category for non-diffusing categories). In many cases you will find that once they are in mainspace, most of the women's biographies are automatically picked up by bots and listed in the "Metrics" for the month. Two or three times a month, I go through the AlexNewBot WiR list and add all pertinent articles about women's works, associations, sports results, etc., to the Metrics list. If in your article reviewing you come across articles which need specific help to save them from deletion, you can also let us know here -- providing you think they cover topics which are important enough to be supported by secondary sources. If you think that notability is really borderline, then it would probably be better not to include them. Thanks again for your interest and support.--Ipigott (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

What Rosie's been up to

Wikipedia and Hollywood come together for Los Angeles edit-a-thon [13] SusunW (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Another WiR press mention! :) --Rosiestep (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep: It seems to have been very successful. It would be interesting to see which articles were created. Perhaps you could post them on Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/American Woman 2018. Then we'll be able to make any necessary improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott: Yes; by all accounts, it seems to have been very successful. Here's the partial list of articles created/improved: Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/American Woman 2018#Outcomes. Bravo to co-facilitator, StaceyEOB, and the other awesome Wikipedia LA User Group members who helped make the event so wonderful, @Calliopejen1, JSFarman, and Penny Richards. Navigating around LA on Friday afternoon and evening (there were two events) is not easy; the traffic is a showstopper. But so many people came nonetheless to learn and to engage. It was such an honor to walk away from this knowing that we helped create new Wikipedians in one day. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
It was fun, and good to see everyone! I'm not in any of the coverage (except my hands and laptop, briefly, in the NowThis video), but I was having a grand time editing in such a fun atmosphere, with lobster rolls and prosecco. I started Tecla Vigna while I was there. I think I took a photo of the board full of cards showing what articles were underway, I'll track that down. Penny Richards (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep: At least 13 new articles were created on the 18th and 19th by Psyduck3, all of them on women volleyball players. As she has only been an editor since February, that's really impressive.--Ipigott (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Nude recumbent woman on homepage of Commons today

I know why this is a featured image on Commons and I understand the conversation about placement, see perm link to the homepage of Commons. This is not the last time we will have to deal with this. I am curious though what you all feel here, since I agree with arguments that such images should not be promoted to the main page, if only to keep the community (people like me) motivated to contribute. So yes it's fine to contribute positively, but no it's not OK to try to pester longtime contributors (I am making the assumption that only Wiki(p/m)edians are even aware that Commons has a homepage). Since you all care about the DYK queues (again I assume only longtime contributors are even aware that enwiki has a homepage) I thought you might weigh in on the discussion on the file's talkpage. File is here: c:File:Nude recumbent woman by Jean-Christophe Destailleur.jpg. Jane (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone will read the observations on the image's talk page. It would probably be more effective to address those who select images for display on the Commons main page - if you can find out who they are.--Ipigott (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed - I added a note at the village pump here. Jane (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I see from here that it is possible to substitute images which are considered unsuitable. But of course this must be done well in advance.--Ipigott (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I stopped engaging with DYK when this appeared there:
And nobody involved in vetting was willing to admit that there might be a problem with it. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that POTD is equally tone deaf. When you look behind the curtain, there is surprisingly little quality control in what gets onto the main page.
Roll on knee-jerk cries of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", though... – Joe (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
As there are such close links between Commons and Wikipedia, I think this is probably a matter for Wikimedia. Rosiestep may be able to suggest how to address those who might be interested in introducing safeguards. It seems to me that if we want to encourage participation by women editors, we should take more care that they are not offended.--Ipigott (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The featured picture candidate discussion leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not overly familiar with commons, but seeing all the comments voting "support" with no reasoning whatsoever (some even with comments that are oddly objectifying, such as the winky face used by one editor) is disappointing. Nanophosis (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It looks to me like it was accepted as a FP in 2013. Its Potd template was created in March 2017. It looks to me like any accepted featured picture (!voted here) can be promoted to the front page by anybody (instructions here), although all Fpods are already line up through the end of 2019 (see category here). The full list of featured pictures are here - if anyone wants they can look through them. Looking through upcoming Fpod's and the list of FPs, I don't see that this issue will reoccur any time soon. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It is an image that conveys no encyclopedic information whatsoever. Commons may have different criteria for what their images are good for, but it makes no sense to put it on the front page of an encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Of course commons is very sparsely populated with people who care about this stuff at all (I believe the enwiki DYK has a larger following, but I have no way of verifying this besides gut feeling). The problem is that when people ARE offended (such as in fact occurred in this case), the offended person gets slapped for trying to leave the remark "this image is impolite". I totally agree with that remark! You can love or hate the image, but promoting it to the Commons homepage (remember the dewiki hairy vagina controversy?) is just being impolite, I think. Jane (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
See also this article for the "image filter" background: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-21/Technology report. I voted against the image filter, and stand behind that decision. Not all problems like this need to be solved with technology. I think we should talk about it though. Jane (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Commons mainpage isn't an area where I have expertise, but perhaps SandraF (WMF) would have thoughts on this as she works primarily for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course Sandra is welcome to chime in, but this has nothing to do with structured data. It has everything to do with what the image actually shows. A similar nomination process exists for the enwiki homepage POTD by the way, and the discussion is here. Jane (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Jane is right: this is not very related to (the potential of) structured data on Commons. I can imagine that, as soon as structured data gets deployed on Commons, you might want to start a discussion whether we want a property to flag such images. This would however also already be possible today (e.g. using a template or category). SandraF (WMF) (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Viola Katherine Clemmons

Another interesting draft that may soon be deleted for lack of editing activity. Should it be moved to mainspace as is? Improved? Other? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks notable to me. It's still a bit choppy, but it might be mainspace-ready. XOR'easter (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Women in Green – call for participants

Women in Green logo.svg

Hello all – I'd like to invite you to join Women in Green, WikiProject Women's article improvement department. The department has not been an active project in the past, but we are now working on kickstarting new collaborative work between editors to improve existing articles about women and women's works. If this sounds like something you're interested in, please add your name to Women in Green's list of active participants! You can check out more details of our discussions so far on the Women in Green talk page. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Members of Women in Red might also be interested in collaborating on improvements under the Women in Green collaboration proposal we have been trying to develop. It also offers opportunities to take our WiR creations even further.--Ipigott (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for lighting a fire under this initiative. I think we can all agree it is important. Many Women in Red contributors, including me, improve articles each month, and document them on Women in Red event pages. This is just one example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018. We could easily add subheaders for Outcomes (New articles; Improved articles) to track/record Women in Green's progress. Or maybe we could record the article on a Women in Green subpage? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Rosiestep: Personally, I think the Women in Red event pages already provide a great centralized space for editathon participants to post their outcomes (whether created or improved!). Subheaders could be useful, but I'm thinking the creation of extra Women in Green subpages might just overcomplicate things. It seems to me that Women in Green would be most useful acting as a space for editors to focus on bringing articles up to GA class (although there may be different goals, pending on discussion). Maybe Women in Green could support Women in Red's current work, for example, by helping editors interested in submitting their newly improved articles for GA review (e.g. providing additional proofreading, copy-edits, etc.)? I'm excited to see where this conversation goes. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Alanna the Brave each month I try to improve something within the scope of the editathon topics. Usually I post here asking if anyone is interested in collaborating on something that appears will be a GA because we have sufficient sources. I would love to see a review process develop in collaboration with Women in Green. SusunW (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Women in GLAM redlinks

I've started a new redlink page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Museum people and enlarged Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Librarians. Hope it's useful for people! Dsp13 (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Very cool. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Very useful. I've added the museums people to the appropriate lists.--Ipigott (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

London calling

In the press - Mayor of London actions London schools to fill the wiki gap Victuallers (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

👍 Like 3 cheers for Sadiq Khan — Maile (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for picking this up, Roger. It looks like a great initiative. Let's hope it has a good response. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be listed. The most recent meetup for London is the one on 10 June which does not appear to have anything to do with Bloomberg.--Ipigott (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
There's even more background from the mayor's office here.--Ipigott (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I love that its being done, and its great that we are mentioned, but why we were not asked to comment/contribute needs some investigation. I will ask wikimediuk to see if they know anything Victuallers (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I was one of many volunteer editors at the 10 June London meetup. As far as I know, no one was aware of this editathon. WMUK need to work harder to engage with the volunteer editor base. Edwardx (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
That first article mentions Maud Palmer, Countess of Selborne and says One of the women [named on Millicent Fawcett's statute], Maud Palmer, the Countess of Selborne, who was President of the Conservative and Unionist Women’s Franchise Association and part of the suffrage campaign, is also without a Wikipedia page. Not after today. Not so - her article, and a redirect from Maud Palmer, have been in place since 2017. PamD 07:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Of the other articles mentioned, Farrah Storr, the editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan magazine, and the entrepreneur Emem Rita Usanga are still red links. Rosalee Mason, already a one-line stub, was expanded by a new editor.--Ipigott (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I see WMUK knew all about it. See their tweet here. Also tweets from Bloomberg.--Ipigott (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, it looks to me as if BarbosaHil was at the editathon and attempted to submit Draft:Rose Ferguson which was refused. I cannot find evidence of any other articles created by schoolchildren on the 12th.--Ipigott (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The Mayor of London knows about us and our work, and is providing support through this publicity. This is the big time! I don't know what his politics are, but he mentioned us, so I tweeted a thank you to him. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I contacted WikipediaUK, it looks like it was an oversight not to tip us off. Pity, cos we could have supplied online edits. HistorianAlice and @JessWade were there. Jess (like Penny) creates a wiki article every day and nearly always mentions us. @HistorianAlice is a WIR at Wellcome. Both good mates of Women in Red on @Twitter. We have spoken at United Nations, and we have had an editathon in Paris and UNESCO follow us. However here we have a UK iconic politician (he is left to centre in politics) taking our message and saying it under his name... and he mentions us! Victuallers (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there any way we can see a list of outputs from the Editathon, so we can improve than where necessary to protect from deletion? Were the editors told to add the WP Women template to talk page so that alerts will appear? Might be some lost opportunities. PamD 05:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @HistorianAlice and JessWade: who might know the answer!PamD 05:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
But neither username exists! @Victuallers:? PamD 05:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Twitter names begin with an "@". Jess's name on wiki is @Jesswade88:. A sample of their work is here. I'm sure we could do more to support their work. Do reach out. Victuallers (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Alice edits as User:Zeromonk, so let's try Zeromonk. Edwardx (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
If this event was arranged by WMUK, then maybe @Daria and Stuart would know if there is a list of outputs (did they use the Dashboard?), if the editors were told to add the WP Women template to talk pages, etc. As this event is getting some negative pushback on social media, hopefully we can be of assistance. --Rosiestep (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello all - just got your ping, sorry for the late response! and really sorry for missing meetup again, the Processions walk took a lot longer than I expected... Re this: Stuart asked me to come and compere the session, so I did a 20min refresher with them on 5 pillars, what's a reliable source, and what info should go into a biog article, then showcased a few pages at the end to celebrate some edits achieved. He had been round the schools in advance to do training - I'm not sure what he covered there precisely, I think the basics of editing but not sure if he mentioned talkpages & wikiproject templates. A few of the students wrote their usernames down for me when I was chatting with them at the end so I could look at their sandboxes after the session finished and help to make their pages live - did Elizabeth M. Kennedy & Elizabeth Tanner when I got home that night. The others can probably be found by going via Wikipedia:GLAM/Schools Resources Page, which Stuart created as a hub. Each of the schools then has its own sub-page with usernames & suggested people to edit. I'm hoping to take a look tomorrow - any and all help would be much appreciated! Zeromonk (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Students & teachers all keen for follow up sessions - if I can make these happen I will def be in touch with WiR & London volunteers to plan & carry out :) Zeromonk (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Zeromonk. As you can see, we'd love to assist with future events in any way you think might be useful. For the moment, though, does WMUK have a plan on how to manage the negative social media issue (being discussed at length on FB and TW)? My concern is that the student editors who participated in the event are reading the unpleasant comments, which might affect their desire for future editing. While not all young people participate in social media, it's a reality that many do and are highly influenced by it. Perhaps Daria Cybulska (WMUK) and/or Stuart Prior (WMUK)/Battleofalma will offer input in this regard as Lucy is still away, though she did tweet about the problem. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Hello all, this was indeed a WMUK-organised event but it was all put together at very short notice and keeping it as simple as possible made sense, I was not involved in the volunteer-liaison but my understanding is that we originally expected JessWade and another volunteer to be helping Alice with the training at the event, but last minute changes meant it was just Alice present. To clarify, this event wasn't really a traditional editathon per se, the attendance was restricted and the event was timed to the last minute, but I apologise if it feels like we're keeping this type of thing from people. Additionally, the goals for this kind of event are slightly different. Our priorities for these type of outreach events where you have a lot of new people, with little time and only about an hour of pre-training are:

  • Increase public understanding and awareness of Wikipedia with the media-reach an event like this has.
  • Increase public understanding of the gender gap on Wiki and most importantly that projects like Women in Red are trying to address it.
  • To enable some meaningful contributions to WP by first time editors (in this case quite young) and to enable them to read and understand WP better.


  • Not to break Wikipedia while trying to do this

All of this involves scaling back the ambition a bit, so we were fairly tight in terms of the list we were working from, were sure that the majority were notable and tried to also get meaningful yet reasonably simple tasks for new editors to do such as expanding Rosalee Mason or creating Nan Ino Cooper as well as coordinating this with Mayor's Office Press Releases.

In terms of how it went, I was very happy, and as Alice mentions, we hope we can use the warm relationship with these schools and with Bloomberg to greater effect in the future.

It feels like something that would be helpful is if we could work out a simple protocol for us matching up this or other relevant live events with online contributions and participation from Women in Red members. i.e what would be the basic information you guys would need, and what would be the best way to communicate this, and so on. Thanks Stuart Prior (WMUK)

  • Battleofalma, Zeromonk: Thank you both for your explanations. Now that I have had a bit more time to look into it all, I realize how much time and effort you, Stuart, put into training at the schools. You certainly helped the pupils along with all the user pages you prepared as well as guidelines for many of the individual pupils on women they could write about. I was pleased to see how many of them made a good start on preparing biographies. There must be at least 20 drafts providing a reasonable basis for mainspace pages. It is a pity that nearly all of them are still in user space. As far as I can see, the only ones moved to mainspace are Victoria McCloud and Karen Blackett. (I haven't found any trace of Draft:Rose Ferguson in the links provided above.) Are there any plans for further assistance to the pupils of these schools or is the exercise over for the time being?
As for assistance by members of Women in Red, I think several of us would have been able to lend a helping hand if we had been warned of the event in advance. In future, perhaps the best way of going about this would be to provide us with the user names of those preparing articles. Alternatively, we could liaise through the event organisers. I see that some of the content was not in fact prepared on the 12th but several days beforehand. It looks to me as if we could have done much to help things along. Even now, if any of the pupils are still keen on editing Wikipedia, we could help them forward with their articles. A number of them show great promise. See, for example, the drafts on Pip Jamieson, Jessica Butcher, Denisa Gannon, Mercy Ashworth, Sian Anderson, Jess Butcher, Margaret Owen, Laura Stebbing. There are quite a few more which could easily be further developed. I believe somewhere I found fair drafts on those mentioned by the mayor: Farrah Storr and Emem Rita Usanga. (Or maybe I just saw them on St Saviour's page.) I'm not too sure how we should proceed but I think many of these girls should be given further encouragement.--Ipigott (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ipigott, we were constrained in terms of time (~2hrs) so while many girls started something, getting things to a stage where we could publish was harder. The AFC process is completely at odds with the reality of training people to edit WP as it doesn't allow people making their first contributions the excitement and reward for their efforts of seeing their new article go live. In general, I tend to create the article myself and have them contribute the text they have already created in their sandbox to it as a workaround.
I'd done some pre-training of Bloomberg engineers and teachers on the basics of editing and the key parts the girls had problems with (they are digital natives so pick up the technical parts very quickly and are very confident about making edits) such as article structure, citations and the right type of language to use, so we did have some extra support capacity in the room, but trying to steward the creation of articles that are in a good state in a group of 70 children is quite hard! In terms of getting things from userspace to article, I will follow up with the schools and see what can be done.
What would be useful to know is exactly what point in time WiR could get involved in these things. In this one it would've been helpful in terms of research and creating lists I think, and more generally feeding work to be done into our events like this would be helpful. For example, the Bush Theatre is holding an Art + Feminism event on July 25th to create more content around women in theatre, so once I've got a page up, some help with worklists and resources might be a good way to work together. Battleofalma (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Battleofalma: Pity the schoolgirls' event received so much negative publicity. It would still be good if we could help some of these girls forward. So if you return to the schools, perhaps you can let us know which ones are keen to continue and we can try to help them to improve their work and bring their articles up to mainspace standards. As for the Bush Theatre event, it would certainly help if you could provide a link to your meetup page well in advance. We could then announce the event on the main WiR page and also encourage our members to help with redlists, etc. How about our redlinks of Actresses from the UK? A+F tends to attract wide support. Hope it goes well.--Ipigott (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott, ah well to be honest most of that attack is aimed at Sadiq Khan really, and I think we've become used to the backbiting that happens when anyone talks about the gender gap on WP, usually from people who don't know much about WP in the first place. I'm meeting the organiser of the Bush Theatre event the 5th of July so I'll aim to get a meetup page set up then that they can use, and I'll let you know. Thanks Battleofalma (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Rounding up redlists

I’ve been adding redlists to the index; details are at the index talk page.

NotARabbit (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Do we have duplicate list pages? I bookmarked Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/State encyclopedias of the United States, because I thought it was the recap page. — Maile (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I’m trying to weed out any duplicates, but I’m sure I’m missing that one. Hmm, that might actually be a better page to link the index to, instead of each state individually. I’ll go do that. NotARabbit (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, that page only duplicates some of the states. I’ll leave the index alone; there are two lists each for Texas and Virginia, and even one for El Paso. My goal is to make the index as complete as possible, even though other pages may overlap it. NotARabbit (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
NotARabbit I just ran across "Category:Women - Ohio History Central".  that probably should be added. One of the sources I find useful for coming up with these databases is Godart (ALA Government Documents Roundtable) state library databases. — Maile (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Maile66 Perhaps some other members can make up new lists from the databases you’ve found. I’m just trying to organize and consolidate those lists that already exist. And there certainly are lots of them! NotARabbit (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
NotARabbit Thanks once again for your efforts. I see you have added the Wikidata lists on Technologists (2 names), Prisoners (2 names), Laos (1 name) and Aruba (2 names). I decided not to include these as I did not consider them to be useful. You never really know what these lists are going to produce until you create them. Sometimes you discover they are not worthwhile.--Ipigott (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott I was aware of how few entries were on those lists, and I remember your cautioning me earlier about adding them, but I decided to add them anyway. The data on Wikidata is constantly changing and growing, and more may show up in the future. (I think that technologists should actually be added to another list, and that will happen eventually.) But I also thought these lists would highlight some areas we might want to concentrate on. For instance, the total of Laotian women listed at Wikidata is a whopping 14. We could really use some good crowd-sourced lists for Laos, or a Wikidata drive of some sort.
Laos isn’t the only country we have inadequate cover for. I added two “dormant” Wikidata lists (adding the links but commenting them out for now because they’re empty). One was for the China Academic Library and Information System (CALIS) ID. Again, there are only 11 women in Wikidata with a CALIS ID. I don’t know what WiR has done in the past as far as Asian countries, and there are some formidable language challenges, but there must be more women we can find. NotARabbit (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

New article with same name as previously deleted one

I fear I may have blundered by allowing an article on Marie Porter to be created in the namespace of a previously deleted one and I don't know what I should do about it. The current article is about an Australian, where the previous one was Canadian. Should I be asking an admin to move the new entry to a different name? Please help.--Oronsay (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Where's the issue? Unless it's the same person and was deleted for non-notability, there's no problem with creating an article at the same name of a previously deleted topic. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm with The Drover's Wife on this Oronsay. Regardless of whether the file has been deleted before, or if it is a different person or not, if the person is notable and you have sufficient sourcing to verify the information, who cares? Any number of reasons a file might have been deleted in the past--copyvio, inadequate sourcing available at the time, etc. If you can do it now, then do it ;) SusunW (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks The Drover's Wife and SusunW for your advice. Warning was posted by AnomieBOT, so I checked on their talk page and found:
"Regarding old AfD multi, please note: If you are here because AnomieBOT added old AfD multi to an article when the old AfD was about a different person with the same name, just remove it. The bot has no way to tell whether it's the same person or a different one."
Don't know why I hadn't thought of looking there before!--Oronsay (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Women scientists by percentage

Can anyone please point me to the page which provides a breakdown of women's biographies by occupation? Pharos is working on something and needs the info. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep I’m not sure if this is what you’re looking for, but check out User:Jane023/Number of women per occupation. NotARabbit (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, NotARabbit. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep, Pharos: I think the best source is the Denelezh Gender Gap sorted by occupation. While the stats are from Wikidata and cover all language versions, by clicking on the various columns (especially females), you get an interesting overview. You could also look at the EN categories. For example, see Category:American women by occupation with 739 scientists. To compare them with other categories such as writers, artists, you have to take subcategories into account too. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
This is exactly what I was thinking of, Ipigott. Hopefully, it's got the information that Pharos was seeking. --Rosiestep (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep: I thought that was the one. If you click on Total, you'll see that Scientists comes up 12th with 325,662 biographies in the overall total but that only 42,763 of these are articles on women (13.5%). As a result, if you click on %Fem, Scientists drops to over half way down the list. Unfortunately, WP Women scientists does not appear to be as active as it used to be. I see, however, that 7,273 articles are tagged Women scientists (cf 29,718 Women writers and 10,251 Women artists). Perhaps we should initiate a real drive to cover women scientists, possibly in collaboration with universities and research bodies. There's some interesting background info here. And lots of stats from Unesco. How about launching a meaningful initiative on women in science later this year.--Ipigott (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott, because Pharos didn't indicate to me the specifics of what he was seeking, I'm not sure if this link provides exactly what he wants or not; we have to leave it to him to decide. As the founder of WikiProject Women Scientists is still in medical school, the project has had less energy than in previous years. Good idea; let's add a women scientists event to our calendar... plus women writers, if I can be so bold. Would it make sense to annualize these on our birthday months (Emily/May/women scientists; Rosie/December/women writers)? --Rosiestep (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Yes indeed. I would be all in favour of reviving work on both Women scientists and Women writers. While I think it is important to explore and cover women from less common occupations, we seem to be losing out on the number of new articles completed each month. Covering more general topics might help to rectify this. As I suggested above, we could try to increase our impact by collaborating with other interested parties such as the universities, research interests and international institutions. Maybe Wikimedia would also assist in helping to extend our initiatives by encouraging participation by editors writing in other language versions of Wikipedia, as well as in Commons, Wikidata, etc. It goes without saying that this would all need careful preparation. We could even devote up to three months each for scientists and writers, perhaps setting month-by-month priorities on historical figures, women from the developing countries, award winners, etc., while allowing broad coverage of the overall priority throughout. Maybe we should open up a new discussion on all this in order to attract more suggestions and reactions.--Ipigott (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I think part of the problem with the female scientists is that many of the occupations for them do not "compute" in Wikidata as being science occupations. I have said before that you need to be clear about how you track women in Wikidata. For the paintings project, we want everything we want to track be "instance of painting" and not "instance of portrait painting" or "instance of self-portrait". This work of "reducing intersection" has started for women writers, but still needs to be done for other occupations. So e.g. a female entomologist needs to have "occupation=scientist" and "field of work=entomology". It's fine to have "entomologist" listed as occupation, but in the LOD world, please include the tracking occupation as well. Jane (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott, sure, open a new discussion to attract more ideas. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I did an query with WP:PetScan taking all people under Scientists and subcategories to level 5, and with 'human' and gender marked on Wikidata. This is incomplete of course, but I did make the judgement that English Wikipedia categories wold be more complete in covering various scientific occupations than Wikidata. I got 14% on English Wikipedia (similar to above), and 8% on German Wikipedia.--Pharos (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Nice work, but there are probably way more female scientists on Wikidata without any occupation at all, just because they were added by bots that only add "human, female" to new article qid's. My gut feeling is that the 14% is probabaly fine though, since the same is true for male scientists. The lack of metadata on Wikidata doesn't seem to be a gender-related problem, but I am not sure about that. Jane (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Jamie A. Thomas

This biography of a female academic created as part of a Black Lives Matter-based WikiEd course is up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie A. Thomas (Anthropologist). – Joe (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Space issues on Redlists

Editing on Redlist pages is sometimes cumbersome because of their length, but I always think a long list is a good list (possibilities!). However, there are two aspects that I think we could address to tighten up the sprawl. First, I need to warn you that these suggestions might just be self-serving on my part: I do all my editing on an iPad, so tend to notice when I have to do extra scrolling or zooming around a page.

  1. {{Women in Red redlist header}} takes up a whole screen on my iPad with, IMHO, too much verbiage. It borders on TL;DR. It tries to cover a lot that is better done with an individualized intro on each list. I’ve drafted a shorter version of it in my sandbox; please consider that as a suggestion.
  2. The layout of our Wikidata lists has evolved to be more standardized from list to list, with minor differences like the order of columns or what column they are sorted on. But many are too wide for the page on my iPad, which means that the whole page shrinks so that I have to zoom in to read it. I’d like to propose doing away with two columns in these tables: place of birth and place of death. Of course, people may find these essential for their work, in which case I hastily withdraw the proposal. But consider: these places (IF listed) are usually towns and cities only, with no clue as to what state or country it’s in. I know I often have to click through to the article or Wikidata item to find out that information, so it’s not helpful for sorting or skimming through the table.

Sorry this is so long... Post whatever feedback you have on these two ideas, even if you don’t use a tablet. ;-) NotARabbit (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NotARabbit: Good suggestions. Now that editors are increasingly using mobiles, it is important to adapt to their needs. As Rosiestep created the header, she should also be consulted. As for the places of birth/death, I have never needed to use these.--Ipigott (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Places of birth on the Wikidata redlists is useful if the nationality column is missing, as I sometimes go through these lists and add missing nationality based on this info. As for the header being too long, I've thought so myself... please be bold and change the wording, colors, and anything else you think will improve it! --Rosiestep (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I find the place of birth useful as in the UK there will often be separate sources for Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish subjects. Likewise many subjects in the USA have separate Dictionary of ... type publications for each state. Place of death I think could go. 14GTR (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I totally appreciate all the work that you do for us NotARabbit. As Rosie is cool with the shorter header, I'm fine with it too. For me, as I rarely write about living people, having the dates is critical, but the places don't matter to me. I never start an article without checking for sources, so as soon as I find a name, I start researching. If there aren't enough sources, I pick another. SusunW (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
NotARabbit: I now realize I do use the birth and death place names, especially when they differ from the nationality given. They provide a historical clue to the background of those concerned. I therefore suggest we keep them.--Ipigott (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @NotARabbit: I gave your sandbox a spitshine. Feel free to revert if you don't like. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Headbomb, that looks good! Thanks to everyone for the feedback. I’ll update the header now. NotARabbit (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Marileen Dogterom

I created a two-line stub, but she is a colleague of mine, and therefore I have an obvious COI. I am not planning to expand the article, but someone else may want to do it, for example, the reference which is in the article gives a good overview (and is a solid seconfdary source). Notability is not an issue, she just won a major prize which was announced today.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Gianna Simone draft


Hello, Women in Red! I've drafted an article about American actress Gianna Simone for community review here. The draft provides a neutral overview of her early life and education, career, and personal life, using Wikipedia-appropriate sourcing, and Ms. Simone has reviewed the draft for accuracy. I've disclosed my COI appropriately, and I am looking for an editor who is willing to review the draft and move into the main space appropriately. I've posted similar requests at WikiProject Women in Red before (Anne Finucane, Melissa Bell), and received some very helpful feedback and assistance, so I figured I'd try again. Wikipedia articles currently mentioning Gianna Simone include Unbroken: Path to Redemption, List of Chuck cast members, and "Chuck Versus the Wedding Planner". Feedback is welcome here or on the draft's talk page. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Ipigott. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC: gendered nurse categories

I've asked the nursing wikiproject about gendered categories here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Nursing#Gendered_nursing_categories. Comments welcome. Cheers, Basie (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Celia Brackenridge

I've just created a brief article about Celia Brackenridge, if anyone would like to help expand it. There are plenty of sources about her. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Ouk Phalla

She is in the news because she died, and all we have is a redirect to her husband. Can that change? I found this about her dancing. I'd like a break from recent deaths, - too many lately. Anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

There's very little about her in the reports of the car accident. The only thing I found was that she was a candidate for the upcoming elections.[14]. There's probably more in the Cambodian press if anyone is able to monitor.--Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can see, it's the same in Khmer.[15]--Ipigott (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I know there's little in the recent press, that's why I supplied what I found about the classical dancing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Two more GAs

Thanks mainly to the efforts of SusunW, two more of our articles have now reached GA: Carmen Casco de Lara Castro and Vera Gedroits.--Ipigott (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ipigott I actually had those two and Mary Hayley up for review all at the same time. I really am thinking that we need to work on improving so many articles on here. I love that Women in Green is getting more active. Working on Gedroits was a pleasure. Such an interesting life. Casco was a long process, but thanks to Kudpung, she finally emerged from cold storage. Who would have thought that a Paraguayan powerhouse would have a GA on English WP? I am thinking next month for stage and screen we tackle your proposal to work on Margot Fonteyn. SusunW (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Three is one month is not bad going!--Ipigott (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The Poorly Drawn Barnstar.png
Congrats SusunW from me and the smiley-face hand-drawn barnstar! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Rosie! I honestly don't think I have ever had so many files reviewed at the same time. It was stressful, but very rewarding to see all of these women's articles improved by such great teamwork. SusunW (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

New discussion about changing the title of Yale Student Abortion Art Controversy

There has been an ongoing discussion about changing the title of the Yale student abortion art controversy article since mid-May. If you have an opinion, the discussion is located at Talk:Yale student abortion art controversy#Title change still called for. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Songwriter (Q753110) and hymnwriter (Q13424456) Wikidata redlists

Would someone be so kind as to create Wikidata lists for these two occupations; and then add to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/80# Redlists (lists of redlinked articles to be created)? I'm afraid I have forgotten how to do so, e.g. what to include in the template. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2018 (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