Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

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

Yuki Kislyak

Hello! Please help me defend an article about a woman, a vocalist of a popular Russian musical group. The article contains links to reliable, high-profile sources, federal portals and the media. Outright discrimination occurs again. Help! Protect! Николай Назаров (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Николай Назаров: You're a single purpose account on en wiki and against rules you are canvassing. These are not things that attract any support. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: You are seriously mistaken, I have no personal interest other than an interest in justice, there are no requests and agitation. And there is a page that meets the requirements for relevance, with links to federal Russian, reliable sources, and there is clear discrimination on the basis of gender, which apparently continues here. Wikipedia was created for knowledge, and has specific rules that are not always enforced and correctly interpreted by individual participants. Wikipedia is not a place for discrimination against beautiful women, Wikipedia is not a place for a feeling of power, my interest is only in justice and I am glad that there is such a project as "Women in Red" I joined it a couple of months ago, and I will continue to try to achieve justice in this question! I ask professional, fair users to also come to the rescue in my question, without any propaganda and bias, only on the basis of the rules and purposes of Wikipedia! Николай Назаров (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Николай Назаров: You are without a shade of doubt a single purpose account on en wiki. Remember, we can all see your edit history - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2

Also, and again without any doubt whatsoever, against rules you are canvassing. We have seen a great deal of canvassing over the years. We know what it looks like. It looks like your post above.

Now, you are welcome to contribute, and I look forward to your contributions to justice in the matter of smashing the patriachy. I would, however, gently, advise that you take some time to read and understand rules when they are brought to your attention in the context of you breaking them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Michelle Sagara help?

Can anyone lend a hand at Michelle Sagara? She's an author, with an article that seems to be heavily edited by someone with a COI. I've removed the most obvious promotional content, but it basically reads like a fanpage or a bookstore page - and I'm not sure if all the book prose should be scrapped or not (since it currently makes up most of the article). - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I will try to do a library search for references this weekend. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not find anything that helps. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@IdRatherBeAtTheBeach: Thanks for looking, I appreciate it! Hopefully more sources will be found at some point. - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Whisperjanes: Added a couple sources and a few additional tidbits about Sagara. Very difficult to find info! Feel-flourish (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Feel-flourish: Thanks for adding that info - I had a hard time finding sources as well, so I'm glad you found some :) - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Women's football/soccer season articles nominated for deletion

Three season articles for Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to join the discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bring back Daz Sampson: I have no issue pointing out the elephant in the room. Would this even be discussed if it was a male team? It was an excellently written article with the proper reliable sources about a notable subject team within a professional league.Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. Multiple men's club season articles have been deleted recently for the same reason that this one has been nominated, such as this, this, this or this. Number 57 22:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tsistunagiska: is correct about the revulsion most neutral onlookers would feel about such overtly discriminatory practice. After all, WP:FPL is a perpetually incomplete essay with no relevance to female teams or athletes. What we have is a tiny cabal of "football lads" who took out a red pen and drew a line around their favourite local teams and leagues. It's disingenuous nonsense because it includes Scottish Championship, for example, which is not and never has been "fully professional". So it's intended to add a fig leaf of objectivity to systemic bias and is very jealously-guarded but, seen as such, it should have little if any bearing on a discussion like this. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: I noticed the same people voted on those articles. Don't pretend your objectivity on this subject. All of them meet WP:GNG in regards to reliable independent sources. In regards to WP:NSEASON, it specifically states "top professional" not "fully professional". Those articles clearly state that the clubs played in their respective "top professional" leagues, whether semi-professional, meaning not all players are paid a full time wage to play, or fully professional, meaning all players are paid a full time wage to play.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to note that, up until recently, relative to the over-all length of time "professional" sports has been opened to women, they have not been given the "full time" status due to the very clear bias against them. If we are going to truly destroy the barrier and acknowledge the wrongs that have been committed against women in every facet of life we must correct this issue starting here and now. Men have been paid "full time professional" wages for sports even while women's "professional" sports were relegated to "semi-professional" pay. Are we then to further the bias against these women's professional sports teams while elevating the men's professional sports teams simply based on how often or how much we deem they were paid? Does the volunteer/semi-paid player on those teams work any less to be the best they can be in their respective sports in their league? They are professionals because they are at the top of their game, regardless of whether men decided to pay them that way or not. Shame on anyone who perpetuates the blatant bias I have seen over the last two days and then comes here declaring they work to destroy the barriers of the past.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps people who know about women's football should campaign for a third bullet point in WP:NFOOTY (which is part of the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) guideline and not the private property of the established football project), to provide an appropriate "presumed notability" criterion for women's football, given the different history of the game (eg the FA's suppression of women's football after the first world war because it was too popular and detracting from attendance at the men's games, before its recent resurgence). PamD 23:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Good idea Pam. At the moment there is a very sinister 'purge' of women's football articles, with these dubious notability criteria being used as a pretext. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@PamD: I would agree with that except that its wholly unnecessary if editors quit using their subjective opinion in regards to notability and simply followed WP:GNG. If an article has verifiable and reliable independent sources that clearly define and discuss the subject and is visible to a significant part of the world then it meets the notability requirements and should have an article. NOTHING supersedes that. In any case we fought as hard as we could but the biased forces against women's sports wins again and another loss to women and our history, albeit recent, is wiped away from this encyclopedia either by ignorance or a willful desire to maintain control over the narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsistunagiska (talk • contribs) 14:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You're not kidding, @Tsistunagiska:, that deletion was a travesty and probably worth a deletion review if I get round to it. The closing admin was not 'involved' in the sense that he didn't vote in that particular discussion - but he is a card-carrying member of the stuffy boy's club at WP:FOOTY. He therefore has a vested interest in policing/perpetuating this nonsense! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bring back Daz Sampson: We have been challenged to take the article(s) before review. The women's football haters fraternity stands by their biased opinions it seems.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Tsistunagiska:. Now at deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Active#9 October 2020 Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bring back Daz Sampson: Thank you for the DRV. I left a nice little comment under yours. Been stewing over this deletion for some time now ---Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - and thank you for your restraint in the face of some extremely annoying provocation. I'm holding my tongue because the dice are already loaded against us here and I need to be careful I don't talk myself into another ban! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Rose Bayuk

I ran across her as I was looking into the Methodist-Kahler School of Nursing. If anyone is looking for an article to create there are some sources for her. 1 2 3 I'm sure other editors here could probably find more scholarly sources for anyone wanting to write about her. The ones I provided are from a quick search.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Started a Wikidata entry: Q100273876. TJMSmith (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Clara McAdow

If anyone can help find sources for Clara McAdow, a women's suffragist from Montana and possibly a mine owner, it would help out some of our fellow editors. Thank you, everyone.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few newspaper articles (via Newspapers.com) that might help:

• Died Worth Millions
• She's a Rarity, Even in the West
• A Woman Who Knew How to Make Money Note that article continues below image.
• She Made the Mine Pay
• Mrs. Clara McAdow

Eddie Blick (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's an image:

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 18:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I started a Wikidata entry: Q100273791. TJMSmith (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone working on a draft for her? I'd be happy to write up a stub. Jessamyn (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl and Jessamyn: I have to bring Megalibrarygirl into the discussion here. They are the one who initiated a request to help find sources so they may be creating an article on Clara. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tsistunagiska and Jessamyn: I'd love it if a stub is written up. I can add to it. :) I'm doing a lot of women's suffrage work right now. I was inspired by a historian who said basically, the Civil War which was 4 years or so has tons of media and attention, but the suffrage movement in the US which was more than 70 years is barely a blip. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jessamyn: There you go, lovely. I think you found your next article. Thank you both so much. This has been a little ray of light and a joy researching myself. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, will try to get a stub up this week sometime. Jessamyn (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Not sure if I am doing this YO right, but this stub is started. I used all the sources above except the "She made the mine pay" one which was hard for me to read. Clara McAdow Jessamyn (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jessamyn: this is brilliant! So glad to see her online now! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jessamyn: Great job! Thank you so much for creating the article. You are amazing! --Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Jamie Peck (podcaster)

Hi! Sorry if this is a newbie question but my twin told me about this group and your guy's efforts to get more articles about women on this site, as a feminist i thought it was great! I even wrote a draft article for Draft:Jamie Peck (podcaster). I wanted to make sure If someone wants to look at it i would totes be down for the extra help! I don't really know what i am doing tbh (0u0;;✿) ~𝓜𝓙𝓛'𝓼 𝓔𝓿𝓲𝓵 𝓢𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻 (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a very accomplished article for a newbie. You'll possibly be aware of WP:BIO1E. I'm not sure how this article rises above that bar. You'll say GNG. I won't buy it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Denise A. Rangel Tracy

Anyone see anything that would help this pass WP:NPROF or WP:BASIC? Unfortunately, I don't think I do. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: With your experience, I thought you'd be a good judge of this. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. I see she won a AWM Service Award. TJMSmith (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

My default reaction is: Why do editors so often create articles on the young up-and-comers when there are still so many missing articles on well-established or no-longer-active academics with much more easily defensible records? You're setting yourself up for confrontation and disappointment that way. Be more patient, give them time to achieve something before you set them up in this way. Mathematics is always difficult because it has low citations in general. Assistant professors are difficult because they haven't had enough time to accumulate impact as a scholar. In her case, that means two publications with single-digit citations, far out of reach of WP:PROF#C1. The service award is a better shot (for say WP:PROF#C2), but still not a good shot, because the Association for Women in Mathematics is a much smaller organization than the bigger national mathematics organizations in the US (the American Mathematical Society, Mathematical Association of America, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics), and because service is never considered as significant as research and teaching. For the same reasons, being on the AWM executive committee isn't going to count for much. The best you're going to hope for is human-interest media coverage of the playing cards, and even then you're going to run into WP:BIO1E issues. Unless media coverage of her can be turned up that covers more than one story about her, from sources that are both mainstream and not connected with her (none of which are in the article now), this looks like the sort of article that if unprodded would certainly go to an AfD, and that I would most likely vote delete on in an AfD, not because I want to delete articles about up-and-coming female mathematicians but because I can find no way to argue that this article meets our standards. And I think relaxing the standards would be a mistake, as it would more greatly encourage coverage of and by publicity-hungry (and usually male) self-promoting junior faculty than it would of people like Tracy who appear to be trying to make a difference but haven't yet been documented to have already made a difference. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: The answer to your "Why... ?" seems to be "because they were introduced to editing at an editathon which didn't take enough care to guide newbies toward the "well-established or no-longer-active academics with much more easily defensible records", but let them spend, perhaps waste, their time on less verifiably notable people." Sad. PamD 06:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

When running editathons, I have found it better to create a list in advance of suitable people that one has researched in advance and are confident will survive any AfD. And lists of articles in need of expansion, referencing, etc. Edwardx (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone see a good article for this image?

It's a lovely image. Person in question isn't notable from what I can tell, but I think it's... in the vaue spirit of this project to get attention on this sort of thing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 08:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Adam Cuerden, it's lovely. Perhaps it can go in Mechanical calculator since it says the image is for a calculating contest? SusunW (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Vexed that I've not been able to identify the machine being used. Not a Comptometer, I think. Has a carriage rather like a Monroe, but their 1920s machines had closed cases not open frames. Not Burroughs also. Sad. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

What it looks like to me is a Smith Premier typewriter. Key identifying marks include the three rows of dark keys above three rows of light keys on the keyboard (striped patterns of keys are very common on calculators but almost always by columns rather than rows) and some lettering near the top of the machine that looks like the end of the word "Premier". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you have it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I found an article about the event: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9614230m/f5.image.r=machines%20Magic%20City?rk=42918;4

Dilys Price OBE, world's oldest skydiver, has passed away

As far as I can tell, she should be notable. Anyone up for writing at least something quick about her? She has plenty of coverage (50K ghits in English alone; I didn't check in Welsh), holds a Guiness World Record, has been awarded an OBE, etc. Right now, Dilys Price is a redirect to Fireman Sam#Townspeople and I think that's a shame. (I'd do the article myself, but I have 30 days left to turn in my thesis ":D") -Yupik (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go at a short piece. Will ask for help over the redirect/disabiguation if I need it.--MerielGJones (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I have made the Dilys Price page into a disambiguation one, but how do I create one with the title Dilys Price, since the redirect/disambiguation one still has that name? I have drafted text about her ready to go in.--MerielGJones (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Pages sorted out now, thanks to ColinFine at the Helpdesk.--MerielGJones (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

You've done a wonderful job on the article, MerielGJones. I've learned even more about her just by reading your article :) Thank you so much! -Yupik (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you MerielGJones for creating this article. I had no idea, what an amazing woman! Netherzone (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate Wikidata entries

There are duplicate entries for the opera singer Fan Ruijuan on Wikidata. Both the Chinese and the English articles are linked to Fan Ruijuan (Q8958431) but there is also Ruijuan Fan (Q94357951) with various ac links. I am not sure how to sort this out or indeed whether there are any wikidata conventions on how to list Chinese people (by family name or given name). Can anyone help?--Ipigott (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure about naming conventions (beyond, for label and alias, cover both options), but we're now down to a single item, which is the main thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I ran into this issue yesterday after creating the article Niki Etsuko -- Wikidata already had a "Etsuko Niki" entry, but a new "Niki Etsuko" entry was created automatically. I ended up merging the two entries into the older one (which seems to be the usual convention). I figure it's fine either way as long as the rest of the Wikidata entry correctly lists which parts of the name are surname/given name. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Perry McAdow House

Is it just me, or is this article a really good example of a business version of the Matilda effect? Clara McAdow barely gets a mention, when the sources I've seen credit her for the couple's fortune Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 19:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup. There's also a weird syndrome amongst folks that specialize in NRHP articles, an area that I dip my toe into a bit. Those specialists seem so focused on those articles, you kind of wonder whether they are understanding the actual park service documents they are using as sources, rather than just transcribing them. Usually if the property is named for a person, the nomination form will have biographical details and serve as a good source for another article.

That was how I ended up writing Mary Blair Moody. I totally stumbled on Dr. Mary B. Moody House somehow, and immediately thought, "wait a sec, if it was worth naming this historic house for this woman, why doesn't she have an article?". After like 30 minutes of googling it was obvious she was a slam dunk for notability, and there was already even a photo of her in Commons and a bio of her in WikiBooks.

Which just makes me wonder about the person who wrote the house article. How uncurious do you have to be to write an article about a structure named for a person and not at least investigate whether that person should have their own article too? I know, I know, people specialize. But please. At least they could have popped in over here and suggested it to someone. This kind of goes along with my other pet peeve about NRHP WikiGnomes which is that many of them tend to write article entirely sourced from the NPS document(s) and the articles end up being very mechanical and boring. "The house has a hipped roof and four columns". "Yeah, sure, I can see that in the photo, but tell me about the people who lived here and why do we care to preserve their house?" --Krelnik (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

What really gets me, though, is that [1] for example, makes it very clear Clara was almost solely responsible for their fortune, the brief summary at the National Historic Register attributed them as both having made their fortune through gold mining, and then the writer of the article attributed it to Perry! Female erasure by degrees! I've fixed it a bit now, but it's really not great that we did that so long. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 21:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay. It's one source, but I expanded it a bit, which I think helps a lot. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 21:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing against Perry but, wow, before you included her she was barely mentioned and it was her fortune that secured and built the house! As a note and not to take away from the fact Clara lived at a time when women were still considered "second rate citizens" even as the tide was slowly turning, an exorbitant amount of pressure was applied to men and especially those who were considered as not taking care of their families (disabled) or living up to the standards, usually set forth by other men. It very well may be that Clara, not wanting her husband to suffer from the presumed shame of not being able to provide for her, simply allowed the narrative to slant the way it did in an attempt to cause no harm to her husband. Either way I would have petitioned it be called the McAdow House and let readers and visitors make their own judgement call. Great find Adam Cuerden!! --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As one of the NRHP editors who's also part of this project: point taken, and it's definitely a blind spot. I'll occasionally write an article on someone associated with a historic site, especially when the site is mostly notable through its association with the person, but I don't do that as often as I'd like. I think that when we have long lists of notable historic sites and an easily accessible source in the nomination, it gets a little too easy to churn out articles based on the one source instead of looking into the broader context of the sites, which might mean doing more work to establish a person's notability and find multiple sources about their life. (And a lot of the houses named after people are more notable for their architecture than their owners, so sometimes looking into the owner is a dead end.) I'll keep this discussion in mind for my future editing though, and I think it's worth sharing with WikiProject NRHP too. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

That said, it must be noted that a big part of the problem in this spcific case was that events were more unusual than the NRHP editors thought. So a note that the couple made their fortune in mining (which is already over-emphasizing Perry, but since Perry financed the initial stake in the mine, it's not entirely wrong) turned into a presumption that Perry did all the work. It's understandable, but not great. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 05:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I acknowledge that Wikipedia says it isn't here to right great wrongs of the past, however, as I have pointed out in arguing for keeping articles on indigenous people and especially indigenous women, we aren't asking Wikipedia to right a wrong then. We are asking that we not continue to perpetuate the wrongs by deleting and denying the creation of these articles. There is a difference. Wikipedia can not create something that isn't there. Luckily in this case, we have irrefutable evidence that Clara did the majority of the work running the mine and increasing the fortune of the family, eventually selling it for a large sum. We can't change the name of the house here to make a point. That would be righting a wrong. We can include the information about Clara in the article which is what was done. Excellent work Adam Cuerden and thank you, Krelnik and TheCatalyst31 for the amazing work you do in writing articles on these topics.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As the creator of the Dr. Mary B. Moody House, perhaps I am in a unique position to comment specifically on Krelnik's observations. Firstly, when I created said article, I noted from the outset the significance of its occupants, and was actually happy to see that Krelnik picked up the thread. This type of content is one that any number of other NRHP-specialist editors do not always add, resulting in the "mechanical and boring" stub articles which may be mainly of interest to architectural historians, historic architecture aficionados, and local historians, but apparently not Krelnik. And yes, I do sometimes say to myself "that person ought to have an article", but (as you say) it's not my specialty, or particular interest, to write about random historical figures, either well-known or undeservedly obscure. I expend significant gnome-like effort to keep one small piece of WP neat(er) and have my own peeves about editors who should "do just one more thing", or be more thorough/careful in their work, or whatever, when they happen to be in the right place to do so. We each try to make the place better in our own way. Chacun à son goût. Magic♪piano 15:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Perin Bharucha-Chandra

This is scheduled to be G13 deleted soon if no edits are made. Anyone want to adopt it? Seems like a plausible article but draft has some issues. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks interesting. I will try to spend a little time on it. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I trimmed a lot of copyvios and moved the article to mainspace Perin Chandra. TJMSmith (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Journalist notability

By chance is anyone interested in digging for better sources for the Seung Min Kim page? Unfortunately I can’t find much in the way of independent secondary sources but would be sorry to see it deleted if I’m just missing something. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Marie Davenport and conflicting sources

Hi all, if anyone has any advice about dealing with discrepancies in sources, that would be very helpful. I've done some editing on Marie Davenport and added a couple of sources. Another editor is also working on the article. I've summarised some discrepancies on the article's talk page. It relates to the circumstances around a reprimand by the International Olympic Committee. Could also do with thoughts about how to represent that incident as part of the subject's athletic career and trying to ensure the article is balanced, particularly from people more experienced than I am on sports articles. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

"10 years of helping close Wikipedia’s gender gap"

Thanks, Jami (Wiki Ed) for including us in your fine piece regarding Wikipedia's gender gap. We are glad and grateful to partner with Wiki Education Foundation in this important work. To the next 10 years! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course, Rosiestep! You know I adore the work y'all do (I'll include myself, on the rare occasion these days ;)), and I'm so grateful for groups like this doing incredibly important work. To the next 10 years! Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Jami (Wiki Ed) An interesting article which rightly presents some of the outstanding results of Wiki Ed and its associates. We are always pleased to welcome both instructors and students from the Wiki Ed community as we realize how much they can contribute, not only to articles but to general awareness of the gender-related shortcomings of the encyclopedia. In addition to the groups covered in the article, we should not forget activities outside North America such as Jessica Wade's initiative to cover women in science, events organized throughout the world by the Swedish authorities such as the recent editathon in Washington D.C., and the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Women/en Wiki Loves Women programme which has provided major incentives for improved coverage of women in Africa. Furthermore, there have been important initiatives concentrating on the versions of Wikipedia in other languages, e.g. WikiDonne and its associates, which have helped to identify women who deserve to be covered in the English version too. It might be wishful thinking at this stage but it would be interesting to see whether there is any interest from Wiki Education in creating partnerships with these and similar initiatives throughout the world.--Ipigott (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As a very new editor to Wikipedia, and this project, there was a strong hesitation not to respond but that isn't my nature. The desire in me for you to know the affect you have had on my short stay here, coupled with the simply phenomenal piece written, overruled my hesitations. The work that so many have done to not just bridge a gap but fill it in and close it is not lost on me. The first response I had was one of awe and humility as I saw and felt the impact many of you have made. The second was that of a fire kindled within me and a distinct call to action. Make A Difference! Thank you, Jami (Wiki Ed), for hearing that call and taking action. Thank you, Rosiestep, for hearing that call and creating this project. Thank you to so many others who heard the call and stood with this project through the years. We are still standing and, though the gap is wide, nothing can ever diminish or take away from the progress made and nothing will stop us from continuing. The call is still being heard and answered. Whether it is baby steps or leaps, the key is moving forward together in unity for a common good. The two of you, as well as most I have met here in this project, like Ipigott (whom I adore), exemplify that and your dedication to closing this gap is infectious. It breathes energy into us to keep pushing upward and forward to new heights and new frontiers. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Inspirational message, Tsistunagiska. Thank you for sharing. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Tsistunagiska!! You and so many people are making a world of difference, not just here on Wikipedia, but in the actual world! :) This space is such a lovely one for reminding us why we do it. Ipigott: I absolutely hear you and am extremely aware there are so many individuals and groups around the world making Wikipedia better! Since we're celebrating 10 years of Wiki Education's Student Program, where the students are in the US/Canada and primarily editing English Wikipedia, I did focus on ENWP and highlighting just a few groups doing incredible work. I certainly did not intend to convey that others aren't doing equally incredible work, especially all over the world and in other languages! We have partnered with other initiatives when the opportunity arose, and I can't say what the future will look like in terms of collaborating more closely with other groups and organizations (not because I won't say but because I don't know!). However, you may know that Wiki Education had to cut back our staff earlier this summer, and we're still at extremely limited capacity to do the work we've already committed to. I certainly hope that changes in the near future so we can explore other ways to engage with other Wikipedia/project communities. Thank you for engaging here and being sure to highlight others in the movement. Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Jami (Wiki Ed): I certainly did not intend to sound so critical. I just thought there might be additional opportunities for expanding the outstanding work Wiki Ed has been doing in North American by fostering collaboration with similar communities of instructors and students around the globe. On the basis of the model you have developed and the achievements you mention, it looks to me as if the Wikimedia Foundation might well be happy to provide support for such extensions, especially as they are keen to improve global coverage of Wikipedia. I certainly think it might be worthwhile bearing these possibilities in mind for future action. I'm not too sure how this could be arranged but others might have suggestions. As a first step, it might be useful to develop a presence on Meta.--Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott, Ah, I see! Primarily, other regional-based chapters and affiliations run education programs in their countries/languages. We do collaborate with them via the Wikipedia & Education User Group, and we've long collaborated with education leaders in dozens of other countries/regions, even before that user group existed. We'll certainly continue doing that work and sharing the resources we have (like the P&E Dashboard), but a lot of these groups are already doing innovative work with Wikipedia & Education (some were running education programs before we were!). Thanks so much for your support and kind words about the work we've been doing! Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Jami (Wiki Ed): Please excuse my ignorance in these matters and thanks for your explanations. Sorry to keep taking up so much of your valuable time but can you point me to some of these initiatives outside North America? I spend quite a lot of my time encouraging wider collaboration on initiatives bent on improving coverage of women in different versions of Wikipedia. As you may know, we are currently supporting research on improving statistics on progress on women's coverage through the Hamaniki project. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott: No need to apologize for asking valid questions! Here's a link to the User Group's page on Meta, where you can find some of the educational initiatives. I'm not sure how many have explicit gender gap projects that are active right now, but I'm certain some do (for example, I know the Wikimedia France team works closely with Les sans pagEs). Hope that helps! Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Jami (Wiki Ed): Thanks very much for this useful information. It certainly looks as if some of my suggestions have already been satisfied. As far as I can see, what still remains to be done is placing more specific emphasis on encouraging stronger participation of female students as editors in order to achieve better coverage of notable women in languages other than English. But as you say, some of the other Wiki Ed language groups are already treating this as a priority although this does not seem to be reflected in the reports on the Meta site. Nevertheless, it is promising to see that our WHGI statistics appear to reflect strong general interest in improving coverage of women in many different language versions of Wikipedia. What is less clear is the extent to which students are specifically involved and what proportion of the articles are unique new contributions rather than translations from English and other major languages.--Ipigott (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding Dungodung, Chair, Wikipedia & Education UG, in case he'd like to add anything to the conversation. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Ute Frevert

This is scheduled to be G13 deleted soon if no edits are made. Does anyone want to adopt it? ~Kvng (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the content was moved into article-space in April. Ute Frevert. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, thanks, I've cleaned that up ~Kvng (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Speed skating gender gap closed

Always nice to see a small milestone. This year I created over 500 articles about women speed skaters. There was a gender gap, but has now been closed (same amount men/women — see Category:Speed skaters by nationality). Also, I mainly created articles from early speed skaters, digging into old books and old newspapers. From all the Dutch women at Wikipedia for instance are now >33,3% born prior to 1950 (and not finished — see for example Template:Kortebaan speed skaters (women)) and many more early speed skaters than the Dutch Wikipedia. I will continue creating articles about speed skaters. So hopefully next year the gender gap is the other way around with double the amount of women ;) SportsOlympic (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Very good work, SportsOlympic. I've seen many of them as I've been adding wikidata items & sitelinks to en.wiki bios. Didn't know women's speed skatering, as a sport, had such a very long history, but e.g. Trijntje Pieters Westra (1783-1861). I commend you, especially, on taking the trouble to try to describe the woman, as well as sources allow; and ditto adding images, rather than doing cookie-cutter sports articles. A lot of hard work, but much appreciated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes wow, how remarkable! Job well done SportsOlympic! Innisfree987 (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Remarkable work, SportsOlympic! Cordless Larry (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed many of your contributions, SportsOlympic, while reviewing new articles but I had not realised there had been quite so many. I see that since the end of March, you have created 770 biographies, nearly all of them on women. That's a tremendous achievement. It's thanks to contributors like you that we are slowly catching up in some of the important sports sectors. Keep up the good work and let us know when you've reached your next milestone.--Ipigott (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Add my name to the list of congratulations, SportsOlympic. And I learned something - I didn't realize that speed skating had existed at least since the 19th century. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations SportsOlympic That's amazing work! SO COOL. (Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

Denelezh down

Is https://www.denelezh.org/ not working? I am using Google Chrome and for a few days it keeps saying ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC) @Envlh:--Ipigott (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, dead service; server not happy - https://twitter.com/denelezh/status/1315318842692898817 --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I've reached out to a couple of folks associated with Denelezh, asking for an update. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The server hosting Denelezh crashed a few days ago (short technical description: I noticed that Denelezh statistics were no longer updated automatically and that its hard disk was in read-only mode; I restarted the server, but it fails and goes in rescue mode; with Wikimédia France, we tried to solve the issue, but with no luck at the moment). We don't know when we'll be able to make the service available again (a complete re-installation may be needed). The good news is that I was able to make a backup of the data, so we'll be able to either make a complete re-installation of Denelezh, or in the worst case scenario (because it would take at least several weeks) reuse it on Humaniki. Cheers, Envlh (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hanif Al Husaini: Just as well Humaniki is on the way. It looks as if a prototype might be ready in December. In the meantime, we have WHGI and WDCM (with similar stats to Denelezh in the LH margin).--Ipigott (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Casey Calvert (actress) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Casey Calvert (actress) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Calvert (actress) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Notifying here, due to redlink turned to blue for pages:

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Film crew
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Film producers

Thank you, Right cite (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

default sort for a Pakistani name?

Does anyone here know the correct formatting of a Pakistani name? Specifically, I wrote a stub for Rabiah Jamil Beg. When I went to add her to the List of Pakistani journalists I realized that the names there were listed in a variety of ways (alphabetically). The List of Pakistani actresses seems to be alphabetical by what a westerner would consider first name. I'd appreciate any guidance. Thanks WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Pakistani name suggests the general form is a given name, sometimes a middle name, and a surname. I don't see anything on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists pointing to a Wikipedia preference for lists ordered by first name versus ordered by surname / family name, but I think we tend to the latter. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Generally the order is much the same as for English names, but certainly WP lists of Pakistani people seem often to use the alphabetical sequence on the first name rather than the family name. Watch out for Begum, which is usually a title rather than a name. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Tagishsimon and Johnbod. I am going to leave it as DEFAULTSORT:Beg, Rabiah Jamil. I will also add her to the list of Baigs. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Help with a draft (women in science!)

I wanted to introduce a new user to this WikiProject and also ask if someone could mentor her since she's newer to editing. The user is Iacornflake and she's working on the draft Draft:Carolyn Lawrence-Dill. Full disclosure, there is a conflict of interest here but Iacornflake is going about this the right way. She just needs some guidance when it comes to editing science biographies. She's very interested in editing science related articles and about women in science in particular, so I honestly couldn't post here fast enough to try and woo her to our awesome WikiProject!

Welcome Iacornflake! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

An article about a plant biologist too! I'll take a look. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Moved to article-space. Carolyn Lawrence-Dill. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks for the help and encouragement, folks! I'll do what I can to fix up that first submission, then get better engaged here. Yay! Iacornflake (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Woot!!! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

CC BY 3.0 license

I was reading the page about Louise Varèse and I found this notice: Collection: Louise Varèse papers | Smith College Finding Aids". findingaids.smith.edu. Retrieved 2020-07-14. This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 3.0 license. Out of curiosity, something changed in the last months? since what I was told when I was using the same sources (the Biographical content of the Finding Aids of Papers at university website) was that CC 3.0 wasn't allow on Wikipedia (only Public Domain was allowed, that I think is CC0). --Elisa.rolle (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Covered here. CC-BY-3.0 is very much allowed on EN Wikipedia and Commons. iirc Wikidata is CC0 only. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Maddalena Mariani Masi

I'm really not much of an article creator anymore, but, frankly, the creator of the title role of a notable opera lacked an article? Well, that cannot stand! Any improvements would be appreciated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 00:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Brodden

Hi, can anyone help out here? I had to delete this unsourced BLP, but I won't object if anyone re-writes it. Dennis Brown has helpfully found a few sources. See here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Keezy

DJ Keezy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (AfD)

• I just added a WIR template to this article so hopefully it shows up in the AfD section but if not here it is. If anyone has the time or wants to help search for sources then please do. The current sources are heavily local. You can also take part in the discussion. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate article – needs to be merged please

When searching Wikidata to link Jane Powell (stage actress) to the relevant QID, I discovered that an English Wikipedia article already exists in the name of Mrs Powell. The content of the new article needs to be incorporated in the 2015 article and then a redirect created. Oronsay (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Merged. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Many thanks! Oronsay (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Long, interesting article on Wikipedia

Those of you who have an hour or so to spare might like to spend it on What We Know And Can Agree On: Wikipedia At 20 by Simon Garfield which appeared on the Esquire site on 20 October. It includes a few interesting titbits from Katherine Maher on the need to expand coverage of women, e.g. "She is proud that women gather frequently for day-long editathons to improve this figure, and flags up the site’s recent focus on improving and expanding articles concerning women’s health and the history of the black diaspora."--Ipigott (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thank you!! That was a great read. It is so easy to lose hope and get discouraged. Katherine is right that Wikipedia tends to be brutal on new editors and while I agree that we need to maintain the integrity of encyclopedic content, we also need to be able to apply common sense and keep an open mind to change. There is a constant "war" between inclusionist and deletionist with a mix of "good faith" editors and vandals in-between. The one thing I love about this project is that it stays focused on a target and keeps its participants informed. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thank you for alerting us to this. My first impression was that I had no idea we were leaving behind such a noble and living project. My second impression as I read, was that we have all encountered the persnickety among us - or perhaps we are the persnickety mentioned therein :-) . But maybe the best take-away from that article is that all the Deceased Wikipedians have contributed nothing in vain - they all mattered, and their efforts live on. — Maile (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia @ 20

Those who enjoyed reading Garfield's article might also like to take a look at some of the items included in Wikipedia @ 20. Particularly pertinent to the interests of Women in Red is Toward a Wikipedia For and From Us All by Adele Godoy Vrana (AVrana (WMF)), Anasuya Sengupta (ASengupta (WMF)), and Siko Bouterse (Siko (WMF)). And our many librarians might like Wikipedia and Libraires by Phoebe Ayers (Phoebe) which among other things addresses "systemic bias". There'll probably be many more taking stock of Wikipedia's first 20 years between now and mid-January. Maybe we should start a list of those of interest to Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Also well worthwhile reading is Wikipedia Has a Bias Problem by Jackie Koerner (Jackiekoerner) with lots of creative suggestions, summed up by "If there is any hope for truly achieving the sum of all human knowledge, the next chapter in Wikipedia’s life needs to meaningfully address the inequities perpetuated by bias."--Ipigott (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I highly preface this by saying it is my opinion but I agree with Jackie that Wikipedia will have to directly address bias and inequality in coverage of specific topics (genders, races, religions), especially those from a historical context. There is a difference between righting a great wrong and acknowledging it exists while putting policies in place that allow for the inclusion of less covered subjects that otherwise would possibly be covered more today. There has to be enough coverage to create an article, I think we can all agree on that, but in discussions I have been involved in there are those who advocate for a more purely expert driven encyclopedia where no latitude is given to potential or existing articles regardless of the systemic bias the subjects may have or continue to face. They call it holding Wikipedia to a "higher standard". I literally had an editor say, in essence, if you want articles on women, women's sports or indigenous people, whom they acknowledge have and continue to face systemic bias, included or kept then change society first. Wikipedia only follows what the norms of society are at any given moment. Meaning because systemic bias has and does exist in society it is justified for Wikipedia to echo that systemic bias in its encyclopedia and policies. I find that to be dangerous ground to make a stand if that is the case. It has to be addressed eventually. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

For historical figures, one of the problems is digging up past records and ensuring they are accessible. Thanks to those of our editors who recognize the limitations of Google and similar search engines but know how and where to find useful sources, we are beginning to chip away at the root of the problem. We are also gaining more expertise in finding pertinent information in other languages which helps to move the current focus on the English-speaking world to other communities around the globe. But we still need to overcome the existing barriers to acceptance of primary sources, especially in cases where editors have no interest in promoting the individuals they are covering. The emphasis on secondary sources has its merits but as we all know, it also has serious limitations. Let's hope Women in Red will continue to combat unreasonable attitudes towards inclusion in the coming years. If we succeed, there is a good chance that women will slowly achieve their rightful place in the knowledge we are compiling on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

Maria Bakalova, currently a redirect.

• BBC
• Vanity Fair
• 2018 film Transgression (not Transgression (2019 film)), has birth year & a few more biographical details
• film released earlier this year, Last Call, has no article

Have not been able to find her on other-language Wikipedias using a Cyrillic-characters search, but someone who can read Bulgarian may well find more biographical info in that language. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Yimon Aye

Hello, anyone willing to have a look at the draft for Yimon Aye before I resubmit it again? Many thanks! Cheers, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Quaenuncabibis: Thank you for that article; promoted as Yimon Aye to save you having to resubmit. I gently remind you that you don't have to go through Articles for Creation; you can just move your drafts to article-space - or even start them in article-space. Or continue to go through the pain & pleasure of AfC. Note the category changes - yours were much too general. Should a WiR category-gnome wish to improve them, that would be ace. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Quaenuncabibis and Tagishsimon: Thank you for creating and promoting this article to mainspace. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon:, thanks for the promotion! Due to my COI I was advised not to move the articles myself to the article-space. That is why I opt for the "pain & pleasure AfC". ;) Then, you are right about the categories: Many thanks for the adjustments! I will be more specific in the futur. --Quaenuncabibis (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tsistunagiska:, thanks for you appreciation! --Quaenuncabibis (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Quaenuncabibis: COI noted. I've promoted all of your outstanding drafts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon:, many thanks indeed! I will keep writing! :) Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Featured picture report for Late October

There's four new images relevant to us. From Women in Red articles (both passing):

• 
  Pauline Gracia Beery Mack
• 
  Jeanette Scissum

From.... how the hell did her article only appear in 2016, and thus be relevant to our project?

• 
  Mary Jackson

And from "Potentially full of Women in Red" (now an FP):

• 
  Seated: Maria Carrara Verdi, Barberina Strepponi, Giuseppe Verdi, and Giuditta Ricordi. Standing: Teresa Stolz, Umberto Campanari, Giulio Ricordi, and the rest.

I suspect Verdi's adopted daughter, Maria Carrara Verdi (sources vary a bit as to her name thanks to marriage and adoption and all) is most likely to be relevant, possibly Giuditta Ricordi (Giulio Ricordi's wife) as well. Verdi's sister-in-law, Barbarina Strepponi doesn't appear to be that encyclopedically significant, but I may well be wrong.

As I haven't done this for a while, I'll remind everyone this is not a voting guide, it's meant to be informative, so that images can be distributed appropriately to help promote unjustly forgotten women. If WP:FPC is your thing, I don't want to block your participation there, but this isn't a canvassing tool, and should not be allowed to become such. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 07:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Fatima Al-Socotra

Hi All, I've started a draft for the poet Draft:Fatima Al-Socotra and I used google translate and Arabic sources (which I've done before for other women) BUT in this case, I'm a bit confused as to whether I've got her name right, as I've seen her elsewhere referred to as Al-Zahra Al-Socotra. I also have another question, about a specific source, which I put on the talk page Draft talk:Fatima Al-Socotra. I wondered if there was anyone with a better knowledge of Arabic than me who might be able to take a look? Thanks (Lajmmoore (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC))

Cindy Whitehead published, need history merge

Today I learned about merging histories and avoiding copy/paste. If anyone who has privs and knows how to merge histories could they please take a look at [2]? Thanks!

I copy/pasted from the draft, made my edits, and got it through AfC. I didn't know about the whole move/history merge thing and I'll do it better next time! Big thanks to Johano27109 for including so many great reliable sources in the initial draft, this made re-writing much simpler. Still lots more to add to this one over time I bet.

Also, I don't know much about the Talk page banners/flags/etc and which ones to add and how, if anyone wants to point me in the right direction I'd be grateful. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

History merged, thanks everyone! TheMusicExperimental (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

TheMusicExperimental just fyi, a history merge is a fairly complex process that requires admin tools, so you could not do it anyway. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dodger67, much appreciated! TheMusicExperimental (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Eyes on an AFC

Hi all, at the end of August I think, I made the mistake of using the AfC template when creating an article in draft space: Draft:Death of Naya Rivera. I then figured I would appreciate eyes on it anyway, and submitted it. Now, I know it can take a while but it's been a month and a half, or 2 months? And I do think the article is in fantastic shape, as well as appropriately project-tagged, so I don't see why it's not been accepted - so I'm here to ask if anyone who has time to read it can see something wrong with it that I might have missed. It's woman-focused and I know people at this project are often prepared to read through drafts :) I'm patient, but it's also in part been created because the section at the bio article was out of hand, others have worked on it, and if the bio is nominated for GA it would be helpful for the draft to be accepted ASAP so the bio can be trimmed. Kingsif (talk) 06:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif: Done. Interesting article. I see it had been queued for over a month. Certainly looks like a good candidate for GA.--Ipigott (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott there's quite a bit of content that is not directly related to the death and ensuing aftermath. It should be moved to the biography, if it is not already covered there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Unassessed articles

As a result of the efforts of Ser Amantio di Nicolao in June and July to include wp:WikiProject Women writers and wp:WikiProject Women in Music tags on all the appropriate talk pages, there is now a considerable backlog of unassessed articles relating to women. Thanks mainly to Rosiestep, a few thousand of the newly tagged Women writers articles have already been assessed (and often significantly improved) but there are still some 4,800 requiring attention. As for Women in Music, as far as I can see, no one has made any concerted effort to carry out missing assessments. As a result, almost two thirds of the articles remain unassessed. Of Women in Music's 33,077 articles, as of today 21,815 are unassessed.

Assessment is an important component of Wikipedia's quality incentives; not only does it provide an overview of improvement in different spheres of interest, it also gives individual editors feedback on how the articles they have created are progressing — sometimes thanks to their own efforts, often as a result of enhancements by other contributors. It seems to me to be particularly important for us to ensure assessment of all the articles in wikiprojects associated with women now that increasing attention is being given to gender bias. I'm happy to report that assessments have indeed been systematically made of virtually all articles in wp:Feminism, wp Jewish Women, wp:Women, wp:Women artists, wp:Women's History and wp:Women scientists. The only other major wikiproject on women requiring attention is wp:Women's sport in which over 7,000 or around 7% of the articles remain to be assessed; see Category:Women's sport articles by quality.

I appreciate that for many of you, assessment is far less attractive than content creation but from time to time, it would help if you could devote some of your editing time to assessment. In particular, if you are working on the improvement of existing articles, check out the talk pages and add any missing assessments. You may also have a chance to upgrade some of the assessments already given. You can find guidance under wp:Content assessment or the Instructions section in wp:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment. Those of you who are interested in devoting special attention to assessment may find it useful to use ORES or Rater, both of which automatically offer reasonable evaluation estimates which you can adopt in most, but certainly not all cases.

Let's see how we progress over the next few months. Happy assessment editing!--Ipigott (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, Ipigott. I love assessing articles! Hope some of you find enjoyment in this task, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo for new article White House images

I started an article on WWII vet and centenarian Millie Bailey. This article, [3], features an image of Bailey at the White House by the official WH photographer David Lienemann. I know all WH images are in the public domain but I do not know where to find the images from this visit. Any help is appreciated! TJMSmith (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Found this - https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/photos-and-video/photo/2015/05/president-obama-welcomes-vivian-bailey-oval-office --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This also - perhaps a screengrab. I'm not certain of the licence; presume it is PD, but. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/05/29/west-wing-week-052915-or-high-fives-everybody --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/copyright PD or CC3.0, I guess. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I think I will probably try a screengrab of that video. TJMSmith (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

#MedievalWiki

Hi All, In case people are interested, Medieval Wiki is running a week-long initiative starting this week, to add more women and improve content. There's crowd-sourced ideas on their project pages. It's run by @Medievalfran: and @Bethanymay:! Cheers Lajmmoore (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Lajmmoore: Thanks for letting us know. I see there are a number of red-linked women, unfortunately without sources.--Ipigott (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for spreading the word @Lajmmoore:! We do indeed have a whole host of red links on our to do list, and many pages that could do with improving. Extra suggestions very much welcome too! Medievalfran (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore: I've added the glad it worked out okay, good job! Wikipedia:WikiProject MedievalWiki/Wikidata Redlist to the WiR Redlist Index (diff). :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Update on gender imbalance per country

Hi! I was on a wiki-break when the Reducing gender imbalance meetup took place, but I'm glad it was done! I have moved the Gender imbalance per country table to the project and updated it. The meetup was noticeable in the statistics, specially in countries with a low number of articles, for example, Tuvalu female-to-male ratio changed from 5,6% to 7,0%, Togo 10,6% to 11,4%, Portugal, 14,7% to 15,3%, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 12,9% to 14,1%, Tonga 7,9% to 8,6%, Qatar: 2,7% to 2,9%. The gap actually got worse for Pakistan, since biographies about men are created at a far higher rate than women biographies. Good work everyone! :D --MarioGom (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom, Thanks for the update! I really enjoyed this challenge and would love to do it again. I've kept the list of the bottom 20 above my desk, and am working my way through as and when I can. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Submitted to AfC Yazmin Aziz (musician), Malaysian pop/r&b

Hey everyone, I have another page that I'm working on as a rescue from a failed article creation. I've done the basic setup for it and also outlined the subject's notability requirements in the associated draft talk page. I would love any feedback/edits you might have to offer: [4] TheMusicExperimental (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits everyone! I submitted this one to AfC this morning, fingers crossed. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Article is now live. Thank you all! TheMusicExperimental (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

New article on Jill Bonner — what happened to her?

Today I made a new article on physicist Jill Bonner, but the story of her life as described in the article tails off kind of inconclusively. She was listed as a professor of physics by the University of Rhode Island in their 1998–1999 catalog, and not included in the physics faculty listing (not even as emerita) in their 1999–2000 catalog. That's the last I can find out about her. If anyone has any ideas how to find out what happened to her then or later, I'd appreciate it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

She seems to have co-authored a paper in 2008. See here. And what about this?--Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Those two are actually from 1976 and 1986 respectively. I don't know why the links have different dates for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

At a guess, the anomalous dates may be the years when those documents became available online. Sifting through the Google results for uri.edu, I'm seeing a lot of documents in their "digital commons" that Google tags with their upload dates, not when they were published as journal articles. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Submitted to AfC: A Delay is Better (album by Pamela Z, works by women)

Somewhere in the list of WiR redlinks I saw that there was a request to get an article up for Pamela Z's (only) solo album A Delay is Better. Since that genre is absolutely my wheelhouse I have taken it on and made a draft [5]and Talk[6] for it.

I'd love any feedback, I especially wasn't certain which wikiprojects beyond WiR to include. I've made a statement about notability on the Talk page which is becoming my habit to help avoid the GNG/not-notable smackdowns. I haven't done a Works before so definitely open to insights there.

TheMusicExperimental (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the opening paragraph, where you bludgeon to death the idea that the album might not be notable, kinda works. Duly promoted. A Delay is Better. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

And normal reminder. You do not have to go through AfC. AfC is mostly for people who do not know that AfC can be avoided. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much Tagishsimon! I've found that with the AfC it's less likely to be immediately get smacked with Speedy Delete. I've been through a bunch of notability "conversations" in the past and I've adopted the technique of just getting that part out of the way and also listing it out in the Talk page. It's not pretty but it gets the thing into the world with the least drama. :) TheMusicExperimental (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Dilys Price heading for the front page as a DYK

Not only did MerielGJones write a great article about Dilys Price, it's heading for the front page as a DYK at midnight UTC on November 8! Congratulations MerielGJones! <3 -Yupik (talk) 05:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yupik Thanks for the feedback! Also to Ritchie333 for the the DYK idea. --MerielGJones (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Credit has to go to Yngvadottir for suggesting the idea to improve the article on my talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you to Ritchie333 and Yngvadottir too! :) -Yupik (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Fanny Mendelssohn peer review

I've put Fanny Mendelssohn up for peer review as I think it could be not far off GA quality....all comments welcome.--Smerus (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Smerus: It's coming along very well but I am intrigued by the huge number of compositions. Unfortunately the List of compositions by Fanny Mendelssohn does not shed much more light on them. Is it possible to provide more background, especially on how many of the unpublished pieces still exist and where they are held? It would also be interesting to know how many of the unpublished works have been performed and how they were received. And what about recordings? Maybe further info is available from "The Mendelssohn Project". I see from here that in 2009 there were plans to record all Fanny's music but can find no evidence that this was achieved. Indeed, activities seem to have ceased in 2009. Maybe Stephen Somary could provide further details. If you have already looked into all this, please excuse my curiosity.--Ipigott (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this Ian - can I copy it to the peer review page as others may also have input to your points?--Smerus (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Smerus: Of course, please include it there too.--Ipigott (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Ladies

Do we have a category (or catgories) for women who are or were entitled to use the title "Lady", by dint of a British honour, such as a knighthood, granted to their husband? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this Category:Wives of knights which is found in this parent category- Category:British women by rank TJMSmith (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Launching the #SheSaid drive on Wikiquote

Why is Graca Machel not on Wikiquote?

On the 20th October, at the Gender Gap panel for the Creative Commons Virtual Global Summit, |Wiki Loves Women's Anthere and Islahaddow launched the SheSaid campaign. The SheSaid drive is aimed at improving the visibility of women across Wikimedia projects by creating new or improving already existing Wikiquote entries spoken by notable women.

Why the SheSaid campaign? One reason is to balance the representation of gender in the entries of Wikiquote. The other is to show that women's quotes are less likely to be featured than men's. Here are a few statistics:

• On the English Wikiquote main page on 6th of Oct 2020, in the Selected people section... 29 men are featured and only 4 women (check out the screenshot on the right...)
• There are 233 women who have a featured article on either French or English Wikipedias... with no entry on the French Wikiquote check it out
• There are 141 women featured article on the English Wikipedia with no wikiquote entry check it
• There are 519 women listed on the French wikiquote check it and 3117 men listed check it out

Obviously, not all women say good quotes that would make a wikiquote entry worth it. Still...

How to get involved? SheSaid runs until the 20h of December 2020. We hope you will take part! Find out more and join the campaign here.

Islahaddow (talk)

Khanyi Dhlomo

This article is in a bit of a sorry state, and has been tagged {{db-spam}} twice, but I think there's a potentially decent article to get out of this with the help of someone with the right sources. Can anyone assist? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

A good read

I check up on a few living women who have articles here just to see if there are any changes or additions that can be made to keep the articles current. I happened to check on Kimberly Teehee today and found a transcript from an npr program from October 7th 2020. Anyone interested in indigenous women and the representation of indigenous people in the US might find it an interesting read. Here is the link to that transcript. Otsalanvlvi (We are all brothers and sisters) --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

November edit-a-thons from Women in Red

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181 Online events: New: Textile arts | Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thanks for however you came up with Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast. Off and on, I've been cleaning up and sourcing filmographies sporadically for years, learning as I go along about format and sourcing. Most of the nitpicking format stuff, I learned at FLC. I've been putting the WIR banner on their talk pages lately, not knowing if it was part of this effort here. Now it officially is. I worked for a number of years in the entertainment business, not as an entertainer. It was one of those awakening of consciousness experiences, in that I learned first-hand how those images we see up front are standing on a lot of shoulders of people who need acknowledgement. These women are so much more behind the scenes than that momentary entertaining image we the public see. — Maile (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Australian women's soccer players

Category:Australian women's soccer players bears watching. It is currently under attack by multiple WP:NSPORTS afficianados who usually keep women athletes out of Wikipedia by insisting that only players in the top leagues can have articles, but this time (because the league they play in is the top league in its country) are now insisting that only fully professional leagues (which don't exist) are good enough. I've unprodded a couple dozen of these this evening, but one is still under AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to sort this out, David Eppstein. Hmlarson has participated in related AfD discussions over the past few months, unfortunately with little success. I see Angela Fimmano is the one still at AfD. It seems to me to be something of a test case. We should keep monitoring the AfDs and Prods listed on wp:WikiProject Women's sport.--Ipigott (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott and David Eppstein As you know, the articles need to meet WP:GNG and this should always be referred to in the AFDs. Some editors prefer to remain hyperfocused on pointing to their WP:FPL essay -- which many of the same editors "manage". Some of the older W-League player articles I've seen don't appear to meet WP:GNG, which takes precedence over WP:FOOTY -- appreciate the extra eyes! Luckily, most of those articles are on Everipedia.

Instead of falling into the recurring game of DISTRACTION played by what I assume are easily-threatened -- and dare I say competitive! -- men in AFD, I'm using this as an opportunity to focus on EXPANDING articles about CURRENT W-League and Women's Super League players. Many of these leagues' games are now broadcast internationally with increased global news coverage. IMO, that's likely part of the drive to delete historical articles in part as distraction. There are a number of WP:WOSO articles I've nominated for good articles if anyone's up for what should be fairly smooth reviews: so far, Sam Kerr (AUS), Vivianne Miedema (NED), Nikita Parris (ENG), Denise O'Sullivan (IRE), and Crystal Dunn (US) are available. Hmlarson (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

cc SuperJew and Bring back Daz Sampson who are knowledgable in this area. Hmlarson (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it is definitely a silly systematic bias that a one-line stub about a player who was subbed on for 2 minutes in a so-called fully-professional league is not even tagged for deletion, but a stub about a player playing for multiple years in the top level league available to her in her country is sent straight to PROD. However, the only concrete thing to do right now is as Hmlarson said, to expand player pages and make sure they're covered and pass WP:GNG (example here for Grace Macintyre). --SuperJew (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

[edit conflict] @Hmlarson: As you know, this "articles must also meet GNG" standard is never applied to male professional athletes. Instead, participants in AfDs evaluate male athletes only by whether they have played in the top-level league for their sport. Insisting on it now only for the women athletes is a sexist double standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well aware and choose to spend my time in much more productive ways these days. But if you think you have the support needed to create a WP:WSPORTS notability guideline(s) to include top leagues and tournaments in general that won't be derailed by many of these same editors, let me know. I've been there and involved in many discussions in past years.

Alternatively, there are literally hundreds of current W-League player articles that need expansion with plentiful references available to meet WP:GNG as well as older, non-active players. Still good to keep an eye on AFD as their initial work here is intended to exhaust, distract, and set some kind of false precedent to potentially be used in other AFDs. This is what I've observed over the years. And yet, the world carries on with more coverage and investment in women athletes than ever before -- perhaps that has something to do with some editors' perception of loss of control and the need to compensate for the loss of control through mass deletion of old stubs. Appreciate your work. Hmlarson (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) This isn't correct David. Articles on male players from top divisions are deleted on a regular basis because the leagues in question are not fully professional (see this recent AfD on a player who had made over 50 appearances in the top division in Ireland). Whether it's the top division or not is irrelevant for WP:NFOOTBALL, only the professional status. Number 57 17:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You miss my point. The notability guidelines have been carefully targeted in a way that makes the top male leagues automatically notable and the top female leagues automatically non-notable. (Yes, one could argue based on GNG for their players instead, but most commenters at sports AfDs do not, instead using that rule to shortcut the decision. Which is what specialized notability guidelines are for, but...) In practice, the effect of this careful targeting is highly sexist. It's irrelevant whether those rules were deliberately chosen to be sexist (unlikely), whether they were chosen in a way that unconsciously reflected the biases of their drafters (possible), or whether the people drafting those rules were thinking only of how to raise the bar for male athletes and didn't even consider the effect the rules would have on women (I think more likely); what's relevant is the sexist consequences of those rules. We must either adjust those rules to be less sexist (by considering the top-level female league to be good enough, whatever its professional status) or dump them altogether. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It's been targeted in a way that reflects real-life notability. Simply playing in the top division of a sport does not make someone notable, otherwise we'd have articles on top division players of sports like field hockey, or articles on footballers playing in the top divisions of countries like Andorra and the Faroe Islands. What makes non-international sportspeople notable is the fact that there is interest in their sport, and the professional status of a league is a good indicator of the level of interest, as clubs derive income from media rights and attendances. Where the line in the sand has been drawn (the fully professional/semi professional divide) has been discussed many times, but no-one has managed to come up with a better one. You are welcome to suggest one at WT:NSPORT. Number 57 19:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi David, I think you're spot on but mind how you express yourself. In my experience some football editors are apt to become hyper-offended when they perceive the status quo being challenged. I know you're only pointing out the exceedingly obvious, but I did that too. Then I had to waste a chunk of my limited Wiki-time last week at ANI swatting away nonsense allegations of "bad faith" and "uncivil" behaviour! I agree something needs to change. I think ultimately we need to look at getting WP:FPL struck out altogether. Then we need to figure out a way to make these revolting deletion sprees socially unacceptable, while we put together our own essay-of-presumed-notability for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport articles. Basically we need to take WP:Football and all its systemic bias out of the equation. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't really think you are correct as to motivation, but as to effect it is much the same. France has the same issue, with the top women's league not "fully professional". The English one is, but only became so relatively recently, so older players, season articles & so on are attacked. Don't forget that any player in the national team should meet the SNG. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, but WP:FPL has always been a sham. Anyone who doubts this is invited to consider the case of the Scottish Championship. This is a ten-team league with two completely part-time semi pro teams, Arbroath and Alloa, and at least one other team - Raith - who have a mixture of full and part-time players (exactly like teams in the FA Women's Championship, W-League (Australia) and League of Ireland Premier Division). Remember the criteria is that "virtually" all adult players must be full-time professionals, but very clearly that is NOT the case in the Scottish Championship. I mean, if you fell in a barrel of piranhas and they ate 30%+ of your body mass, you wouldn't describe yourself as virtually intact. You'll also note that the sources supporting this league's inclusion are tabloid/local paper articles, nearly ten years old and actually contradict what they're supposed to support. This has been noted on several occasions over the years, but any time the sources are removed, they are aggressively edit-warred back in. Invariably this is accompanied by a veritable orgy of disingenuous 'whataboutery': "but it was professional at an unspecified point in the past", "One or two teams get big attendances so we should average out all the attendance figures and pretend this notional figure could support full-professionalism" "it gets exceptional newspaper coverage" "It's sometimes shown on BBC Alba" etc. etc. Obviously these claims are all variously false, irrelevant and/or idiotic but it just underscores what FPL was really all about. It's intended to give a spurious fig leaf of 'objectivity' to WP:FOOTBALL editors preferencing their favourite leagues - and excluding others (the foreign, the black, the female...) Pitiably, some of the page's gatekeepers have been doggedly carrying on like this for over a decade. We won't change that level of entrenched mindset now so it's only by appealing to those in the wider Wikipedia community that we'll bring about the needed change. We all know the line has to be drawn somewhere for notability, but like David says, let's draw it somewhere less overtly sexist. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)