Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

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

Scope

• The problems we’re trying to solve:

• Systemic bias towards women’s biographies;
• … and their works -- broadly construed -- such as books, paintings, etc.
• … across all languages

• Off-topic:

• Editor gender gap

What is it?

• WikiProject Women in Red, a community-led project, was launched this week.
• It is intended as a parent project for other projects in all languages whose scope covers women and their works, such as WikiProject Women Writers.
• WikiProject Women in Red is a collaborative space across languages to track all things related to content gender gap.

• creation of new articles, Featured Articles, Good Articles, DYK articles
• events
• news articles
• scholarly publications
• metrics
• hackathon challenges

• WikiProject Women in Red is a container project with links for blogs, conferences, contests, discussions (Wikipedia; Wikimedia), editathons, Inspire grantees’ projects, mailing-lists, meet-ups, newspaper articles, scholarly articles, social media campaigns, workshops, etc.

Wikidata will be used to manage the project because of its size and scope.

• We hope to collaborate with international festival organizers (example: Litquake).
• A global community-run project:
• In addition to needing editors to write the articles, several key volunteer positions have been identified: Data Coordinator; Promotions/Events Coordinator; Lead Coordinators for each language.
• We hope to establish a teaming arrangement with the Wiki Education Foundation as we believe university students are important to this endeavor. We would like to build on the education outreach efforts described by user:Kruusamägi (Wikimania submission: Possibilities for university cooperation: Estonian example) “Every academic year more than 500 articles on Estonian Wikipedia are created as part of local cooperation with universities.”
• We will seek out the expertise of WikiProject X, a project dedicated to improving WikiProjects, in order to create an appealing work space.
• Work together with the Chapters
• Build on Wikimedia’s “Address the gender gap/FAQ“
• Consider the creation of a Wikimedia User Group

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: https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10152617

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] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_to_the_Moon [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Summary_14th_to_28th [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_metrics_and_activities_meetings/2017-03 [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates/7_April_2017_-_Update_12_on_Wikimedia_movement_strategy_process

Margaret Hamilton

Margaret Hamilton, who does not fit into any of this month's special categories.

Do I need to apologise for coming back by doing this? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden you never have to apologize for having a real life. Glad to have you back! SusunW (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Welcome back!!! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I look forward to further improvements to our images, perhaps also some of those on this month's pre-20th century women.--Ipigott (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back, Adam Cuerden! Always glad to see you around here. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That must be Margaret Hamilton (publisher), since there are pictures of two of the others, and the fourthfirst one wouldn't be in a 20th-century suit. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Margaret Hamilton (scientist) standing by piles of her source code, as portrayed in her article. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC).

Quite. Printouts of code are a lot less seen nowadays, so not surprising you didn't recognise it for what it is. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Afraid the next one will be a bit - I'm doing Ethel Smyth one of my heroes, but it's a major project. RosiestepIpigot Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, do tell. Is it the Sargent drawing? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The photograph, actually. Lots and lots of little black spots. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

And all over her hair, too. That looks like a lot of work to fix. Thanks for the efforts. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

World Women Contest

Just to let everybody know I've secured $4025 to run Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest, aiming to see articles created on every country on the planet. I believe that this contest could potentially create a lot more articles than normal during the month it will run, probably September or October. I'm planning on keeping the rules simple, pure new article creation, minimum 1kb readable prose, and no unsourced paragraphs and I'm hoping to get a bot coded to perform those standard checks and alleviate massive amounts of time running it. I have some further plans and ideas on where to go after that but I think for now let's just see what such a contest can produce. Naturally we'll need to significantly boost the missing articles bank and expand it to every country to prepare for the contest.

I know there's a lot of editors within the women group who don't like contests or don't think that they should be used for women articles but I see it simply as more of an editathon with rewards for hardworking individuals and a way to attract more contributors who might then potentially contribute more women articles long term. The plan is to allocate a $15 prize to whoever creates the most articles for every country. The default prize will be an Amazon voucher to buy books but I know some countries don't have mailing service so I will be flexible. If people win enough then I will be handing out paid for subscriptions which people want. The winner of the contest will be the person who creates the most articles for the most countries, all to the expected minimum length and quality standard. If we could start to generate interest and preparation for this contest I would appreciate it, we have all summer. I propose we create Wikipedia:ContestBot and find somebody to programme a bot which can be employed to patrol the contest pages when people submit articles. Later contests could/should also focus on destubbing and improving quality of existing article, but I think for now let's focus on pure creation and see how many articles can be produced in a one month contest. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I see this as an important step in the right direction. Whether or not editors are keen to receive prizes for their efforts, I'm sure many of us will be keen to participate in creating new articles and assisting in promoting the contest(s). It would be good to draw up some basic ideas about the scope of the contest and the dates it will run before the end of the month so that we can let as many people know about it as possible before the summer break. It's just the kind of new incentive we need to encourage more concerted efforts on the creation of women's biographies at a time when interest in Women in Red is beginning to lag.--Ipigott (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You know I'm in. I loved Awaken the Dragon and Africa Destubathon. Prizes are fun, I've enjoyed them, thank you, but I really just like to see lists of new/improved articles building and people working together in a focused way. - Penny Richards (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Great, I enjoyed seeing your articles coming in for the contests too! Yes, it will be interesting seeing articles done on some countries which are less popular on here, with a prize allocated to all 195 countries it should see content produced for everywhere. If we could raise an extra $500-1000 we could also have a prize for every women's occupation so the contest would also likely see a broad range of women's topics produced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

If some people within this project don't want their prizes we can always set up a Book Fund where people who need books can request books and we use the funds to buy them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm keen on creating women's biographies so count me in. Some questions: --Rosiestep (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Will the contest be accepting articles in any language, or English only? Iberocoop, CEE Spring, and Wiki Asia Month have annual women's contests in multi-language so those participants might be a great group to recruit but they write in lots of languages so that's the thing.
2. For clarity... Is "1kb readable prose" the same as 1,000 characters? If yes, that's very doable, e.g. somewhere between Stub and Start class.
3. It would be good if you have at least a draft page up before July 5th (WikiWomenCamp, Mexico City) to make it easy to promote at that event. I will also generate interest at WikiConference North America (August, Montreal), Wikimania (August, Montreal), Wikimedia Diversity Conference (October, Stockholm).
4. Just FYI, I heard that the UN#HerStory event was successful in terms of content creation because it occurred in August, when a lot of northern hemisphere people are off work and have time to write; but that might be too soon for your purposes.

Yes, 1000 characters readable prose. In my experience sometimes it's difficult writing a 1500 char article on say a minor sportswomen off the cuff, 1000 char is a reasonable starter length with some sourced facts. Of course people can add a bit more if they want. We can always host contests at a later date to expand articles anyway and include destubbing. For this though I want to max out new content and see what can be done in a month. Any language will be tricky (as the bot will need to register entries and it will make it tricky with multiple pages on other wikis as well), but we could potentially involve Spanish and French wikipedias.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll definitely write women's bios for such an effort. Count me in. SusunW (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I just popped over to read my email and see that this contest grant (and the 9 other awarded grants) are being talked about on Wikimedia-l. So the promotion has already started. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

"Contest toolkits and prize funds https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Contest_toolkits_and_prize_funds Led by a prolific English Wikipedian, Dr.Blofeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dr._Blofeld , this project aims to equip prospective contester organizers with toolkits and design ideas, enabling them to customize their own campaigns. In addition, the project will include a large contest to boost the geographic diversity of representation of women on English Wikipedia.[3] [4]"

Thanks for the links Rosie and support Susun. Yes I'm intent on a contest which can be run fairly easily and which can be replicated by others, particularly on other wikis and something which Women in Red can copy and potentially use to work for different women's occupations at a later date. For now though let's jsut focus on one contest. Miyagawa and Cwmhiraeth might be interested, though I know it isn't a subject which Cwm writes about. If we can start spreading the word around anyway I'll add a participants section on the contest page so people can start signing up. I'd be up for holding it in August but we're going to need a lot of work drawing up big enough lists. Countries like US, UK and Germany etc might have more bios than Burundi or Vanuatu, $15 isn't set in stone for every country, depending on the missing article bank the prizes might be adjusted to give more to the countries which might have more competition. We'll find a way to work it anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Sign up here if you're interested in contributing towards this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Will you be creating more Wikidata-generated lists for other countries, and maybe for other universities? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep, count me in. I haven't been doing much writing lately, with the exception of a couple of articles for last month's Women in Sport (and that was inspired by the work in the Wales contest from last year). So this is just the sort of thing to re-spark my interest. Miyagawa (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I am so in! I'm not sure how much time I'll have that time of year but will definitely give it a go. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld: Can you direct us to a bot which checks the length of an article so that we can establish when we have reached 1,000 characters? I believe other contests have advertised these but I can't remember where they are. It would be good to have a link from the contest page.--Ipigott (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Rosiestep: While I fully support extending the coverage of WiR to wikis in other languages, I think we should be careful about replicating contests for other languages at this stage. I suggest we try to get the very best out of the English-language contest first, working as intensively as possible over a one-month period. If all goes well, we can then think about extensions with suitable funding for other languages.--Ipigott (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if there is one currently operational, but I believe Asia Month used one, perhaps Rosie can ask about that. If not we'll have to ask one of the experienced bot coders to create ContestBot or something. BTW I've started on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest/Missing articles, helped needed, I think it'll be much more convenient building one list. I have a feeling that due to uneven missing content by country we might have to rethink the structure and perhaps group into sub regions of the world and give higher prizes combined.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It'd be really useful for this if some of the redlink lists could get fleshed out somehow as well - I'm usually a politics editor, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Politics is looking very sad right now. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It's going to be a huge task to compile lists of red links for all the countries of the world, especially if we are to find names which are sufficiently well referenced to support articles. The Wikidata lists are useful for the non-English speaking countries which already have a reasonable presence on Wikipedia but there are many small countries where it is difficult to find notable women apart from those who have gained a name in sports. Writing articles of 1,000 characters or more on those is not going to be easy. Maybe, as you suggest, we should think about grouping some of the countries together, particularly the small island communities.--Ipigott (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a population minimum could be set? Anything below a certain limit either gets grouped with a larger country or with other smaller countries until the population minimum is hit? It's not even just the islands - I figure that you'd want to group Vatican City with Italy, for example. Just be aware of certain political sensitivies about particular groupings. While I wouldn't complain about grouping Gibraltar with Spain (it'd be for the purposes of calculation bonuses after all), I'm sure that you'll get at least a couple of irritated British people complaining. Likewise rather than grouping the Falkland Islands with either Argentina or the UK, I'd simply group it with the other Atlantic Ocean Islands and Island chains. I could work up a list of potential combinations if you like. Miyagawa (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

My two cents, The Caribbean should probably be a single area and encompass the CARICOM countries of Latin America, i.e. Belize, Guyana and Surinam, as well. The biggest drawback to that is that Wikidata lists, which sometimes have Dutch, French or Spanish-Caribbean entries, will rarely include the Anglo-Caribbean and tons of notable people of the former British colonies are not on WP. They should not be linked with Latin America, as most of those countries are far bigger and sourcing is not equivalent. (Would that the OUP Dictionary on the Caribbean could be made into a red list, but I shall just work my way through it.) I'd also love to see some kind of link like the Art from the Collection of the Met editathon which preloads a template with sections and a RS on the red list. I have zero idea how they did that, but it is a really cool idea and makes creating an article much easier. SusunW (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind clustering together sub regions but I think a whole continent might be too big. I suppose we could split the Caribbean into north and south though, two parts. Either way I'm still going to need help with further developing the lists.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll be getting the grant in two installments and unfortunately the first part won't be enough to cover the prizes. The second half will be paid in October so I think it's probably best we run it in October so people can get their prizes at the end rather than waiting a few months. As long as it's all done by the end of the year. In the meantime who shall we approach for a bot? @Rosiestep: did you mention the contest to Kirill and the others and the potential merging of contests BTW?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld I very much like it being in October. That leave us to maintain the ideas board topics of Canadians / Indigenous Women in August and Latinas in September. I can't help you on the technical stuff. As you know, that is way outta my league. SusunW (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Susan, yes gives us more time to prepare as well.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC on banning red links relating to people

There is a basically unadvertised RfC going on right now into potentially banning red links for persons on Wikipedia. Might be of interest to people here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Thanks for bringing our attention to this one. I'm pleased to see there is strong support for keeping red links on people.--Ipigott (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible new source?

See this book: Notable American Women. Not sure if everyone on here is already on Wikipedia.... 223.227.96.107 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Listing just 7 women born after 1900, note that this book is all about pre-20th century women, which is this month's focus. 223.227.97.23 (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Women's March on Portland -- collaborate?

Women's March on Portland

Hello! I've worked hard on the Women's March on Portland article, but I've stretched myself a bit thin lately and I am struggling to finish expanding this article using the 16 sources found here. I could really use a little bit of encouragement to finish this expansion and promote the article to Good status. Are there any project members who are willing to read this article, then take a look at one or more of these 16 sources to see if they can be incorporated into the article to any capacity?

I'm comfortable taking on the good article review, or co-nominating if someone is interested, but my main goal here is just to integrate as many sources as possible beforehand. As an added bonus -- this article is LGBT-related, so work would also be in support of WiR's ongoing LGBTQ campaign and the Wiki Loves Pride collaboration. Sorry if I come across as lazy, but really I've been working quite hard on-wiki lately and I could use a hand here, if anyone's interested! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The article seems to be coming along quite well. I am nevertheless surprised to see no mention of the dispute about an amount of over $20,000 which came in from sales of tee-shirts.--Ipigott (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this link, and for your improvements to the article. I'll add this source to the talk page for future expansion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Dispute over lead sentence of trans woman page

There is a dispute over the lead sentence on the trans woman page; see talk page discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Doris Frankel

I want to get Doris Frankel ready for DYK, but I'm having trouble finding sources. Just seeing if anyone would be able to help and/or want a DYK credit. SL93 (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I just added a few references and links, with a few extra sentences for length too. - Penny Richards (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. SL93 (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

June Julian

Would anyone here mind having a look over at draft:June Julian? It has been declined at afC twice, was then accepted but later moved back to draft for some reason. Recently it has been resubmitted by a completely uninvolved editor. It would greatly help if someone familiar with the subject matter could tell once and for all whether the subject is notable, and add the required sources, if any are available. 223.227.119.216 (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Will look! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Judith Palache Gregory

Judith Palache Gregory is up for deletion. Was just created for Wiki Loves Pride. Take a look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Good resource

A good resource for potentially notable women is the Who's Who Women of America series. My local library has multiple volumes, but they are for reference only so I can't check them out. It's still a good resource for me and I may have to see how much they cost. SL93 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Vauhini Vara

Journalist Vauhini Vara is up for deletion at AfD here. Netherzone (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Mother-daughter-granddaughter trios?

I noticed yesterday that the woman I wrote about, Wadad Makdisi Cortas, had a daughter Mariam C. Said and granddaughter Najla Said who already had articles. I imagine this isn't too uncommon, but now I'm interested. Anyone know other examples of mother-daughter-granddaughter trios who all have wikipedia articles? (I'd exclude royalty, where the notability is a family thing.) - Penny Richards (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of that combination, but I know of mother Adelaida Semyonovna Simonovitch, sister Valentina Serova (composer), daughter Nina Simonovich-Efimova. SusunW (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Billie Lourd/Carrie Fisher/Debbie Reynolds comes to mind... —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

ETA Mae Costello belongs at the head of this 4 person list: / Dolores Costello / de:Jaid Barrymore / Drew Barrymore. Jaid does not have an article on English Wikipedia, but she has one on 5 other Wikipedias. --Krelnik (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hm, maybe this one doesn't work quite as neatly--Jaid isn't the daughter of Dolores, she's the daughter-in-law, I think? But wow, you've found a lot of other good ones! - Penny Richards (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, you're correct. Ah well. I was surprised I didn't find more paths through the Barrymore family, there's a ton of them. I keep finding potential good redlinks in these searches. For instance, Ann Richards has a granddaughter Lily Adams who is a press secretary for Kamala Harris but who doesn't have an article yet (might be WP:TOOSOON but I bet she'll merit one eventually). --Krelnik (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I was hoping that might happen, finding more "potential good redlinks"--it makes sense to look in the company of women who are already known notables, eh? Penny Richards (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Marie Curie/Irène Joliot-Curie/Hélène Langevin-Joliot --Krelnik (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, excellent examples so far! Thanks, keep them coming. Penny Richards (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Also here's another trio: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Harriot Eaton Stanton Blatch, and Nora Stanton Barney. Penny Richards (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This kind of thing is Wikidata's strength. There are probably hundreds or thousands, we could even look at longer generation chains. Here is a quick query that checks for Wikidata items for women that have both a mother and daughter, but not yet whether they all have articles.--Pharos (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Another one: Giada De Laurentiis, Veronica De Laurentiis, and Silvana Mangano. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Aha, found a four-parter! Agnes E. Meyer, Katharine Graham, Lally Weymouth, and Katharine Weymouth. Penny Richards (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Caroline Ingalls / Laura Ingalls Wilder / Rose Wilder Lane --Krelnik (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And a five-parter: Elsie Fox, Paula Fox, Linda Carroll, Courtney Love, Frances Bean Cobain. Penny Richards (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I found a four-parter, "American royalty"... Rose Kennedy / Eunice Kennedy Shriver / Maria Shriver / Katherine Schwarzenegger --Krelnik (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

These are really cool! SusunW (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Easier to do with nobility, perhaps? Here's one: Elizabeth Cheney (1422–1473), Elizabeth Tilney, Countess of Surrey, Elizabeth Boleyn, Countess of Wiltshire, Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth I of England, and here's another: Beatriz Pereira de Alvim, Isabel of Barcelos, Isabella of Portugal, Queen of Castile, Isabella I of Castile, Catherine of Aragon, Mary I of England. Try starting with Anne, Princess Royal! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Another four-parter Anna Hall Roosevelt / Eleanor Roosevelt / Anna Roosevelt Halsted / Eleanor Roosevelt Seagraves --Krelnik (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Another Kennedy four-parter: Janet Lee Bouvier / Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis / Caroline Kennedy / Rose Schlossberg --Krelnik (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Another arts/show-business four: Agnes Boulton / Oona O'Neill / Geraldine Chaplin / Oona Chaplin --Krelnik (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Multiple paths through the Chaplin/O'Neill clan: Agnes Boulton / Oona O'Neill / Josephine Chaplin OR Agnes Boulton / Oona O'Neill / Victoria Chaplin--Krelnik (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Another showbiz trio: Priscilla Presley / Lisa Marie Presley / Riley Keough --Krelnik (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

More music and I'm done for the day: Maybelle Carter / June Carter Cash // BOTH Carlene Carter and Rosie Nix Adams --Krelnik (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Dorothy Howell Rodham / Hillary Clinton / Chelsea Clinton. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Show business family in Mexico: Silvia Pinal / Sylvia Pasquel / Stephanie Salas (found via List of show business families) --Krelnik (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Show business family in Spain: Matilde Muñoz Sampedro / Pilar Bardem / Mónica Bardem. (Mónica is Javier Bardem's sister). --Krelnik (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Show business again: Maureen O'Sullivan / Mia Farrow / Soon-Yi Previn --Krelnik (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Found an interesting one myself, a family of Hopi potters: Nampeyo and her great-granddaughter, Dextra Quotskuyva, have articles. But the two intervening generations of potters, Annie Healing and Rachel Namingha, both appear on cursory search to be fillable redlinks. So there are at least four generations, potentially, there. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Also Nampeyo's daughter Fannie and granddaughter Elva, both potters. And both Elva and Dextra have daughters who are potters...don't know if they cross the notability threshhold, but it might be worth checking out. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Another set of artists - Pablita Velarde, Helen Hardin, and Margarete Bagshaw, all painters. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sophia Parnok

Looks like the previous thread on Parnok has been archived and I have no idea if I post on it if it will show up or not. I think I have expanded it sufficiently for GA, but would really appreciate copy editors giving it a once over before it is submitted. Obviously, I'd like to get it nominated before the month is out. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely that any photos of her various lovers can be used, since Commons does not even have details on the 2008 copyright changes for Russia to determine what may now be in the PD. But, that being said, if anyone can find pertinent images on commons, that would be great! Pinging those expressed interest earlier, but any help would be appreciated @Another Believer, Megalibrarygirl, Penny Richards, and Rosiestep: SusunW (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, and for your work on this article! I went ahead and bumped the quality assessment up to B-class. I'd support a Good article nomination, and you might also consider requesting a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. I always do this before nominating an article for Good status. Sometimes the GA review gets picked up before the copy edit is picked up, but either way, getting a copy edit from the Guild is never a bad thing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll look for some images, SusunW Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Megalibrarygirl. Another Believer I have never used the guild. Had one article I collaborated on sent there and it came back with multiple misspellings and grammar issues. Maybe it was an isolated incident, but I am leery now. SusunW (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I've caught a few errors introduced by the Guild before, but overall, edits have been constructive. Submitting a request is not required, I just think it is a nice step to take in conjunction with a Good article nomination. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, SusunW, I didn't find any new photos. I was hoping maybe on Flickr and Google image search since we seem to get different results, but no luck. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl not to worry. Thanks for checking! I found photos of almost all of her lovers (even a photo of Maria Maksakova in Almast) but none of them can be loaded to commons per my contacts there. So, I think we have what we have. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated the article, so that it was at least in the bin for PRIDE month. Not sure how long it will take before it is picked up, but it's pending at any rate. SusunW (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		File:60C0074BA4FF-1 Джемма Халид.jpg "Women in dance" "Women in music" "Women from India"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Adele Gilani

Need some help to expand and find some more and better sources for female abstract artist Adele Gilani who is currently at AFD and in danger of being deleted. Please help with sourcing if you can.Thanks. Antonioatrylia (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Christina Gerhardt

This woman has created an autobiographical article sourced only to her university webpage, but also writes as a journalist "Tina Gerhardt" and looks possibly notable - anyone interested in upgrading the article? PamD 08:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence

Hello, I'm a Wikipedian in Residence at the Auckland War Memorial Museum in New Zealand. I've on a wee 5 week placement here (3 weeks to go!) and in that time I'm trying to get as much information on female artists that is hidden away in our collection onto wikipedia. I'm aiming to make at least one stub article each day or add more resources and links to existing pages. As I'm new to Wikipedia it's been a bit of a slow start but I'm trying to make up for it now! If you are at all interested in what I'm doing or would like to contribute suggestions of artists or editing wisdom you can find out more on our project page Wikipedia:GLAM/Auckland Museum. I've looked at the red lists attached to your page of New Zealand artists and working off that as well as suggestions from curators at my museum. Thought I'd introduce myself here to let you know what I was working, thanks! Susan Tol (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Some of the articles on female artists are very poorly sourced and improvements would be appreciated. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC).

Indeed - and I'm looking forward to your work, as New Zealand art is a field about which I know very little, I'm afraid. (Begins and ends at Rita Angus.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Good to have someone in New Zealand with such a keen interest in documenting women. You've already done a good job on Annie Bonza and I see there are more in the pipelne. If ever you need any help, please drop me a line.--Ipigott (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking forward to chatting with you! --Rosiestep (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I know little about New Zealand, but if you need help, feel free to ping me and I'll try. SusunW (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Steven Pruitt in Time as one of the 25 most influential people on the internet

Well done Ser Amantio di Nicolao. This is indeed a great honour, especially as you are also one of our most productive editors. The article also correctly informs us that you have "personally written new articles on 212 influential women to help correct Wikipedia’s gender imbalance". Great publicity for our efforts.--Ipigott (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

As a footnote, I see there are quite a few names in the article, including some of the women, who do not yet have biographies on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe it!!! Ser Amantio mentioned alongside Kim Kardashian ;-)!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao - This is so amazing! Congratulations!!! I think it could be a life-changing moment for you and I hope it's all good stuff to come. You have done so much and to be recognized in this way is important. Proud to be a friend of yours. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Who knew all those times I was asking for category help, I was writing with one of Time's notables ;) SusunW (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

SusunW (talk · contribs) Don't worry - I'll try to remain my own humble little self. :-)

Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) That is, I admit, more than a little surreal.

Rosiestep (talk · contribs) To quote Newton: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the sholders [sic] of Giants". I am but one of many...a lucky one, perhaps, but still one. You...all of you...do incredible work. I mentioned WiR for a reason, when interviewed: I think this is a perfect example of what can happen when Wikipedia works at its best, and that's a big part of the reason I've chosen to continue to support it with my efforts. I've had a couple of people tell me that they're sorry there's no picture in the article, and I'm not. For one thing, I'm not very photogenic :-); for another, this is a collaborative effort, and I'm only one piece of that.

I think most of you know by now that I sign off on a lot of my talkpage messages with "Keep up the good work, and happy editing!" That's not a throwaway line - I mean both parts of it equally. Especially the second part - this should be a happy place. Usually, it is...I strive to keep it so. And so do you (y'all). So, really, I'm the one who ought to be tipping his hat to the rest of you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hadn't even noticed there wasn't a photo and wouldn't blame you anyway because some people don't like to be identified on the Internet as there's all sorts of stalking freaks and weirdos!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I am also a strong supporter of the "Happy Editing" approach. WiR does indeed appear to provide an environment where we generally manage to avoid unjustified aggression. When it does occur, we seem to be quite effective in explaining that it is simply not constructive. The overall results can be seen by reviewing the various discussions on our talk pages. I'm glad to see that one of the most influential people on the internet is also working in this direction. Keep up the good work!--Ipigott (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, couldn't agree more - great plug for Wikipedia in general, and this group in particular. Happy editing indeed! Jane (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Dr. Blofeld, Ipigott, and Rosiestep: My heartiest congratulations to Ser Amantio di Nicolao for being on TIME magazine. An honour to be a fellow Wikipedian editor.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Referencing

I'd love to translate articles on Canadian women from French, but every article I click on lacks references. Is there any secret for newbies to the project, or is it just translate, then look for sources to back up the translation? (Are there any lists of women who aren't on any Wikipedia at all? It may be easier to start from scratch, rather than dig up sources for another's writing.) -- Zanimum (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Zanimum I would suggest that sources should be found before you start writing. If articles are unsourced, they are likely to be taken to articles for deletion. Some say the easiest way to learn is to source other people's articles. I am usually a start from scratch writer, but I always make sure that I have at least 4-5 sources from reliable national newspapers, books or academic journals before I start. SusunW (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Zanimum It would be nice if you could create some articles about Canadian women artists in the Canadian top museums, or perhaps Canadian women art collectors who donated top works to those museums. Painters and paintings tend to be well-received on Wikipedia, but we are missing articles especially in the areas of sculpture (public art), decorative arts (textiles, glass, porcelain), and defunct art societies, galleries or museums. Without checking I am sure there are several notable enough for Wikipedia in any language. Jane (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Zanimum: It's good to see that such an experienced Wikipedian is taking an active interest in WiR. SusunW is quite right that reliable secondary sources should be included even in translated articles but I think part of the problem with the French wiki is that articles, especially the older ones, often list sources under "Liens externes" rather than as inline references under "Notes et réferences". Sometimes they also include a useful bibliography. When I "translate" (or rather "recreate") biographies on women for the English wiki, I always start off by examining all the various sources and links in the foreign-language article to see whether they justify an article in English. In addition, I search for other relevant material both in English and in the language in question, also specifically looking at sources in published books. I see you have been on Wikipedia since 2003 and that you have created 1,119 artilces -- so you must have a pretty good overview of everything that's going on here. Nevertheless, you might not be aware that we have various lists of redlinks including those by nationality via Wikidata. If you look through the one on Canada, you'll find a large number of French Canadian women with reasonably sourced articles in French and sometimes even in other languages. Why not try to make a start on some of these? If you run into any problems, I would be happy to help you along. Bon courage!--Ipigott (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to start from scratch, you'll find hundreds of women not yet on Wikipedia in the Dictionary of Canadian biography/Dictionnaire biographique du Canada. I made a quick and dirty search of the French version on "femme née" and turned up quite an interesting list. You can of course be much more specific.--Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Another useful approach for me starting from scratch is to look at a major national newspaper's obituaries. A woman who receives a substantial obituary in an important newspaper has a good chance of being notable enough and having good sources. I'm often surprised by how many women with long obits in, say, The New York Times in the 1970s, don't have Wikipedia articles yet. Good luck! Penny Richards (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

By the by, we will be focusing on Canadian women as one of our topics in August. Spanish WP often has no sources either. I got really frustrated trying to find sourcing for many of the statements made and decided that for me, recreating the article with what could be substantiated was better. But, as I said, some do it differently. SusunW (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

My own approach tends to be closer to this one. I tend to do a line-by-line translation, stopping whenever I get to a reference and checking it. If there's a substantial amount of text for which the reference doesn't exist, or if the link is dead, I'll just leave that out, unless it sounds un-suspect.

Worse comes to worst you can just start an English-language article from scratch using the sources available. I've done that, too. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Current sporting seasons > Football (soccer) 2017

A request for comment has been initiated related to the inclusion of women's football/soccer leagues in the Current Events portal. Input is welcome:

• Portal talk:Current events#RfC about Current sporting seasons > Football (soccer) 2017

Hmlarson (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Authority control

I'm confused about how authority control works. I added the template to Adel Heinrich, but I don't know the next steps. SL93 (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Technically, you are supposed to not have to do anything. Except, it doesn't seem to work on lots of women. You can manually input it and then a bot will fix it in Wikidata. I checked VIAF and found her, I know it is her because the birthdate when you pull up the records matches. Then I input {{Authority control|VIAF=67593154|ISNI=0000 0000 8254 9427}} and save. SusunW (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I've taken to just entering the information in the corresponding Wikidata entry myself whenever I start or improve an article. Funcrunch (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, SusunW. Funcrunch, I can't seem to figure out how to edit Wikidata. SL93 (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@SL93: I went ahead and edited the Wikidata entry for Heinrich. I find it pretty straightforward to use (though it took some practice); maybe someone has a link to a tutorial? Funcrunch (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

SL93 I never could figure out how to edit Wikidata directly either. There is a gadget you can install Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 12#Gadget for facilitating data entry to Wikidata for new Wikipedia articles which will make a set of data entry items appear under "tools" on your left-hand sidebar. If you click on the one that says WEF:Person you can make additions, corrections and save information easily. SusunW (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, the Library of Congress seems to think Heinrich is male... Funcrunch (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

One of the reasons I installed that gadget and make entries for my women's biographies. Setting gender to female helps track our stats.SusunW (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That's weird. A man in a women's encyclopedia (International Encyclopedia of Women Composers). I'm pretty sure she's not a man. SL93 (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Her full name is Adel Varna Heinrich. The various details in this and this clearly confirm she is a woman. Even the LOC can make mistakes. After all, they too rely on human input.--Ipigott (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

... or import their information from Wikidata ... Thincat (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• • Gender info in viaf is known to be poisoned. The underlying issue is a historic decision of a national library to prioritise completeness over correctness and the damage to the gender info in international authority files is now systematic. Never, ever rely on the gender info from these sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Article created during WIR Edit-a-thon nominated for deletion

Article: Kim Chestney / AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Chestney (2nd nomination) Input is welcome. Hmlarson (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

French politicians

Hi. Following the recent French legislative election, 2017, lots of new stubs on French politicians have been created, including loads for all the women who were elected. The full list is here. As far as I can tell, every single article has a corresponding entry on the French WP. If anyone has an interest in France and/or politics, you may be interested in this area of work. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to this evolving area of interest Lugnuts. I see from the Wikidata redlinks on France that there are still over 50 articles on French politicians which have no article in English.--Ipigott (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Women In Music

Is the New or upgraded articles section starting since July 1 in Wikipedia's time? There are three articles listed already for June 30 so I'm just looking for clarification. SL93 (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

We don't follow strict rules. If someone wants to contribute early or later, they can. SusunW (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I was curious if I could add Adel Heinrich and Jeanne Singer. SL93 (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

SL93: I've added both of them for you and also Fay Foster. I look forward to see many more on music and dance over the coming month. It's good to have an enthusiastic new member participating in our editathons. Keep up the good work.--Ipigott (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

SL93 For some reason, I was never notified that you had replied on this page. That sometimes happens with this page, though I don't know why. Thanks Ian for adding the files. Good to see you have made use of the authority control discussion already. :) SusunW (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Please remember to create redirects!

In the list of missing articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Music there was a red link for "Sophia Dussek-Corri, (1775-1847), Scottish composer. Edit: already in as Sophia Dussek". So someone had established that "Sophia Dussek-Corri" had an article at Sophia Dussek, but hadn't made the incoming redirect to turn that red link blue (as it now is).

Please remember to make incoming redirects from variations of people's names. Use the form with or without middle name(s); if the article title has an initial, provide a redirect from the spelled-out name if known; make redirects from all the variations of married surname, birth surname, combined surname if used (and ditto for second and third etc marriages or surname changes).

It's surprising how often redirects like this pick up incoming links - perhaps from a formal list of award winners which included formal names and middle names.

Providing these redirects not only helps readers to find the article - whether they're searching for themselves or following a link which would otherwise be red - but also reduces the chance of a future editor creating a duplicate article at a different title because they didn't check carefully. Redirects are a Good Thing - please be generous with them. Sorry if this seems slightly obsessive - it might be the retired librarian in me coming out! Thanks. PamD 13:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree PamD I got 2 more links to my article yesterday by making redirects on name variations. It makes integration of women into the encyclopedia much more probable if redirects are added. SusunW (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed also - and please make any that appear to be supported by documentation and sources. Viz. Rosalind Frances Ellicott, who existed as a redlink for some while after I created an article about her sans middle name. (Though to be fair, I don't think I've ever seen her in a book under that name...always without the middle name.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

And don't forget married and maiden names. Some people (especially sportspeople) will have redlinks to both their names. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Plus pseudonyms, pen names, stage names, etc. Remember to create those redirects, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Another problem is hyphenated vs unhyphenated family names. We have a new article on Winifred Hart-Dyke. Her father was Hart Dyke without a hyphen and when she was with the D'Oyly Carte she was posted as Winifred Hart Dyke.--Ipigott (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - it's hard to have too many redirects. I know that I have had "my" articles "usurped" because of this, and have started at least one article where there already was one under a more obscure variant of the name.

Winifred Hart-Dyke is my start. Her name appears with and without the hyphen in sources (as does another recent start of mine, Violet Henry-Anderson). She was mentioned already on Wikipedia in a cast list, with the hyphen, so I went with that. I'm pretty good at searching out all the variations to bluelink, but I really need to learn how to make redirects. I've never tried! I'll make that a July goal.Penny Richards (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I just made my first redirect--that's pretty easy! Posting to encourage others.Penny Richards (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

And now the many-named Thamara de Swirsky has four incoming redirects. Penny Richards (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

(Belatedly) @Penny Richards: I'm glad to have led you to discover a new skill. There's something very satisfying about creating a bundle of redirects, then clicking on "What links here" and finding that one or two of them have resolved some redlinks in obscure articles or lists which used different versions of the name! Keep up the good work. PamD 13:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Luz Chavita

Once again, I am baffled by technology. My article on Chavita does not have a link on the article page to the WikiData item [1] so I added the link to Wikidata at the bottom where it says Wikipedia. It still isn't showing up on the article page, so I have no clue how to correct the birth name, and data, nor how to get the identifiers to show at the bottom of the article page, i.e. VIAF, ISNI, etc. They clearly are already in the Wikidata item, but not showing on my article. Can someone assist? The technology on WP should not be this unfathomable. It is so frustrating. SusunW (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@SusunW: The identifiers are showing in the authority control section of the article for me now; you might need to refresh your cache if you can't see them. You can correct the Wikidata manually by clicking the "edit" link (with a pencil icon) next to each section on the page ("given name", for example, I assume should be Luisa?) Funcrunch (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Must be a time-delay thing? I played around with it for about 1/2 an hour and gave up. Now it is all there. Bizarre. Much easier to edit with the gadget, because there are fields to add. SusunW (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

SusunW: I have also been having problems with Wikidata recently. Even when I know articles in other languages exist, when I try to link from the bottom of the LH column, a URL appears and sends me straight to the Wikidata page rather than to the box where you can point to the name of the article in another wiki. Only by trying three or four times can I get the box. I like your article on Chavita. I see there are other photos of her here including a postcard from the Opéra-Comique which could possibly be included. Strange there's no trace of the date of her death.--Ipigott (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

There are hundreds of photos of her on the web, maybe thousands, which is why I found it odd that there was no more biographical detail that I could find. Surely there are more newspaper articles in France and Spain, but, I have no access to them. I thought if I started an article, maybe someone would be able to add to it, or maybe create one in Spain. Glad to know it isn't just me that is having issues with Wikidata. It has been weird lately, I've had the same issue you have had, Ian, but this was the strangest of the interface issues I've had recently. SusunW (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Idea for Edit-a-thon

I've noticed that women are often not included in common spaces such as Current Events listings, and "on this day"-type listings (including births, deaths, and event listings like July 2, for example, which also get linked to from the homepage, Current Events, and other areas. Most recently, women's sports events (football specifically) are being removed from the Current Events portal. A potential idea for an edit-a-thon would be to focus on integrating more links to women's articles in these types of date/event/portal spaces. Thoughts? Hmlarson (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmlarson: Since April, MurielMary has been devoting quite a lot of time and effort to adding more women for listings on the main page under "On this day". I'm pleased to say that thanks to her work many more women have been included in that section over the past few weeks. But even she ran into trouble with some editors who maintained the women she was adding were not notable enough. I don't know whether an editathon devoted to this problem would be a good ideas but perhaps we should encourage more editors to contribute women's names to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries. I also share your concerns in regard to sporting events. Women should certainly be included where appropriate.--Ipigott (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Ipigott That's great! Thank you MurielMary. I'm also going to start weaving this into my workflow. Feel free to get in touch if you run into any issues. Creating new portals or integrating more women's articles into existing portals is another idea. Hmlarson (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmlarson I think we really need a Women's history portal. It's on my to-do list. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Twitter

For tweeting articles that are created and improved for editathons, what are some good tags to use to bring exposure to the article? I haven't used Twitter for a long time. SL93 (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I rarely input hashtags, but if I do, it is about the subject of the month, i.e. #LGBT, #Dance, or the place. If you are using your own Twitter account, be sure to tag WikiWomenInRed SusunW (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I always tag WikiWomenInRed, and use the rest of my characters to tag an organization (college alumni association, archive, museum, town, hall of fame, etc.) that might be interested to know that one of their own has a new article (if you get lucky, they might be willing to share a photo, or at least retweet the link). Penny Richards (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Finally up to 17%

Well done all!

On the basis of the most recent statistics from Wikidata Human Gender Indicators, we can now confirm that 17% of the biographies in the English version of Wikipedia are on women. Thanks to the efforts of all concerned, we have moved up from just over 15% in November 2014 to 16.35% this time last year, 16.78% in January and now exactly 17%. The figures may seem marginal but in fact almost 25,700 women's biographies have been added over the past 12 months. Today, out of a total of 1,473,875 biographies, 250,631 are about women. Last week was a particularly good week for us as 37.28% of the new biographies on the EN wiki addressed women. Let's hope we can keep moving in the same direction.--Ipigott (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This is GREAT news Ian! Little by little, day by day we are pushing the needle. SusunW (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful! Jane (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Well done Ian, the figures have been teasing us for weeks in a very unmathematical way. I was thinking it was exponential (to a value a tadge under 17). The barrier is broken. I've been tweeting this every week for weeks. Do join in the RTs if you have time..... Victuallers (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh so you are still with us, you've not responded to the last half dozen or so emails.. Excellent news BTW on 17 %!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yay! Something we can celebrate! So awesome! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Beaming with joy! This is so awesome. See? We can move the needle! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Muslim Women's National Network Australia

Hi, I'm pretty new to editing wikipedia and stepped in because I heard about the Women in Red project... I selected one of the red links and tried to create a page for it - Muslim Women's National Network Australia. It has been rejected. The first rejection I can understand because it wasn't written in Wikipedia style, so I worked to improve it and address the feedback.

The second rejection seems to me a bit inconsistently judgemental - I have now worked on numerous other existing articles, editing entries with pre-existing problems, so I have seen what has been accepted in the past and not questioned by editors. I don't pretend that my article is "excellent" but I think it should be enough for a basic level entry, to which others can add and improve.

Also feels like this organisation is victim to systemic bias (some types of people and organisations get the kind of independent coverage that makes them easy to cite, others don't). This organisation is mentioned tonnes of times in the media, books, research articles, but they are just a small mention in relation to other issues rather than the subject of the articles. This does not seem to equate to a "quality citation" for wikipedia's editors even though it is to my mind evidence of notability.

Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that writing new articles from scratch is beyond my skill set, so I am not going to continue with this page (has involved more time and effort than I anticipated, and with the repeated rejections this effort has proven to be a waste). If anyone else is able to take it over so it can be published, I would appreciate it. Many thanks, Powertothepeople (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I moved it to main space, because it was fine - decently well-written, well-sourced and plainly notable for inclusion. Some of the Articles for Creation reviewers have a tendency to bite the newbies and apply their own arbitrary criteria that are wildly different to Wikipedia's. You'd be better off creating articles in normal space (not as a draft) in future - you clearly know what you're doing and it'll prevent you getting harassed by people at AfC, while there's plenty of people around to help with working on articles if you need a hand. We need way more editors interested in these sorts of Australian topics, so please don't be discouraged. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that. I joined AfC to clear the backlog, but I don't know if I want a part of that anymore. When editors deny articles for vague reasons like "this doesn't meet our policies", it's not good for the newbies. It's not hard to at the very least to leave a link to the policies that aren't being met. Powertothepeople, I think you should ditch AfC and that most people who submit articles there should do the same. SL93 (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both :) Powertothepeople (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

An editor has now nominated this for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Women's National Network Australia), not because he claimed it wasn't notable, "the article seems designed to advance their cause, not for providing information about the association", despite the total lack of evidence that Powertothepeople has anything to do with them or their cause whatsoever. I am so frustrated with these attempts at newbie-biting editors who actually try to fill our gaps in coverage in these areas. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

From time to time, DGG comes up with strange reasons for deleting articles but this is one of the most peculiar. The article documents an important Australian organization which obviously has a place in Wikipedia. If there were signs of "advocacy", then this could be been raised in more detail on the article's talk page rather than by a nomination for deletion. It's just this kind of thing that discourages competent new Wikipedians.--Ipigott (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Women for Peace

From July 22nd until August 1st Wikimedia Austria in cooperation with Service Civil International will organise a Wikipedia for Peace editing camp in Austria. People from all over the world will come together to write and edit Wikipedia articles in more than ten languages about women who fight and fought for peace and justice. We are still looking for suggestions of women we could write about. We want to compile a list of 100 articles in total. The women should be engaged in peace movements (e.g. as pacifists, human rights activists, women's rights activists, environmental activists, LGBTI activists etc.), should not have articles in too many languages yet and there should be reliable resources available about them. Please help by adding suggestions to this page. Get back to me, if you're interested to know more about the project in general. :) Do you think it would be possible for the project to be one of the Women in Red events happening in July? --Shikeishu (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Shikeishu there are quite a few peace activists/WILPF activists on the Activist List I'm not sure about adding the event in July, but pinging @Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl: who are better equipped to assist with setting up the events. If July proves not feasible due to time constraints, it might work alongside our August events: Indigenous Women and Canadian Women, if you were game for ours to be a continuation of your camp. SusunW (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Shikeishu - We would love to be part of a women activist event, but our July calendar is already underway, this being July 6th, with three other offerings, which we promoted, via invitations, towards the end of June. I wish we had learned about your event sooner, as it appears to be awesome and important, but I understand it's not always easy to know where to promote an event. Would you be comfortable with Women in Red's participation 1-31 August? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I think "Women for peace" would be an excellent addition to our August activities. We'll also have time to prepare redlists, etc., and will be able to build on the results of the Austrian event. It would also offer an opportunity to coordinate WiR activities in other languages. I would have thought we could create at least 100 new articles in English alone.--Ipigott (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: I've been in contact with Claudia, the WM Austria Executive Director, regarding this event and she said that they like the idea of our event occurring in August as a follow-up of their camp. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yay! I like the idea of doing peace activists a lot! Looking forward to it. Should we put it on the calendar? SusunW (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Shikeishu, Rosiestep, SusunW, and Ipigott: I can make a Redlist of peace activists and advocates for the editathon. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I put it on the calendar. Megalibrarygirl, if you'll post the link in the Ideas Cafe, I can help with redlinks too. SusunW (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sheila Michaels

Have to go out for the rest of the day. Sheila Michaels (NYT obit yesterday) who popularised Ms., could really do with expanding. Edwardx (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Ideally we should be able to expand this enough for Recent deaths. But it needs a lot more content for that. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Be bold on a budget of $0 - Making plans at Women in Red's friendly Ideas Cafe

Be bold on a budget of $0 - Making plans at Women in Red's friendly Ideas Cafe

I did two presentations yesterday at m:WikiWomenCamp 2017, including a lightening talk re WiR. I don't know how to rotate the upload to Commons. Hoping someone could help with that? Thank you.--Rosiestep (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Rosiestep, usually there is a way to request an image rotation on commons. I've done it before. I'll give it a try. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Rosiestep, I'm not seeing the image rotation request on the page. Maybe because it's a PDF? You may have to re-save it in the correct orientation and re-upload it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)