WikiProject Women in Red is a community-led project launched in 2015. We're interested in reducing the gender gap in content coverage across all languages, especially concerning women-related biographies, but also women-related topics (broadly construed), such as artwork, books, sports events, and scientific theories. This concerns both works/topics by and works/topics about women. Specifically, we collaborate on
the creation of new articles
the improvement of existing articles (featured articles, good articles, DYK articles, stubs...)
events such as edithatons and hackatons
developing gender-gap related metrics
the identification of missing content Wikipedia ought to have
scholarly publications
We're not, however, trying to solve editor gender gap, meaning that we think both men and women are equally able to create articles about notable women.
How is WikiProject Women in Red related to other WikiProjects?
WiR is intended to be a parent project and a resource hub for other projects (in all languages) whose scope covers women and their works, such as
What specific efforts is WikiProject Women in Red making to reduce/improve the content gender gap?
We maintain lists of blogs, conferences, contests, discussions (Wikipedia; Wikimedia), editathons, Inspire grantees' projects, mailing-lists, meet-ups, newspaper articles, scholarly articles, social media campaigns, workshops, etc. We use Wikidata to manage several aspects of the project because of its size and scope.
We hope to collaborate with international festival organizers (example: Litquake).
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."
Anyone can join! You do not need to have edited Wikipedia before, nor is the project restricted to women. Any help you can give, big or small, is greatly appreciated! To get started read our primer.
For the women in space editathon this month, I was wondering if someone who has a crater named after them counts for this theme, despite not working in space science. My thinking is that this woman (a painter) is literally in space. Otherwise, I have someone else in mind. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good reasoning! I'd count her (I started an article Friday about a woman who had an asteroid named for her, but she was also an astronomer). The themes are just fun ways to organize this work; the real goal is that the work gets done, right? Penny Richards (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MrLinkinPark333: (after e/c) Sounds a great idea - she's notable enough to have a crater named after her but hasn't yet got an article? Go for it! Well, that's my opinion, anyway. PamD 17:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Penny Richards:@PamD: Okay. There are also three missing Soviet women with craters on Venus that are missing. It'd have to be double checked that these are the correct women. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'd never heard of her, but if anyone wants to start her off, please let me know - I might be able to add. She and the one pic on commons are on French WP. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can start her this week: I’ve found some English language references. I’ll need help on the wikidata side of things. Moira Paul —Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my start on her: User:Moira Paul/Wen Shu. It'll take a couple more weeks to fill in and find more sources but she's underway! Moira Paul (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just created Maria Zhilova, another of those honoured by a crater, from one of the redlinks mentioned above. But what a nightmare of alternative spellings/transliterations! French wiki has her as Jilova. 1255 Schilowa is named for her but was first spelled Shilowa. Other transliterations in sources include Silova. Then Maria / Mariia / Mariya / M, and V or W or or Vasilevna Vasil'evna! Even as an acknowledged redirect geek I haven't created them all, but all the ones which I've encountered and a few more. Russian wiki doesn't have her, but has a redlink to "Жилова, Мария Васильевна". Fun. Anyway, I wasn't going to create articles today but seem to have done a second one for "space" now. PamD 08:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I Am… Contemporary Women Artists of Africa at the National Museum of African Art
Opens June 20. Press release here. This one's in my backyard, so I intend to go see it once I'm back from Central Asia.
According to the press release: "Three of the artists—Chief Nike Davies Okundaye of Nigeria, Patience Torlowei of Nigeria and Billie Zangewa of South Africa—will attend the June 18 press preview." We have articles on two, and the third should be easy to write up. But this would be a great opportunity to get some photographs. I cannot go - I have too many commitments that day. Any contacts in DC we could ask, other than KellyDoyle? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ser Amantio di Nicolao What does one have to do to get a picture? Is it assumed that photos taken at a public event are PD? Could you point me to the relevant policy? I have an old Canon point-and-shoot & could go, but am not a member of the press. Please advise. Best WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello WomenArtistUpdates. I simply tell people that I am a volunteer editor for Wikipedia, and ask them if they would mind my taking a photo to add to their article. If they are hesitant, you can suggest that they can review the photos and confirm their consent again once you have taken them (I try to take at least four). You could also create a page of your photos in your userspace and show them that on a phone/tablet/laptop to reassure them, as I have done at User:Edwardx/people. I only proceed if I can get the subject's permission, but most people are amenable. Edwardx (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Photos taken at a public event are not PD - the copyright belongs to you as the photographer, but if you upload to Commons you release your rights. Strictly you are unlikely to actually need the subject's consent at a press or public event - see the many film opening/concert etc pics we have where this clearly was not feasible - but if you can it's good to ask. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Edwardx, Johnbod, and Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Thank you for your guidance. I have an e-mail into the press department at the museum for permission to attend. I will do my best to get some good portraits. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates: Awesome - glad you were able to make it. I'm very much looking forward to seeing the show when I get back from Georgia and Central Asia...we leave tomorrow evening (squeal). Hence my inability to hit it up tonight; I had preparations to make. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Wait wait... to close the loop, someone needs to write an article on Patience Torlowei of Nigeria. I don't write BLPs. Sad to say the images were out of focus for her. These were the best. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Please ping me when you get back in town and have caught your breath. **While he is away, if there is another WIRer willing to tackle an article on Patience Torlowei of Nigeria, it would be appreciated. Ideally the catalogue from the show would be a good start. I am not finding any other reliable secondary sources on the web.** Thanks! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Not only will you need some rest, you will be in the molasses atmosphere that is DC in the summer :( Sorry this has come down to you, but there appear to be no other takers. Ms. Torlowei was kind enough to let me take her picture so it would be great if we could get an article started. Thanks again. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates: No trouble at all. I'm itching to get back into the swing of things. Got back yesterday morning, and am starting to get back into my routine. As for the molasses atmosphere, you should've been in Tbilisi two weeks ago...it was just as bad, if not worse. To say nothing of Dubai on Saturday - that was a heat experience unto itself, I can tell you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up, if anyone is interested. Draft:Beth Holmgren was begun in July 2018 by Ashamsamathew, whose two edits on this draft were their only Wikipedia contribution. I ran across Holgren's name a couple of years ago when considering improving Helena Modjeska to FA (fascinating person, but more extensive than I have time for). Holmgren has contributed to many academic journals, etc. and is worthy of this project if anyone wants to adopt the draft. — Maile (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this to Main Space. There is enough sourced material in the article that this should be OK. — Maile (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question about image in Kaas page
Birgitte Christine Kaas
Hello WiR friends,
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask about this. I noticed that Birgitte Christine Kaas' page has a painting of her redlinked husband rather than images about her. Is there a policy about this, would it fit with the Women in Red project?
Thank you for your advice and time! SunnyBoi (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SunnyBoi, I like you find it odd that her husband's image is the only one on her page. Searching the web, I find that she also was painted.[1] Since she died in 1761, it is hardly likely that the artist who depicted her is still living and the work is likely in the PD. That being said, one would need to determine who the artist was and find a photograph of the work which can be used. Perhaps Victuallers, who is far better with images than me can help? SusunW (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She now has her own portrait.--Ipigott (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ipigott. I didn't find that picture in my search. SusunW (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW and SunnyBoi: The site with the picture would probably not have been listed on a Google search in English. You have to search in Danish or Norwegian. That's one of the recurring problems of writing about "foreign" women. Reviewers of new articles assume there's no information about them and list them for AfD because links do not come up in their English-language searches. I recently came across a reaction which maintained that if there was nothing in English, then a biography should not be included in the EN Wikipedia as we should be mirroring English-language sources! So much for an "international" encyclopaedia.--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Ipigott and SusunW for your replies and for adding her portrait! I appreciate you! SunnyBoi (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a village SunnyBoi :) That is ridiculous and so shortsighted, Ipigott. In a global community, one cannot put blinders on nor assume that every important topic or person is covered in English. I am sure there are millions of people who meet our notability requirements for whom sources are to be found in their native countries/languages. I appreciate that you help me to include many of these women. SusunW (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep, that I kind of understand, especially if it is a small Wiki. I've read numerous studies on how databases/collaborative collections mature. The first stage is to focus on what is culturally significant in one's own language, the second phase is to add information about other globally historically significant people and events, before reaching a stage of project maturity and recognizing that there are knowledge gaps which require strategy to solve. SusunW (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SusunW, sure, that makes sense. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but at one time, the Dutch Wikipedia -which is pretty mature- didn't allow non-Dutch language references, and I thought that was unusual (cc: @Drmies and Jane023 for verification). On the other hand, the Arabic language Wikipedia does allow other language references, and I'm told that's very helpful for Arabic language Women in Red editors who rely heavily on translating en-wiki language biographies about Arabic women. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep, I don't write for the Dutch wiki (honestly, I can't write in Dutch anymore...), but if they have such a policy that's news to me. That we on en-wiki shouldn't use non-English sources, I hear that every once in a while; it's ridiculous. (Adriaan de Bruin doesn't have a single English source. And Augusta Peaux...Lucretia Wilhelmina van Merken...Cynthia Lenige...) Drmies (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep, I rarely write for the Dutch wiki these days, mostly because of the toxic nature of the village pump, which I find depressing. I know you shouldn't judge a wiki by its village pump, but still. Anyways, I totally agree with Drmies above that "only Dutch sources" was never a policy there as far as I know, though I have personally received messages like that from Dutch Wikipedians who should have known better (this was years ago btw). Since the Dutch "Biografisch Portaal" is in the authority template, if the BPN numbers are on Wikidata you should be able to pick up sources for most notable dead Dutch people on enwiki. Oddly, the authority control template is still not allowed on Dutch Wikipedia (probably because of its skew towards English sources). Jane (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fell foul of that English-only policy here on enwiki when I first started editing. When I talk about it with people, they are often surprised by it and have never heard of it, so I tend to bring it up at major Wiki events so more people realize it's happening and those same people can then help stop it dead in its tracks. -Yupik (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that! Good idea to bring it up at events, since this only amplifies the systemic bias common to all Wikipedias in general, not just Dutch & English. Jane (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to post this image of some unknown Danish art historian, standing in front of a portrait of Kaas in 1954 at Elingaard
It's not a policy, and no-one should remain unchallenged if they say that it is. The only thing we encourage is using an English language source where all else is equal (and adding an English language source if useful where not). This is to assist our readers, who will have some level of competency in English, but may not know any other given language. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 15:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Btw one issue that reoccurs is the preference of using clearly outdated "anthropological" material as reference material just because it's in English over modern material in another language. I would really like to see this one quashed permanently. -Yupik (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just returning to the subject of this thread, I wanted to point out that there are multiple portraits of Birgitte Christine Kaas, though possibly under her maiden name. This one, on show along with that portrait of her husband (its pendant) is on Commons, but behind an animated speaker who could probably tell us all about it, but of course she is also probably dead, having been taken in 1954... I linked it to the page where it belongs and where it is said (but not on enwiki yet) that the ghost of Birgitte still roams: Elingård. Jane (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mention on leading UK show
Sandi Toksvig
Sandi Toksvig is a leading UK broadcaster and politician and here she is talking on UK Channel 4 - The Last Leg. Feel free to review our Twitter feed and give a boost to our new articles. We get 400K views per month and have 6,000 followers .... and growing. We pick new articles from our editathons and tweet them and communicate with our sister projects and followers. Victuallers (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly comprehensively - eg afawk Strickland herself played no part in the unsuccessful pre-Nobel efforts to get her bio up. And the stat she gives is way off - "Wikipedia is 9% about women, and 90% about men" - presumably confusing a low editor estimate with the female bio %. If she is touring presenting this sort of stuff, I hope someone will supply her with key correct stats and talking points. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Toksvig using her wit to present facts and talking points in a humorous way, difficult to see that working. cygnis insignis 16:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So long as they are actually facts.... Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did one of the boys on that show ask for a citation? cygnis insignis 16:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, it's a comedy show. Do you have a point here? Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sandi Toksvig is a national treasure, and the general thrust of her comments is of course correct - women are indeed under-represented - but virtually all of the specific points she made are false:
[Wikipedia] is 9% about women and 90% about men. - First, biographies are only about 25% of all our articles, and second biographies of women are substantially more than 10% of all biographies. (She appears to be quoting the 90%-9%-1% split from the self-declaration of editors as male-female-other, which could underestimate the percentage of women and indeed other editors by a significant margin).
Women are not just being not put up, they are being taken down. - Given the way the percentage is moving, more articles are being written (and kept) on women than on men at the moment.
Donna Strickland ... kept trying to get a page on Wikipedia but it kept getting taken down. - No she didn't; no it wasn't. See below.
Winning a Nobel prize is apparently what it takes for a woman to get an article on Wikipedia. - Well, of course, notability of any person is enhanced by winning a Nobel prize, but no one doubted her notability before she did.
Look, we know what happened with Donna Strickland because there is a decent post mortem in the Signpost, here and here: one person wrote an article in 2014 which was deleted as a copyvio; another person wrote an article in draft in March 2018, but when it was reviewed a couple of months later the sourcing was thought to be inadequate (and we err on the side of caution with a BLP), and it hung around in draft for some more months. And then she won a Nobel prize and some effort was put into finishing the draft, and a slew of good sources became available, many from places that had never written about her before. (Meanwhile, we don't hear much about the other Nobel winning scientist who also lacked a Wikipedia article until the prizes were announced, or about the one former president of the OSA who is still redlinked - but of course the failure to have an article on George Smith or Tony Heinz can't be attributed to gender bias.)
Yes, Wikipedia is the largest crowd-sourced encyclopedia in the world, and yes there is a serious point to be made about systemic bias (not just on gender, but also on race, geography, and other axes of discrimination and bias). But it does not help to misrepresent the situation. 213.205.240.199 (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a slight whitewash on Strickland! There were strong notability concerns 2nd time round before the Nobel, in particular as she was only an associate professor, and eg wasn't a member of the Canadian Royal Society (who must really be embarassed), which would have given pretty automatic notability. In the post-mortem after the Nobel, it was found that the citation index and presidency of the Optical Societyshould have already have shown notability. But these are points that require relatively good subject-knowledge, and it's not that surprising they were missed. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she got some of it wrong, but the fact that she's talking about Wikipedia's content gender gap is brilliant! Perhaps someone in the geographic region can get in contact with Ms. Toksvig's PR team and become a point of contact before her next interview? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused by this link on the main WiR page. Would it not be more useful to link to a Wikipedia page which explains how WiR is supporting the addition of images (not just photos) to the encyclopedia? As Victuallers and SusunW have discovered, we have also needed to be active in adding images not just to Commons but also to Wikipedia itself. I seem to remember we are supporting some other images project but I cannot remember its name. Perhaps Rosiestep can explain our role here and how we are progressing. Any other views on this?--Ipigott (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, I'm not the expert with images, but from my point of view, all images within the scope of our project are welcome. Sometimes I write an article and have to search for images, and after finding them, and uploading them to WikiCommons (I've never uploaded a Fair Use image into Wikipedia), I add them to the article. Other times, when I create an article, I luck out as there's already an image of Jane Doe in WikiCommons. As we are an international community, this process applies to all the language wikis where people are writing articles within the scope of WiR. Regarding an essay on "how WiR is supporting the addition of images (not just photos) to the encyclopedia", that would be great if someone has the time and inclination to start it. Regarding the image campaign, it was called #visiblewikiwomen; as it's valid even after the campaign ended, some of us still use that hashtag when tweeting from the WiR account or our personal accounts. I'm adding a few others to this convo who have image expertise: Adam Cuerden (Featured images), Penny Richards (Pinterest images), and @Ser Amantio di Nicolao and Victuallers (Flickr and YouTube images). A friendly reminder that if we upload an image into WikiCommons, and there's no Wikipedia article for that woman, but there's a Wikidata items, please add the image to the Wikidata item, so that it appears in Wir's Wikidata-generated redlists. Too bad we don't currently have a Women in Red "Images Expert in Residence"; any volunteers? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep: It would help to include an introduction/explanation to commons category WikiProject_Women_in_Red. It's rather confusing at the moment as the same master category is used for various types of image covered by the subcategories. I think what you are trying to encourage from the main WiR page is the inclusion of images in biographies and other articles about women rather than images to illustrate the WiR project itself. Maybe it would be more logical to link to Category:Media supported by WikiProject Women in Red with an explanation there?--Ipigott (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, if you think an explanation page would make for a better link, ok by me. This reminds me of the issue which came up 2 weeks ago in other parts of en-wiki regarding WiR not having a social media guideline, so with the assistance of others, this was created, and I uploaded it. The point is, if you think we need clarification of something, go for it -by yourself or with others- and thanks for noticing that it needs clarification. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep: When I create new categories about people on Commons, I always include a short explanation as I have found such summaries very useful when researching similar categories myself. Over the next few days, I'll add something to the various WiR categories and subcategories. If we are to write an essay or a guideline on images, then I certainly think Adam Cuerden and Victuallers should lead the way.--Ipigott (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Cuerden is the expert editor and is in my mind the de facto WiR image expert in residence. He has created a sizable number of featured-pictures of women that have featured on the main page and in "our" articles. He has written up his work here which I always find intriguing. I (only) have some experience in finding images and trying to remember the routes that are available for older images to be seen as PD. "My" guides to this are described here. Adam lives near me and we have been trying to get him to give a masterclass at WiR's monthly meets in Edinburgh. I am running a nagging campaign (on Twitter) to try and get organisations like universities to stop using "all rights reserved" and lauding ppl like Harvard Archives and the UK Royal Society who are finding ways to help us. Our biggest problem is Wikimedia Commons who have some very enthusiastic gate keepers who admit that they delete selfies from newbies despite not having any evidence to support their lack of faith. (This requires a lot of effort to change). Getting organisations to change the "all rights reserved" rules seems to me the easiest? but slow route. I'd much rather see a guide here. I'm not a fan of policies but an agreed ambition that WiR will encourage organisations to use cc-by-sa as default policies would be useful. Conversations I have had with Professors at universities is that there is a lot of inertia to changing this. Wikipedia is the only obvious beneficiary as every one else ignores the letter of copyright law. We could do with a lawyer who would tease out the legalities of this IMO and either get the Wiki to be more realistic or start a test case to highlight the illegality that copyright owners turn a blind eye to. Routine copyfraud is used by most orgs to protect their images. A lawyer may find a route. Victuallers (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Victuallers: Thanks for your suggestions and also for all the useful work you have been doing on images. I fully agree that more pressure should be put on universities and libraries to use cc-by-sa as far as possible and at least remove "copyright restrictions" from images that are obviously PD. One other problem I have encountered is that it appears to be increasingly difficult to find pictures of living people which can be transferred to Commons. A few years ago, lots of amateur photographers uploaded their photos on Flickr with a Creative Commons tag but this no longer appears to be the case. Instead millions and millions of new photos are posted on social media and related sites with no indication of copyright. I am pretty certain that most of these photographers would be happy to see their work used on Wikipedia but are simply not aware of the copyright problems they are creating. Is there anything we can do to sort this out?--Ipigott (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to write a page, but it's somewhat hard to write as someone who's been doing it a while without knowing what questions people would like to know. If people want to tell me what they don't know about images, I'll happily link them to what I know. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 17:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Cuerden, here's something I don't know: sometimes I go to commons and my crop tool doesn't appear, like at this image. Is it because it's a tif, and is there anything I can do about it? --valereee (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I believe yes, TIFFs are kind of harder to deal with than JPEGs or PNGs. The easiest thing - maybe not the BEST option, but easy - do you see right under the image where it says [may vary slightly depending on your settings]: "Size of this JPG preview of this TIF file: 1,280 × 854 pixels. Other resolutions: 320 × 214 pixels | 640 × 427 pixels | 800 × 534 pixels | 1,024 × 683 pixels | 7,360 × 4,912 pixels."?
That last link is the same as the dimensions of the TIFF, but is a JPEG. You can right click on it, download the JPEG, upload it under a suitable file name, noting it's a derivative of that file, but otherwise copying the information template over. Then crop THAT. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 17:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion has concluded. Issue has been thoroughly discussed and all that can be done here has been done. Montanabw(talk) 18:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm pretty sure when the Fram "real crimes" tweet went to press, this project said it would be constructing a guideline for the use of its own "official" Twitter account. That was a week ago. Is this happening? Can we see this please? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that doesn't have any guidelines or operating procedures or points of contact for recourse when such tweets are emitted from the official WiR account. That's the point. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Apart from the guidelines under the heading "Guidelines". And the point of contact. All /specific/ suggestions for improvements welcomed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wow, those are "guidelines" in the wake of the gross abuse of the channel in accusing someone of "real crimes"? I thought those were statements of common sense which everyone would naturally abide by. Sorry, mea culpa. Great work, you've done so much to improve things here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I implied, if you have any constructive suggestions, please make them. If you're merely bored because the Framfest is quietening down, and you're here to try to make trouble, then I cordially invite you to find some other game to play. It was, I remind you, only you and your chum who were "Oh wow"ing the tweet & seeking to create a drama. The rest of us acknowledged the mistake and moved on. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I clearly misunderstood when WiR said they'd work on some real guidelines on how to run their Twitter channel. "Framfest" isn't quietening down, and I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. I simply was following up on the promise given that this project would never repeat the repellent offwiki harassment that someone engaged in in the name of the official WiR Twitter account. I don't have any "chums" here, and I'll remind you that just "moving on" from accusing someone of "real crimes" is not actually something real. Please wake up and realise that the errors made here go beyond just a simple "we'll be nice" hand-waving exercise. That Fram has been accused of "real crimes" on Twitter is now irreversible. Whoever posted that is lucky that further action hasn't been taken. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, they're not just my concerns, they're concerns that the WiR channel was being used to make legal claims against Fram. As yet we've yet to see any kind of apology or retraction, just a deletion of an errant tweet. Great work. Please don't make such claims again. They aren't just for fun, they impact people in the real world and last forever. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man please try to AGF and drop the sarcasm. It's not constructive to a dialog. A mistake was made and it was corrected and an apology was made on WP:FRAM. In addition, the project involved (us, obviously) is working to make sure that mistakes like that don't happen again. We definitely welcome constructive criticism, like Tagishsimon points out. It helps us be a better project. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW, Tagishsimon, and Megalibrarygirl: Your stated first core principle is Honesty about who we are. Does that mean signing off your Twitter posts with the name of the specific Wikipedia editor who wrote it? starship.paint (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosiestep: - I see you wrote the guideline. Please see my question above. starship.paint (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
starship.paint - (a) "I" did not write the guideline; a group of people were involved. I added it to the Women in Red social media space. (b) "Honesty about who we are" refers to "we" (Women in Red) as a collective; not "we" as an individual. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
starship.paint you may have noticed we are a collaborative group who work together to solve content issues. It is not our style to throw people under the bus. There is no need to out anyone as we have already collectively apologized numerous times. A mistake was made, it was corrected and a public apology made. End of story. Please drop the stick. SusunW (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW: - you have misunderstood me. I do not expect retroactive application of the principles. I expect application of the principles to tweets after the principles were written on 23 June. I do not expect that editor to be outed, but I do not see WiR's current tweets from 24 June being attributed to authors. This is what I'm asking (1) will you now attribute future tweets to editors? Also, you say there are multiple collective apologies. I only saw one [2] by Rosiestep at WP:FRAM. (2) Please show me the others. Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I've tried to stay out of this, but the attitude displayed by some in this project to people raising concerns is very troubling. It certainly is not collaborative. The tweet was not a "mistake", it was blatantly "throwing somebody under the bus", and in as public a way as possible. Accusing an editor, on wiki, of crimes will rightly get you blocked. Going off-wiki to do so, then hiding behind a cloak of collectivism is pretty damn low. Then you try to drive off those concerned by that behaviour, now that is not conducive to dialogue. Now if this project is a closed shop, then fine, make that clear - put up a "Keep Out" sign at the top, make it invitation only. DuncanHill (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People raising concerns is very important, DuncanHill. We have no problem with that, at all! We have already admitted the mistake and have publicly (many times) explained we are working on making sure it never happens again. The offensive words were deleted. Beating a dead horse isn't constructive, nor is sarcasm. Not sure where you're getting the "closed shop" idea. We have a lot of diverse members who don't always agree with one another. Anyone can join and we're glad to hear everyone's perspective. If we don't agree, that doesn't mean we didn't listen. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My perspective is that the apologies do not come across as sincere, and that there is no regret for the comments, only for getting a reaction that wasn't expected. You say the horse is dead - but in reality you've decided you don't want to discuss it, and the rest of us have to bow to your decision. Not collaborative, not welcoming, not open to all. DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's widespread agreement - unanimity - that the tweet was a mistake. There are probably different views on how egregious a mistake it was. Not a hanging matter, though. There are only so many ways we can say that. And we've been saying it for a fortnight now, but still a group of - well, it must be three people now - who have the stick in their hand and are still waving it around. And here we are, bowing you your wish to continue to discuss it, whilst being criticised for not discussing it. Oh wells. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you (the project) had discussed instead of platitudinising, I wouldn't be here. And I think it would be great to drop the violent imagery of beating dead horses and waving sticks around. It doesn't help. DuncanHill (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But we did discuss it on the Fram page. It was even dropped at Arbcom. You're just not happy with the results. And your tone policing is noted. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had to look up tone policing. Again, the closed shop. You get to tell people that their tone is wrong - all your comments about sarcasm for example - but someone objects to violent imagery and they get dismissed. That's blatant hypocrisy from you. DuncanHill (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously comparing the idiom "flogging a dead horse" to "violent imagery"? An editor you like got thrown off the project, somebody made a mild unnecessary remark about it (and I called them out on it), and it was dealt with. But that's not enough, their pound of flesh must be extracted and natural justice delivered. The perpetrator must be put on public display and given a damn good flogging. Good grief, this is like reading the Daily Mail. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 17:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An editor I really knew very little about, and who didn't appear anywhere on my list of likes or dislikes actually, but I don't suppose facts matter much on Wikipedia anymore. And then someone used the name of a valuable Wikiproject to accuse them of crimes - but hasn't got the decency to own up. Another editor or two then complain about the tone of some of the complaints, and then throw a snidey fit when they get the same treatment. I hope nobody ever treats you the way Fram has been treated by certain editors. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemies - and if you knew anything about the editors I like or dislike you'd know just how incredibly unlikely it was for me to crop up in this specific thread in the way I did. I'm not asking for floggings or under the bussification or pounds of flesh anything like that, just some old-fashioned decency. I've got a hell of a lot more respect for someone prepared to say "I did it, it was wrong of me, I'll not to do it again" than for those putting up the wall of silence. Hell, even "I did it and I have no regrets" would be less objectionable than what we've had so far. It'd be nasty, but at least it'd be honest. My problem is the only way you'd apparently understand would be to treat you in the way you allow others to be treated. I couldn't bring myself to do that in a month of Sundays. DuncanHill (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please make an effort to keep the Fram related bludgeoning in one place, so that those of us with better things to do can promptly ignore it? GMGtalk 12:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would (and should) never have been here in the first place, if the Wiki-project hadn't even commented on it. We don't even know if this Wiki-project is related to Fram's ban. Which other Wiki-project commented? starship.paint (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly, passionately, and truly don't care. GMGtalk 12:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Passionately not caring seems like a paradox. Anyway, I just noticed the Fram tweets were deleted. A thank you to whoever did that since I don't know. starship.paint (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I'm not here for vengeance - if the offending editor does not want to own up, so be it, that reflects on them. What I want to see if WiR have learnt from this. If WiR implements signing tweets with names, and if WiR can simply tell me which of the new principles did the old tweets on Fram violate, then that will be satisfactory for me. If WiR decides that signing tweets with names is not for them, then remove Honesty about who we are. starship.paint (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very strange way to approach things, Starship.paint. You are demanding from the outside of a group to dictate the way a project works? Isn't this why so many people are upset at WMF interfering with the Fram ban? If you are concerned about our social media policy, I would get involved with WIR and make some constructive suggestions. We need a diversity of viewpoints so that we are not operating inside of a bubble.
I work for a city government as a librarian. We have a social media presence and a few people post the social media for the whole library. They do not sign their tweets with their names. As far as I know, that's a standard practice. I've only seen signed tweets a few times with politician's Twitter accounts. So I don't really think signing tweets, etc is necessary. It would eat up characters. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What would the city government do if one of their staff used Twitter to libel someone? DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They would identify the perp(s) and deal with them internally. They'd accept corporate responsibility for the damage. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand, we have Tagishsimon (and you, Megalibrarygirl) asking for constructive suggestions. On the other hand, you object that I shouldn't be dictating, because I'm an outsider - that seems like a very insular attitude. But since you have invited me, okay, I'll take it up, I've clicked join. So, onto the issue at hand. If you are concerned about characters, simple: use code-names of two letters like AZ, RD, 7G, J3. That's a total of 3 characters, including 1 space. Leave the codename identification on Wikipedia. If you refuse to identify authors of tweets, the next time this happens again, when inappropriate tweets are sent out again from your Twitter account, the next offender will again have no public accountability to en.wiki. starship.paint (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being constructive, Starship.paint means getting involved. It means going to the social media page and engaging in a discussion on the talkpage. Make sure you ping people who would be interested in the discussion so we can all work together collaboratively. I've already invited you to get involved. I would ask that you make your contributions on the social media page that SusunW linked above. We can all discuss and !vote. I look forward to you getting more involved with Women in Red. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well okay, I will take it there, Megalibrarygirl. I discussed it here because this was listed as one appropriate venue by Tagishsimon: Any constructive suggestions can be made here. Now, before a ping a whole bunch of people who were previously involved, would you want me to ping non-members? starship.paint (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: I'd ping anyone you think may be able to provide a constructive discussion especially if they have professional social media skills. That would be very cool. But you don't want to spam people either or be seen as canvassing, either I guess. I suggested pinging because that's the only way I notice anything usually. I'm very ADHD. You don't have to ping anyone necessarily. It just helps let people know that a discussion is going on. I'm glad you're getting involved. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a member of this project, and I don’t know who or how many project members manage our social media. I don’t really care, as long as it’s managed responsibly. I’ve worked with the editors most involved with this project and AFAICR found literally all to be well-intentioned, responsible, and competent. I suspect this is being treated as a very important issue, and I think we should give those who are working on it a chance to pound out a detailed proposal. --valereee (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: there is a discussion page here [3]. I think that finding some wording about personal opinions would be useful. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I need to point out that the tweet was taken to arbcom, the highest disciplinary body on wikipedia afaik, and they declined to hear the complaint. Assertions that there has been no public accountability are bogus. What you mean is that you have not been able to hang a named individual out to dry. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editor X has made a mistake related to en.wiki. Only some people in this project know that Editor X made such a mistake. The public does not know which editor made such a mistake. Were Editor X to make further mistakes, the public does not know that Editor X has a historical mistake. So, there is no public accountability on this point. starship.paint (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is starship.paint still going on and on and on and on, weeks later, about someone expressing an opinion counter to theirs on the Fram controversy on social media? Isn't this the very definition of tendentious editing? Someone make them stop. Hang them out to dry. Block them for not being here to improve the encyclopedia and for (ineffectively) attempting to make this a hostile place for female-centered editing. Make a public example of their bad editing behavior. Anything to make this tedium stop. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry Starship. Public accountability does not mean naming the individual responsible. It means - in this case - that the project takes responsibility for the actions of its twitter account, as it did in this instance. If the project decides it wants to externalise identities, then we'll change the way we operate. There does not seem to be a great appetite for it right now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I think this discussion has reached a conclusion. The issue has been raised, addressed, and the situation that gave rise to the concern has been addressed as much as can be. Further debate is pointless, and I will close this thread. Montanabw(talk) 18:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikidata issues in June 2019
Number of site links on Wikidata-generated redlists
I'm trying to add # of site links to all the Wikidata-generated redlists. I started with this one, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Laureates, and seemed to have failed in my attempt. Help, please, and thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking a look for you now. --Redalert2fan (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosiestep: After some trial and error I got it to work, you can see what I changed/added here: diff. Now I would like to say that this should work for every page, but I think there are quite a few variations of code used on the WIR list so it might not work for all in the same way. But If you find another one that won't work feel free to ask again. May I also suggest that this will increase the page size making page loading times longer, which I raised some issues on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 59#Max page limit/size/entries of redlink list_pages. Redalert2fan (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Redalert2fan. I recognize that adding the number of site links increases page size, but I think its impact outweighs the downside. For example, until you fixed the issue with # of site links, Swiss writer Ilma Rakusa was not on my radar. But now that I can see that she has 9 site links but no en-wiki article, it's like a flashing light that says, "pick me next, pick me next". --Rosiestep (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Technical limitations aside, this does seem like a thing we want added in some way or form. Redalert2fan (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is already on a plurality of the by occupation redlists, all (?) the by country redlists, and assorted others. But not yet 100% done, Redalert2fan. Please, dig in. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll take a look. Thanks for your work so far as well by the way! --Redalert2fan (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion: It would be brilliant if the Wikidata-generated redlists included a column showing which other Wikipedias already have articles on the person (and the entries might as well be links to those articles). If there's a French or German article, and to a lesser extent other wikis, I know there are likely to be some sources I can use in creating an English article. PamD 08:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep: I find the site links very useful too but I am not very sure how they are calculated. If we take Marie-Béatrice de Baye, for example, three site links are listed but there is only one article (in French). As for PamD's point, once a significant number of site links has been found, it's not too difficult to click on the Q number and see which languages have an article. In most cases, with indications of nationality, etc., you can guess which languages are likely to be covered. For our upcoming focus on sports, it would be good to have sitelinks on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Sportswomen as well as on all those listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Redlist_index#Individual_sports. Same for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Educators. Redalert2fan: Do you think you could take care of these before we lauch our next round of virtual editathons on 1 July? If they all suffer from the same problem, you could perhaps let me know how to alter the Wikidata code and I'll try to take care of things myself. Thanks for your efforts so far.--Ipigott (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That maybe can be done - here's an example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Archivist linked. Two possible issues are 1) items with tens of sitelinks will have very busy 'linked to' boxes (although we could mitigate that, maybe, by selecting a subset of langauges of interest, albeit at risk of brickbats for so-doing) and 2) the possibility that it causes queries for some of our larger pages to time-out (Rosie's Laureates query, above, is on the cusp of being unrunnable for that reason). And there is also the third issue rightly flagged by Redalert2fan of the increase in page size.
On that last subject, quick anecdote. I'm UK, very rural. Used to have only internet via satellite which was *hugely* expensive & metered. Every byte was precious because so costly. So I have lots of sympathy for others in my position. (Now have fibre to the premises, so yay me!). With that preamble, adding number of sitelinks per Rosie's request added 2.7% to the page size, iirc - neither here nor there. Adding links to articles as I've just done in this example adds ~14% to the size (at least for the set of 500 archivists, which may not be representative.) The main tradeoff will not be the addition of number of links nor links to articles, but number of rows in the report vs. size of the page vs. comprehensiveness of the report.
So, discuss. With the above considerations, can be done. Equally, the point of providing, in WD redlists, the link to the wikidata item, is to allow users to click on it to see what the sitelinks are by examining the wikidata record. Obviously that only works if users are sufficiently familiar to know that that is an option. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott Marie-Béatrice de Baye has 3 sitelinks; 1 to fr wiki, 1 to fr wikisource and 1 to commons. If you look at the wikidata item the sitelinks parameter takes all of the pages in the right column. For the second question I can do that over the week, I already spotted some variations that might need some trial and error but that's no problem for me.
I must mention to everyone that an increasing size list does not only increase page loading time due to internet connection problems, but may also cause increased loading times on: mobile devices, devices with a slower or older CPU and devices with insufficient (low) amounts of RAM. Apart from the fact that wasting bytes in general is not the best practice to do. Overtime the more wikidata gets filled in or people get added there the more list will grow here. Noting Tagishsimon points about how much the page size increases personally I feel like an increase of 5% for adding # of sitelinks is acceptable since it does help achieve the projects goals in a quicker way, but more than that might have a negative result, if page loading times get too long or don't work at all people might just "leave" which does not seem like a thing we want.
There are a few limits working with listeriabot;
A max limit of 8000 entries (pages). Anything above this and your new list will not get populated. If the list had 7999 items before and should have 8001 items now it will no longer get updated, this includes items already present on the page
A variable limit on page loading times; i.e. can a user load the page at all or does it take a long time, this is purely based on page size, last time around I figured out that as a arbitrary rule we probably should not go above 500.000 bytes at all, but anything above 200.000 will cause load times to be noticeable although bearable. This "variable limit" is cause by number of entries and number of parameters. Note that "blank" boxes also take up data.
A set limit, using the LIMIT XXXX parameter in the query. A lower number will not show every item (person) that is available, but will reduce page size by this or allow you to add more parameters.
So with all of this what could we do? It might be an idea to limit the amount of entries on a per page basis which I proposed last time. We could remove parameters from queries but this does not seem preferable.
My suggestion would be to remove the # at the start of the list which apart from saying how many items there are on the list which has no use if it is limited to X amount anyways and does not provide any meaningful info about the person and then add the number of sitelinks as request by Rosiestep. While PamD's proposal would make work easier I think in this case due to the technical limitations we should not add that and instead users should click on the Q item and look on wikidata to as which language wikis already have a page. If this is unclear or difficult to do we can always write a guide/explanation to clear things up.
As a final suggestion if you are fine with long loading times or enormous list you can always create a sub page in your userpace, just copy the WIR list over and change the parameters to your liking! Thanks, Redalert2fan (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably worth noting, Redalert2fan, that to the extent that there is a state of the art in the sparql & listeria for redlists, it's that found in the more recently edited by occupation lists such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Archivist where such matters as introduction of # of sitelinks and removal of the column 1 # have already been implemented. Other noteworthy features in that model are the listeria parameters thumb=40, autolist=fallback and summary=itemnumber. (And we should remove the optional from around ?item wikibase:sitelinks ?linkcount . since all items have a wikibase:sitelinks.) It would be ideal if we could coalesce on a settled house style for lists - e.g. variable naming, format of the values statement. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea to have a prefered style both from the perspective of what users want, and what to include for technical purposes. Might be an idea to start a new section about what people want on the list. It seems that at bare minimum we need name, wikidata item and number of sitelinks per this request. With highly preferable also image, description and DOB. Occupation and nationality for lists that are not specific towards both of those. What do autolist=fallback and summary=itemnumber do in relation to the load times? Redalert2fan (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
autolist=fallback generates a description from the item's statements if an item lacks an en description, so it increases the page size & presumably the rendering time somewhat, but, equally, provides a basic description. summary=itemnumber provides a count of items at the foot of the table and is of negligible consequence for page size & load time.
I'll mention, too, that the reason that the 'state of the art' sparql hasn't fully been rolled out (apart from lazyness) is that the set of occupation VALUES needs to be revisited on a redlist by redlist basis ... they're often partial and incomplete and worthy of revision. Sadly using wdt:P106/wdt:P279*, even with gearing queryhints, often causes a timeout, so generating a list of the subclasses of an occupation class seems to be the way to go. It all takes time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I now realise that "Site links" number more or less does what I needed: rather than read the notes at the top of the page I had misinterpreted this to mean "incoming red links on en.wiki" and the one or two women I'd clicked on to check had coincidentally had the right number of "what links here" links! A high number of "site links" makes it likely that there's an existing article with sources to use, and nationality of the subject will hint at which wikis are likely to have articles (though with a pretty low correlation). So, as I now understand it, my request above is a bit of a luxury, though still useful.
As size of the table is important... do we need the places of birth and death? Does anyone use them in deciding who to write about? Could we drop those without inconveniencing anyone? PamD 11:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the higher the number the more pages on other language wikis there are! (note may also include things like commons and wikisource etc.) For what to include it might be a good idea to open a new section to what to include in the list as Tagishsimon and I are thinking about above. --Redalert2fan (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redalert2fan: Thanks for all your explanations. As Tagishsimon has indeed been improving these redlink lists and has, I think, a good appreciation of what we would like to see, perhaps he could update the ones we are interested in for July, i.e. all those to do with sports and educators. If there is a straightforward way of updating all the others without too much trouble, then I think that would be useful too. Several of us have commented on the usefulness of the sitelink column. (Apologies for the Richmond: must have been confusing you with Ritchie333.)--Ipigott (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the sitelinks column to July requested pages and do some patch up fixes as suggested above, for the rest I have to also leave it up to Tagishsimon who can indeed provide a more permanent and better improvement. It seems listeriabot is a bit overloaded with the pages requested above at the moment so not sure how long it will take, I can't get the pages to update to check my changes. --Redalert2fan (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Redalert2fan and Tagishsimon: I think it's a very good idea to "standardize" the code behind the lists, the order that columns appear, etc. Thank you in advance for efforts to support this. Regarding standardization, I'd favor decreasing the photo size to just 30px. It would take up less space on the page and all we need it for is to ascertain if the Wikidata item has a photo or not. I'm clueless if there would be a side benefit of quicker loading time or some such, but if so, that's an even more important reason for decreasing the image size. I agree with what's been said above regarding removing the column for number of entries on the list. PamD regarding the columns for Place of birth and Place of death, personally, I find them to be helpful. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: I have finished adding the sitelinks column to all the pages you requested above. If I missed any or there are more to be completed for this month please post them below and I'll try to do them ASAP. @Rosiestep: I changed the image size to 40px, per what Tagishsimon used for his recent lists.
All changes made where: removed the number column, added the sitelinks column, changed image size from none or 120px to 40px, Added a fixed limit of 5000 to all pages and on pages with loading difficulties reduced it to a lower number, removed "OPTIONAL" from ?item wikibase:sitelinks ?linkcount . since it is not needed, added |autolist=fallback and |summary=itemnumber to list that did not have them yet and removed some parameters from the queries that where not needed. I think that should be all, if any of the list do not work any more send me a ping. I hope this will help to make it easier for everyone to find someone to work on next month! Redalert2fan (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what we wanted, Redalert2fan. I've checked a few of them out and they look great. We really appreciate the time and trouble you have spent on getting them all right. Let's hope our participants now make good use of them.--Ipigott (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata linking ... and mistaken identity?
I had a quick look at the Malta redlist for next month, was curious about the mononymous Jodie and Mary ... and found that they are Jodie and Mary (existing redirect to Re A (conjoined twins), the law suit about separating them). I've now made new redirects Jodie (conjoined twin) and Mary (conjoined twin) to add to the given name pages. How do we fix the red links Jodie (Q40756932) and Mary (Q40756947) in the Wikidata list? I think this or similar has been explained before but am still baffled, especially here where we're wanting them to be identified with redirects rather than articles!
It's complicated by the fact that, according to our article, Jodie/Gracie is the one who survived (born 2000) and Mary/Rosie died (2000-2000), while Wikidata says the other way round! The Guardiansupports our article: "Jodie - whose real name, Gracie, was disclosed after the operation - is living with her parents on their native island ... Rose - Mary's real name - is buried on the island.", though of course even the Grauniad has been known to get things wrong!
The one existing Wikipedia article, in Finnish, identifies Jodi as Rose and surviving, and Mary as Grace and dying (Google translate seems quite clear on this), though none of their three sources (all English and published before the operation) mentions the names Ros(i)e or Grac(i)e at all. Does that mean that Wikidata picked up the unsourced misinformation from Finnish wikipedia? Can anyone here write Finnish and add an appropriate note to the talk page there, or even edit the article?
I really should have left Microstates to next month! PamD 20:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, as I understand it Wikidata does not allow its entries to point to redirects. So if the decision here is that they should be conjoined in a single article (which seems correct to me), then I think there is no way to un-red-link them in the Wikidata listing nor to use Wikidata to make other-language links to Wikipedias that decide to keep them separate. You can still use explicit other-language links within the article (just put [[two-letter-code:Article title]] at the bottom of the article) but that won't help for the WIR redlink lists. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) I've removed the pair from the redlist (but not touched the wikidata items.) In essence, in such cases, the redlinks need to be removed by hacking the page's SPARQL to identify by number the items that are not wanted. Bar the confusion over which of them lived and which died, the four wikidata items concerning them are all fine (2 items covering the 2 individuals, 1 item for the pair and 1 item for the court case). --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And agree with David that if we want to link the en.wiki court case article to the Finnish article, that needs to be done by hand in the manner he suggests. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Finnish doesn't say one way or another which one is which, though it would likely be inferred by the order that Jodie=Rose and Mary=Grace:
Jodie and Mary were the pseudonyms used for the Maltese Siamese twins Rose and Grace Attard (b. August 8 2000) who were born in Britain. ...but only Jodie had functioning lungs and a heart. ... Jodie and Mary's case ... even though it was understood that this would directly lead to Mary's death. ... Without being separated from each other, both would have died, as Jodie was the stronger of the two and her body (lit. physiological functions) was keeping both of them alive, but keeping Mary alive was putting too much strain on her body. They were separated on November 7, 2000. Mary died almost immediately and Jodie survived.
(sorry for the raw translation of the parts that mention the girls; it's almost 3 a.m. here. The Finnish could be corrected by just swapping the names to make it parallel. -Yupik (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just thought I'd ask, is there any initiative for Women in Film, especially with things like the Me Too movement. Could be interesting to have an ongoing initiative more than focus month? Kingsif (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tagishsimon: I think Ipigott's suggestion is a good one regarding a cinematographers Wikidata list. Thanks in advance if you have time to create it before our August Film+Stage event. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a question I thought I'd have to ask, but...
I presume we're fine counting intersex people as part of this project, right?
...Now the actual question. There's a photography series by Nadar of an intersex individual. The intersex individual is naked, and the photography focuses on their genitalia. For Pride month, I'd like to restore it as part of celebrating oft-neglected intersex individuals.
...So.... How should I document it? I mean, it's not pornographic, but it is very, very explicit photos of genitalia. Is this, for example, suitable on our showcase? On our images on the Pride page? Should I post it here when discussing FPs? ...On the one hand, we're not censored. On the other, surprise genitalia are still surprise genitalia. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 03:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely intersex are part of this project. Sort of had a discussion about this earlier this month. I wrote a biography about Maria Dorothea Derrier. The only sketches that are extant of them are of the genitalia. Not the whole person, just the genitalia. The consensus was, even though the images were not pornographic, not to use them as an illustration on a biography as it reduced the person to the body parts, instead of depicting the full person. We concluded that the images would be better suited for an article discussing the topic in general or from a medical perspective, not a biography. You seem to be saying that the images by Nadar are of a person, rather than just the body parts. If they do not diminish the dignity of that person, then I wouldn't have a problem including such an image. There is also to my mind a place for such photos if they are just of the genitalia, as I said above on a general article on the topic, but maybe others should weigh in. SusunW (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see, it's actually a famous enough illustration to have its own article. Hermaphrodite (Nadar) (the term intersex didn't exist at the time) Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 04:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there is already an article and the photos are already on WP, then having the best version we can of the photos seems like a logical goal to me. But, I am only one voice and there may be others who feel differently. SusunW (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see there was a DYK on this a few years ago and that other Wikipedia language versions use the images. These are of course historic photographs and while enhancements are no doubt justified for presentational purposes, there is something to be said for preserving the originals, given their high quality. I am personally impressed by the original images from 1860 and think they should be preserved as such in the article on Hermaphrodite. If there is good reason for including enhanced versions in other articles or contexts, then that would seem to be in order. But then I think the enhanced versions should be posted on WiR with appropriate explanations. These are my views as someone interested in the history of photography. I'll leave comments on the intersex aspects to others.--Ipigott (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Membership and WiR development
At present, WiR has 360 active registered members and some 420 inactive members. Strangely, some of those who have recently had the most influence on our activities and web presence are not members. These include Tagishsimon, who is nevertheless on our mailing list, and Ritchie333. Quite a few others remain members but have deleted their names from our mailing lists, either because they are no longer very active or simply because they don't want to receive our monthly messages.
All that may seem quite an achievement, especially if you look at our stats which show a total of 18,837 articles since 2015 have been included in the Category:WikiProject Women in Red. To put this in context, I have however been looking quite carefully at the membership of other active WikiProjects. For example, WP Football (695 members listed) currently has 349,740 articles, WP Video games (members not listed) 79,344 articles, WP Military History (1,477 members, most no longer active) 58,671 articles and WP Medicine (736 members, most no longer active) 45,464 articles. We can of course cite the overaall total of 291,649 biographies of women on the EN encyclopaedia but most of these were created outside WiR.
I bring all this up because for over a week now, we have had no new members. This is quite unusual as we usually have three or four a week, sometimes at least one a day. I'm not too sure why this is the case and am looking for ways and means of improving the situation. After all, if our membership diminishes, we are unlikely to be able to make serious progress on reducing the gender gap. I have therefore been wondering if we can make it easier to monitor lists of new/recent registrations on the EN Wikipedia in order to identify contributors we could encourage to become members of WiR. We could perhaps do more to encourage those organizing editathons, educational initiatives and general presentations on Wikipedia to include a word about Women in Red. They should stress the need for wider participation, especially on the part of women. I look forward to any other suggestions on how to encourage more members. Maybe our sporting priority in July and August could also offer opportunities.--Ipigott (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry too much about this frankly. The project (as shown by this page, social media followers etc) has arguably been the most active on WP for some time. Wikiprojects generally are out of fashion these days, and the supposed "memberships" mean very little indeed for those that have been set up for 10 or 15+ years, like the others you mention. Since there has been a relentless focus on gender gap issues and women's biographies in "editathons, educational initiatives and general presentations on Wikipedia" for many years, and WiR does I think typically get a mention, there may not be much extra that can be done in that direction. The academic timetable and (northern) summer weather often slow things down around this time of year. (non-member) Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod: Thanks for your encouragement but from here you can see that for the same period last year we had at least 11 new members. Without mentioning specific events and press articles, I can assure you that despite our efforts, quite a number of meetups focusing on women have not been very successful in mentioning Women in Red and encouraging membership. This is understandable as it is not easy to organize an event and the top priority often seems to be devoted to introducing newcomers to the basics of Wikipedia editing, although there are of course notable exceptions. Maybe we could put together a brief folder which could be printed out and physically distribubted to those attending editathons and educational sessions. I have a feeling that new recruits are often overwhelmed with all the links they find on their talk pages: the welcome template, the Teahouse, and the educational assignments they are embarking on. Victuallers may be interested in something along these lines.--Ipigott (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't signed up to Women in Red because I don't generally write articles about women - that's it in a nutshell. There's the odd exception like Nickey Barclay and Shubulade Smith, but they're generally one-offs. Of course, I encourage those who do, which is why I've turned up asking for help here a few times. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If WiR has 360 active members then it should count its blessings. I don't formally join many projects, myself, because I'm not keen on bureaucracy. WiR was one of the few exceptions but I still prefer to focus on content rather than the extra bells and whistles of project activity. But the good news is that there are still lots of new women editors showing up at relevant events. For example, yesterday I attended an event which was well-attended by women and about half of the editors were new. I'm not sure if WiR got a mention but there was lots to cover in just a few hours. Here's a list of accounts FYI. Perhaps someone could send them an invitation...
Thanks Andrew Davidson: You're doing a great job! Several of these appear to be seasoned Wikipedians but I'll check them all out tomorrow and try to contact the newcomers who already have an editing history.--Ipigott (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Johnbod. That said, I'll be participating in a wikiproject-centered research symposium in August and I assume recruiting editors will be a topic. If that's the case, I'll report back once I'm home. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From the above, it certainly does look as if some of our most active participants are not actually members of WiR. So maybe membership is no longer seen to be so important. Let's see how things develop over the next couple of months. I've contacted a few of the users suggested by Andrew Davidson but as usual most of them have not been active since the editathon. I certainly agree with Johnbod that many of the older WikiProjects no longer have as many active members as WiR. They do, nevertheless, continue to create many new articles, especially those covering sports. I look forward to Rosiestep's feedback on the August research symposium. Sounds interesting. Is there an agenda?--Ipigott (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, I'll share what I can as soon as I can. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to shrink the last one down to 40px wide or so, if it's a little too much genitalia for here. Trying to compromise between "surprise genitalia is kind of rude" and "WP:NOTCENSORED" Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 00:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They're not all closed yet, but it looks like everything passed. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 13:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosiestep: Thank you, but I must say: Don't just congratulate me! The first is by Rhododendrites (who really SHOULD have had a lot more out of that set of photos), and the second was found by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao, who also wrote the article on Honeywell. Both of them do incredible work for the project, and I don't want to grab any of their credit. This is a collaborative project, after all. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 20:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: Thanks kindly, but I owe you a lot for helping me to shepherd Honeywell through the FP process - despite the amount of time I've been hanging out around here, FP is still terra incognita for me to a large extent, and it's great to have a helping hand as I make my first steps down the path. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've started an article on Marshae Jones, I would really appreciate it if people could take a look at it, there's a huge amount to write about her and her case and lots of references. I think it also needs someone with an understanding of the US justice system and reproductive rights to take a look.
FYI, Metrics have been kaput for the last 3 days. Cause is likely to be a temporary ban on the Wikimedia Toolforge querying wikidata. Normal service might be resumed Sunday or Monday. I'm on the case, with the help of someone who has a clue about the plumbing.
Also FYI, Emijrpbot, which used to do an excellent job of creating new wikidata items for en.wiki biographies, has been quiet presumed dead since the end of April. So there's now that much less being done about creating wikidata items for biographies.
Anyone who wants to help out on this task is cordially directed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/Wikidata, and notably to the various reports under the heading 'Articles with no wikidata item'. Petscan, on which these reports run, is notoriously tempremental (some downstream dependency fail outside Magnus's control, AFAIK), so that adds to the joy of trying to keep metrics up to date. Oronsay & Nat965 continue to put in much spadework in this area, for which thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tagishsimon: I have been tied up for the past day or two and have only now had time to look into that background of this. The whole thing seems to have arisen from a minor block on Emijrp on the EN wiki. I don't suppose the blocker knew how much damage he was doing to the workings of WiR. For years, Emijrp has been a tremendous help to the project and was the first to draw our attention to the assistance we could receive from Wikidata. I understand his frustration but am really disappointed he has posted a retirement notice. Let's hope he can be persuaded to return. If not, is there anyone who can maintain his bot? Or is there some other way we can pick up new "female" articles from Wikidata?--Ipigott (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Owing to yet another change in the formatting of data provided by Wikidata, our WHGI stats have also failed to update but the problem is being addressed.--Ipigott (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm shopping around for a new user to run Emijrpbot's biography code, but it's a big ask. It's very sad that User:emijrp has retired, and I hope they return; but equally they were banged to rights for a flagrant 3RR ... even when you have right on your side w.r.t. the change you're trying to make stick, edit warring is the wrong thing to do. Meanwhile the expectation is that metrics should be back with us this afternoon. Fingers crossed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tagishsimon: That looks encouraging. Let's hope there is some kind of update today. Up to now, the metrics for July are pretty dismal and those for June seem much lower than usual. To what extent could we rely on new additions to Wikidata without Emijrpbot? Rather than returning to the old days when we used to list articles manually from AlexNewBot, etc., we could at least pay more attention to ensuring new biographies are backed by Wikidata items or updates. Thanks for all your efforts on this. We are obviously in good hands.--Ipigott (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: Well, good but equally not much use hands. Petscan increasingly does not work, and so is decreasingly a route for finding biogs needing items. I've asked Magnus about the issue, but I'm not expecting a cure. I've not yet found someone to run Emijrpbot, though still looking. Reports bot is back up & running, but if items are not being added to wikidata in a systematic fashion, then we have a problem. June metrics are probably in line with expectations - June seems to be a less productive month than other months (student exam time?) ... I expect June's ~1600 count to increase by ~100 over time, because that tends to be the pattern. I'll feedback any new info on these issues here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tagishsimon: You're obviously making good progress. Sorry to hear there are problems with Petscan. Maybe this is a good opportunity to encourage WiR participants to show more interest in Wikidata. Unfortunately, the reactions up to now have been largely negative.--Ipigott (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: I now have a couple of offers of adoption of Emijrpbot's biography bot, so with luck that will soon get back in action. Petscan seems to be having big problems outside Magnus's control, so the scope for WiR people helping out is very small - without the tool there's not that much that can be done. It's a shame - something WMF should be addressing, but which it prefers to ignore. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Peel has kindly taken over Emijrpbot, the work of which is now handled by User:Pi bot. Suggest we all owe Mike a pint (& presumably a pie) if ever encountered IRL. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After running over the weekend, it's (briefly) stopped again as I need to do some more reviewing of the code. In particular, there's problems with the birth and death dates only being years rather than the full date (where that's available). If anyone has any other suggestions for improvements to it, then now might be a good time to raise them! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: Probably normal normal. Priority 1 is getting us to a point where biogs have items with Q5 and gender, whether by creating or adding sitelinks to existing. P2 would be DoB & DoD, occupation, and anything else you can scrape. If you have issues marrying biogs where there are items with a Label matching the article title, then adding links to a simple list in a static page which we can go through by hand would work; we already have a bunch of Listeria reports of items with no gender here which we farm. I guess P3 might be bunging an image onto the wikidata item if there's one available. But really it's the P1 stuff which is most important, as that drives our metrics; anything else is a bonus. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The bot's now back in regular service. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there are German and Italian sources, probably Netherlands and other European languages, that I'm not getting to, if anyone has access. This is a developing event, the ship captain who just docked a rescue ship without authorization in an Italian harbor and has been arrested for it. It would be nice if we could get the article in good enough shape to put it at In The News. --valereee (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update for the archives: the result was keep. --Redalert2fan (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not contributing at present
It's the first of the month. Usually I'd be working on articles (well, solidly-sourced stubs at least) for all the WiR Editathons of the month (as listed here). But I feel despondent about the future of this wonderful volunteer-powered encyclopedia of ours, given the recent events described here and summarised in the latest WP:Signpost. Some powerful elements of the WMF appear to treat volunteers like mushrooms ("keep them in the dark and feed them s***"). Until relationships between the WMF and the English Wikipedia community are improved, I am reluctant to contribute. I hope to resume article creation soon, but am not confident about the future. PamD 08:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For those interested in this unfolding saga, Fram replies to Smallbones' Signpost piece here. I don't know the rights and wrongs of this particular case, but WMF's treatment of the En.Wiki community has been very poor and we are losing hardworking admins day by day. PamD 09:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Smallbones's piece was deleted at 13:54 UTC today, as "(G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Out of caution this should be hidden from view until ArbCom rules. We can’t have scandalous assertions without evidence)". A good thing too, but that's how nasty things are getting. PamD 14:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry, PamD, that you will not be contributing for the time being. With all your biographies and related articles over the past few years, you have done much to improve the coverage of women on the EN wiki. I realize this incident must have been upsetting. Let's hope that as the story unfolds, we can build up the necessary motivation again. Personally, I think it is important to remember how much the world now depends on Wikipedia for finding reliable information about people. It's usually their first port of call. Hope you'll be joining us again soon.--Ipigott (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: I don't think this will be the end of us. I've actually been at a lower ebb over some WiR-related business earlier this year, even. And I suppose I shouldn't be commenting on the Fram business because I've been traveling for the past week and change, and because before that I was so engaged in preparation that I missed a large part of what was going on. That being said: I'm not impressed with the way the Foundation has handled this. Love or hate him (her? I seem to recall Fram self-identifying as female once in a discussion), Fram was a long-time editor and administrator with a major profile here; that's not the sort of person you can just go ahead and block with a snap of the fingers and expect it to go unnoticed. It's troubling, and I hope it's not a harbinger of the way things are going to go around here. Personally, I hope to have enough in the tank for a stub tonight, but otherwise I'll be returning to my wanderings for the remainder of this week. (PS: greetings from Nur-Sultan - ask me about my trip to Georgia sometime. :-)) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Time for my afternoon tea break, and wanted to check in with you, PamD, to see how you're doing as you mentioned feeling despondent. Hope you're doing ok (even though the issues surrounding recent events are not settled). --Rosiestep (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just knocked this together kind of quickly - I discovered her work in Tbilisi last week and fell in love. There's a lot to expand, and I have a copy of the 2016 monograph in my suitcase, but I leave here tomorrow and will likely be back on wifi for the rest of the trip. Would like another pair of eyes or two to check over it and make sure I didn't miss anything in my haste. (FYI: 1894 seems to be the correct date of her birth, not 1892 as one source has it; the later date is what I get from the museum label that I have photographed on my phone as well.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I offered to start off the biography of Wen Shu as part of the Women in Space theme for June. I've got a fair way in my user pages, and have a final source coming from a library. You can see my draft here. So I think, with a bit of extra work on the text itself, it can pass the notability criteria. There are some bits I'm stuck on though, and I've been noting them in the related talk page. For example, I wouldn't dream of attempting the naming conventions for Chinese biographies. And I'm not sure how to safely source images. What do people recommend I focus on next? And should I move it into review now, or can you edit when it is a user page? I'm hoping @Johnbod can help me move this into live space!
Moira Paul (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it passes notability as it is, and can just be moved now (I can do it if you prefer). I did look at the sources I have handy, but haven't found anything to add. 2D images are fine to upload from museums etc as she's long out of copyright. I'll add at the talk. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other than dealing with the tbc in the infobox, the only nice-to-have I spot would be a ref for the legacy section. Johnbod's right - she is notable and the article can be promoted to mainspace now (or, at least, when the infobox stuff is sorted out, and any unused infobox or section headers are removed). Lovely short article, Moira; thank you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, the Catalan article seems to be just a translation of the French one. As for WD, is "Ming dynasty" a "country of citizenship"? Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I spend most of my time nowadays despairing of wikipedia & wikidata. Ming now gone. Today's best doh! was a wikidata claim that the narrative location of the film Casablanca was Paris (diff). Kill me now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! For me, I think that makes it over 10 for "last WD items looked at without not finding a mistake" - and counting. Thanks for fixing. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, now at Wen Shu. Nice work Moira! Not added to the lists though. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all! I’ve realised I should add her Venusian moon crater as part of her Legacy too. Will make an edit tonight. Moira Paul (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Moira Paul: I recognize that name from the previous discussion I made last month :) Thanks for making the article! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hazard a guess that's a snafu in Template:WIR-126, in which the date parameter has a value 'July and August 2019' in a situation in which some part of the plumbing can only cope with more regular dates having formats such as 1 August 2019, August 2019 or 2019. But quite how the borked category is generated from the date parameter eludes me, even supposing that that's what is going on. Anyway; good spot. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MrLinkinPark333. I've got rid of the errors by editing the template to July. I'll change it to August when the time comes. Obviously two months was too much for Wikipedia to swallow in one go!--Ipigott (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nicole Turner notability
I'm working on filling in a few redlinks in the para swimming topic, and I'm looking at Irish swimmer Nicole Turner.[1] I just want to check on notability before I start. The SNG for sports under Olympic and Paralympic Games says winning a medal at the Paralympics is enough, but she hasn't done that though she has competed. But under Basic criteria it approves an athlete who has "for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level." Turner won 2 silver medals and one bronze at the 2016 IPC Swimming European Open Championships[2] and has recently won a gold in the Youth section of the World Para Swimming Series.[3] Both of those are competitions at the highest level of para swimming, though the world gold is only at Youth level so won't really count. As for GNG, there's a report on her European medals in the Irish Times[4] and more in-depth articles about her from RTE[5] and the Irish Independent.[6] There's also an earlier article about her in Balls.ie.[7] The Irish Times, RTE and Irish Independent all seem like reliable sources to me (though I confess I'd never heard of Balls.ie). So, notability, what do you think? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: Well, if you can pass GNG you should be set to go. There's also this source I found as well that adds more in depth coverage. Also, this one is behind a paywall. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those links, especially the paralympic.org one which is good. There's also a second paywall one at leinsterexpress.ie,[8] and I might just invest 99c for a day's access to get both. I think there's enough for GNG, but I'll wait a short while for any other opinions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you curious about what tools are effective in reaching Women in Red’s goals? Are you interested in contributing to the building of scalable solutions for closing Wikipedia’s gender gap?
I’m with a group of researchers working on using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to promote gender diversity in Wikipedia contents and thus to close the gender gap. We want to make sure you, as an important member of the community, can be heard as we build and refine these AIs.
We would like to invite you to a quick interview to share your thoughts about gender gaps on Wikipedia and the current efforts, as well as potential solutions to them. It would only take about 30 minutes over phone or video chat. We will send you a $15 Amazon gift card as a way to thank you for your time.
For more details about our project, please refer to our Wikipedia page here.
If you decide to participate, your opinion could help build the future of Wikipedia. Hope to talk to you soon! Reply to this message here or send me an email at bowen-yu@umn.edu and I can share more info and plan a time to connect. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that, unless things have changed, Amazon vouchers have to be redeemed from the country they were issued in - they don't work internationally. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll participate, if you like. Though I should point out I work more in images, and you should probably make sure you interview people other than me, because only interviewing men about women's issues leads to all sorts of stupid. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 16:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - I'd be happy to participate. Be warned that I'll likely be computerless for the next 48 hours or so, though...it'll be Sunday at the earliest before I can have a look. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bobo.03 I'll be happy to participate if it can be done by e-mail or VOIP. I live in Mexico and phone calls are difficult. SusunW (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply! I've sent individual emails to all of you to schedule a time. Hope to talk to you all soon. Thanks again!Bobo.03 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yupik. I was aware Marc was making the presentation, but it's nice to see how it plays out. I played around with the women's lists a little but found it hard to evaluate without the context of their era. It seems that the criteria for inclusion is number of edits and views, which would typically skew toward recentism, i.e. ignoring historic figures in favor of current popular figures. Maybe there is a way to generate lists by era that I don't see to prevent that outcome? I will ask Marc my specific questions, but am very glad to see initiatives that help us address gaps in the coverage in en.WP of notable figures in other wikis. SusunW (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had a chance to talk with him about that and am not sure I will get the chance before the end of the conference, so please let us know what he says when you do! -Yupik (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata issues in July 2019
Getting to grips with Wikidata
So I've come across an interesting-sounding woman called Irene Scouloudi (1907-1992), an English historian whose interest in the Huguenots led to documentation of methods of assisting refugees. No article on Wikipedia. It turns out there is a page on Wikidata here, but it appears to refer to her not as a person but as the subject of a scholarly article. Am I reading that correctly? I added the description "English historian and philanthropist". What do I need to do to get Wikidata to automatically add her to the appropriate Redlist? --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) So this is actually just an item about the scholarly article, and is just for that. I checked wikidata and could not find an item for her as a person, so I have created a new one for you here (Q64946751). She should be added to the redlist when you fill in her data, specifically occupation and nationality. Then ListeriaBot should add her to the redlist at the next update. Wikidata aims to include all data about everything so that's why there can be a page about a scholarly article about a person while needing a separate page for that specific person. Redalert2fan (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I think I got a little confused by the request. Apologies. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 14:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Carbon Caryatid: I realise your question was about Wikidata, but if you're interested I have access to the David M. Wilson's one-page reflection on her importance. I've only skimmed it, but she sounds like the kind of person who should have a Wikipedia article (as well as an entry in Wikidata of course). Richard Nevell (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's also an informative obit here.--Ipigott (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And back to wikidata - her item needs a P106 Occupation before it'll turn up on a redlist. I've added such. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all, especially Redalert2fan for creating the Wikidata entry. I had in fact read the "How to add names" page, but I was unsure whether the page I was looking at on WD needed to be added to. Is there a way to add to her WD biographical entry that she left an endowment, so that all holders of the Scouloudi Fellowship link automatically to her and each other? I started from the Indy obit, but yes @Richard Nevell: I'd appreciate the Wilson reflection. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can certainly create an item "Scouloudi Fellowship" or "Scouloudi Historical Award" [4] presuming these are the same things (or two items if they are not). And we can point to her item from the Fellowship/Award item using the properties P138: named after and P112 created by. Items for recipients can point to the fellowhip/award item using the property P166:award received. There may be a property we can add to her item pointing at the fellowship/award item, but I've not found it yet. Let's start with the q. are "Scouloudi Fellowship" and "Scouloudi Historical Award" the same thing? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the Wikidata list only contains X items, which items aren't included?
If you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Educators, it contains 3,000 items, out of >12,000. How does Wikidata determine which items are included in the first 3,000, and which ones aren't. What if we changed the max to 1,000 items; which items would be more likely to be included vs. excluded? Would it be possible to have two lists of "Educators", one which only includes items that have site links, and the other to include items with no site links? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As to the second question, yes, absolutely, it's possible to add more parameters to a select to produce multiple list. We've done this for a number of redlists where we've divided them into countries, for instance. As to the first, good question. I've asked elsewhere, where people who know SPRQL and BlazeGraph better than me might be able to opine. I'll report back if I hear anything. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Using "educators" is really a test case as whatever is decided could be applied to other large occupation groups, e.g. writers, artists, scientists, so this needs ample thought and discussion. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rosiestep, those 2 redlinks look the same to me. :( I would go with "Educators" like they use at the Library of Congress [5]. Then, related, you would have academics and specialists. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the separate lists for "academic" and "educational specialist", Educational specialist only appears to have 1 person --Redalert2fan (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to beg to doubt the >12,000 assertion. Counts of the number of items by profession for the educator professions listed above is at https://w.wiki/5iX and suggests the way to divide the list might be a couple of teacher lists, and then discrete lists for the significant numbers of the other professions. I might make this so, or Redalert2fan might beat me to it. There's also this - https://w.wiki/5ia - the subclasses of educator, which we might want to factor in lest we're missing a large pot of people coded for occupation unber any of these. And finally, there this - https://w.wiki/5ic - the counts of female with no en.wiki article having occupations, for all occupations. (The largest number of female have no occupation and get a dummy value of 'concept of unknown value in Wikibase'.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosiestep and Tagishsimon: The interesting thing about Wikidata is that since it's crowdsourced and not really subject to authority control, there will be different kinds of headings than what you'd find at the Library of Congress or even with a Dewey system. I'm not a cataloging librarian, so only deal with categories in the sense that I use them to find things. Other librarians involved in cataloging, etc, use the categories to organize information. The way Wikidata is doing it is a little bit like a folksonomy, but that's OK as long as it's working for us and we can collect the datasets we need like Redalert2fan has. We link to the authorities in the articles anyway. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Megalibrarygirl, Redalert2fan, and Tagishsimon: - As we want to have redlists related to education and we want to avoid a folksonomy approach to it to the extent that's possible, would you please sort out for us (a) what redlist names should we use, and (b) what occupations (Q numbers) should go into each? Sure, we already have an "educator" redlist and a "university teachers" redlist, but we don't have to keep these "titles" if you think something else would be better. For example, we could move the "university teachers" page to "tertiary educators" and include all the Q numbers associated with post-secondary educators. Another example is the new redlist that Redalert2fan created for "educational specialist", which currently has only has one Q number (and that has only 1 item); should we keep that redlist, and add more Q numbers, and if so, which Q numbers? Plus there's the new "academic" one. I know it's a lot of work, but this is what we need to sort out. Thanks in advance. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosiestep, Redalert2fan, and Tagishsimon: I personally think that whatever works is fine. For example, if we used the Dewey system, we would categorize educators under a broad heading with some relevant subheadings:
Educators (370)
Philosophy & History of Education (this would include biographies in the 370.8 section)
Elementary education (372)
Secondary education (373)
Adult education (374) these might be specialists or tutors
Education of women (376)
Higher education (378)
Within these categories are various breakdowns. So we could subdivide them further. If we base our own lists on existing categories built up by systems we already use, it should be easier to organize. We can look at what the system is doing and copy it. We'd have to decide if we'd want to use Dewey, LOC or another type of system. The first two are mostly particular to the US. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have found that it sometimes helps just to take an intelligent look at the at the various "countries" listings when looking for occupations such as educators. There you can often find people from different fields of science and the humanities who are not listed in Wikidata as educators but who do in fact teach as their principal occupation. When making Wikidata entries, people often seem to list just one main occupation. As a result, notable educators often fail to show up. As to Rosiestep's suggestion that we have two types of Wikidata listing, one of names with at least one article in another language and the other with no article, I wonder if this could not be handled by displaying two lists under the same link. It might become rather confusing to double up the red lists associated with "popular" occupations. Of course, if we can systematically include site data in our redlink lists, then we can simply dismiss those marked 0 if we are looking for articles in other languages.--Ipigott (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, aha! Nice to hear. You may not be aware, but it's one of my habits to review redlists (been working on the Educators one) and add the country to items which are missing it just so that the item is available on country lists, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep: I think you must have misunderstood my message. I probably did not express myself very well. What I was suggesting was that you can often find the names of educators (and indeed of people in other occupations) by looking through the country lists. As I am interested in writing about Scandinavians, I frequently look through the country lists for Denmark, Norway and Sweden, examining in particular the main descriptions in addition to the specific lists on the different professions. That said, your work on the educator redlists seems very useful.--Ipigott (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about creating items for all of our redlists and editathons, including the statement on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008)? If you like the idea, what other WiR subpages would be suited for a Wikidata item, e.g. subpages which might be replicated in another language, e.g. this is the Italian language Wikidata redlist of women educators. If you like the idea, how would we structure this as an "ontology", because other projects, e.g. A+F, BLT, 1000 Women in Religion, Atari Women, etc. are using it only (I think) as a way of associating biographies with their project, not as a way of demarcating their subpages. cc: WiR Librarian in Residence, Megalibrarygirl. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the idea of adding redlists as a Wikidata item, Rosiestep. It might help us find other potential articles in other languages, especially if they're crowd-sourced lists. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this idea, but I am not sure you can create items for all of these editathons? That kind of thing is out of my league since I tend to hang out with 17th-century art. If you had this it would make it easier to see which approaches have the most impact, so I would definitely like to see some setup along these lines. I am just not sure how to do it. Jane (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw, I have our Redlists characterised in a spreadsheet such that I can launch wikidata items for each onto an unsuspecting world. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Majority of redlists now have wikidata items. There's some clear-up work to be done which I'll not bore you with, and perhaps properties to add (or change), if anyone cares to make a suggestion. Report. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for more sources
I created Floy Little Bartlett and I am surprised at how little I could find since the score of one of her songs was in a famous film. I'm looking for help to find more things about her, her music, and her book. Thanks in advance. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: I'll dig for some more info. I'll post the links on the talk page of her article. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I find helps is to check the Library of Congress, or other large collections. That way you get some idea of what exists. Remember to use both maiden and married names in the searches and (sadly enough) "Mrs. Husband Name". After that, one can move to things like obituaries in her local papers, and so on. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 20:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the help from you two. Megalibrarygirl, thanks for the source help on the talk page. SL93 (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of impressed at how poor sources are from her. Mind, she does kind of fall into the worst period for this. Right in the middle of a sheet music boom, used in silent films, so there's no recordings of the usage, and, judging by the titles, falling into a sentimental mood, which seems to have not really been what people kept from the 1910s. Plus, a lot of her works came out a bit before WWI, so, plenty of chaos to lose them in. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 21:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have come into source problems quite a bit with women composers and it's a shame. I own a copy of International Encyclopedia of Women Composers and it lists so many composers that I feel should be notable, but I just can't find enough coverage where I can feel it would survive an AfD. SL93 (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Cuerden, SL93: I'm interested in covering women composers, especially those from continental Europe, and am familiar with several sources which don't usually show up in Google searches in English. If you could give the names of a few of those you have been investigating, I may be able to create articles likely to survive. As for those from Britain and North America, I think there's enough expertise among the English speakers to check them out.--Ipigott (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, I'm away from my stuff until sometime tomorrow, but I can list some here when I get back home. SL93 (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, I could only locate two of the names I was researching, but they are Gertrud Maria Mell (Sweden) and Jelena Milenković Živković (Yugoslavia). Sources right now for Mell - an entry in my encyclopedia and this. Sources right now for Milenković Živković - my encyclopedia and this. SL93 (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SL93: Thanks for these. Mell is included here in the Swedish lexicon Vem är hon and briefly in a number of other Swedish sources. I see she died on 30 June 2016. I'll write a short article about her in the next day or two. You can then perhaps add any additional information from your encyclopedia.--Ipigott (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking likely we'll be performing Louise Bertin's Le loup-garou next year, so I'd love to see her operas documented better. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 07:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kim Echlin edit request
Hi all. There's a COI edit request at Talk:Kim Echlin that participants in this project might be interested in helping out with. Echlin is a female, Canadian novelist. The request probably can't be implemented wholesale, but the article certainly could do with some improvement, and there may well be useful material for this task in the request. I've made some minor additions to the article myself, but help would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Help! Need a new article renamed
I misspelled an article title, Juilet Clannon Cushing should be Juliet Clannon Cushing (and it's spelled right in the rest of the article). Help! Penny Richards (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of redlinks at Nari Shakti Puraskar, "India's highest civilian award for recognising the achievements and contributions of women", as I found out while creating an article for Didi Contractor, one of the 2018 winners. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good find, David Eppstein. Hopefully, someone is creating Wikidata items for the redlinked women. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GAN nom for Susan Kauzlarich
Hi folks, I just got a response on my very first GAN nom for Prof Susan Kauzlarich @ UC Davis. You can take a look on the talk page Susan Kauzlarich. I don't mind pursuing things further but I was a bit surprised by the reviewer's justifications. Would someone else mind taking a look and letting me know a second opinion? Also, aren't the reviewers usually supposed to be part of an article's relevant project groups (for instance a reviewer for this article would be be affiliated w/ Wikipedia: Chemistry or Wikipedia: Women in Science). thanks! Nanobright (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edit, there's a few things - I'll comment them on the talk page when I get a few minutes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 19:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for reviewers to be affiliated with an article's project group. In many cases, it is helpful if they aren't. Canada Hky (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it was disappointing, Nanobright, but the GAN feedback seems reasonable to me. GAN is a high standard and this article does not yet meet it. I, too, have failed a GAN ... it's upsetting, I know, but in my case the GAN fail was justified, as it was in this case. It will take a substantial amount of work to make Sk GAN material, and that would start with addressing the points raised in the feedback you have. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did some clean up on the article to help neutralize the tone to a more encyclopedic voice. Netherzone (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this BLP came to AfD it would get a clear pass on WP:Prof#C1, maybe more. However the BLP is far from GA status as it is bloated with trivia and superfluous promotionalism that could be an embarrassment to its subject. A 50% at least prune is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Nanobright: I realize you are probably rather upset by the result of the review. As has been explained above, the GA standard is pretty high. If you want to see some of the recent women's biographies which have reached GA class, I suggest you look at the "Recent successes" listed on project WikiProject Women in Green. It might also be useful for you to join that project where you will be able to receive advice and assistance. Perhaps it would also be good to choose another women as a candidate for a GA article. I'm not at all sure whether there are sufficient available sources on Susan Kauzlarich for you to be able to expand the article much further. I would be happy to help you along if we can identify another candidate for whom you can find more background information. You might also like to consider writing about someone who is no longer living. Obituaries, especially those you can find on the internet for people who have died fairly recently, can be useful sources as they give an immediate impression of a person's level of notability and provide essential background details. Don't give up. You're progressing very well. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Lee Vilenski, Tagishsimon, Ipigott, Canada Hky, Xxanthippe, and Netherzone:: Thanks for getting back to me. Apologies for any confusion but my concern was not the GAN status but that the feedback would lead to the article being nominated for deletion. It's great to hear that's not on the table + for some addt'l feedback. Now that my WikiEdu class is completed I have less time allocated to editing (although I am working on organizing an edit-a-thon for women's scientific biographies). Re: comments above from @Xxanthippe:, I'm having trouble following the feedback + terms in your reply but the overall gist sounds worrisome. If you have time to make any direct edits to the article that would be awesome. Nanobright (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff, Nanobright; keep the faith. Good luck with the editathon; hope to see much more from you. And thank you for weathering this squall as well as you have. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't get time to message you regarding this - I'd say that "good articles" are misleading, realistically, they need to be "great articles". The person in question is notable, so no worries regarding AfD. I'll do some cleanup on the page if you would like that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have a lot of experience with newbies and article creation, you might have good feedback for this. Please comment at the above link! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Headbomb for bringing this to our attention. I see your proposal is already attracting support. Before I go to your proposal page, I have a few reflections and suggestions. I remember when I first used (pre-Wikipedia) wikis, one of my problems was how to create an article. It's not at all obvious. (I had been used to Wang word processing where the first menu item was "Create".) While I agree that more information about creating new articles should be provided in a general introduction, I am not convinced it is a good idea to encourage "newbies" to start creating articles without gaining some basic experience of editing, e.g. through the Wikipedia Adventure. In my experience, without initial guidance, very few new editors are able to create new articles which are not immediately deleted. We need to be very careful not to discourage newbies to the point where they simply stop any further involvement. If additional explanations are to be given on how to create an article, they should therefore contain a number of hints and safeguards. One feature could be a basic article format (perhaps even two: one for people and one for other items) which could be "filled in" by new recruits. This is a complex matter and needs careful attention. I see, btw, that the German wiki has a page Hilfe:Artikel anlegen (Help:Create new article) with an immediate link to Schritt für Schritt-Anleitung (Step-by-step guide) which has been around since 2008. I see this is available in many wiki languages but not in English. There is however this in Simple English. It may be useful to draw on the experience gained. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your thoughts about community health
Some of you may know that I am a member of the Wikimedia movement strategy Community Health Working Group(CHWG). It is one of nine Working Groups (WG) involved in developing recommendations to the WMF Board of Trustees regarding planning for the future. In order to make informed recommendations, we seek the opinions of editors. Here's a link to the survey. No need to respond here stating whether you've completed it or not... I just hope that you make the time to do it. Thanks in advance. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find the survey until I realized I had to click on "NÆSTE" at the foot of the first page. Then I found the questions.--Ipigott (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this and thought it was interesting, thanks Rosiestep! But I'm slightly confused after looking at meta, maybe you can help?
It looks like this is part of this project, but the timeline given there suggests that the survey period ended on June 30, and the "wrap-up" ends, well, today. Since you posted on July 8, I'm guessing the dates on that page are old - do you know of an updated timeline anywhere?
It also looks like this is part of this bigger series of surveys, but I can't find that one linked anywhere other than meta. You seem to be the only one who's posted this on enwiki! That can't be right - I was using Special:Linksearch, but maybe you've set up the surveys so the links are unique to the origin? (That would be clever!) If the survey period is indeed still ongoing, shouldn't the bigger set be more widely circulated? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting queries. Pinging Rosiestep on the above.--Ipigott (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your interest, @Opabinia regalis and Ipigott. I'm traveling so I apologize for brevity. Here is a link to all of the Working Group surveys. See also this for more information, or just ask me specific questions and I'll be glad to respond (or find out the answer and respond). As for deadline(s)/extension(s), I am checking with strategy Core Team. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eeep, thank you Rosiestep (and I hope you're enjoying your trip)! Does that date apply to all of the surveys, or just the one you posted? If it's the latter, I think the link to the big batch of surveys should be broadly posted in the usual places (AN, VP, etc) to make sure people here see it - I've got to run right now but I can do that tonight. I probably should read meta more, but I bet I'm not the only one who tends to stick to enwiki unless pinged from somewhere else! Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis, Rosiestep, Things like this should definitely be more widely publicized than just at this selected project, and with enough time for people to take part. Notifying only the Women in Red project could look somewhat partisan, perhaps even verging on canvassing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: This may be the only place you have seen it, but be assured that many wiki communities around the world are aware of it. Women in Red isn't a recognized "Affiliate", but it is an ally of Wiki Women's User Group and Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group, ergo why I left a comment here. (PS: You don't have to be a member of an Affiliate to participate in the surveys. Everyone's opinion is welcomed.) --Rosiestep (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosiestep: I'm pleased to hear that, but where else on the English Wikipedia (by far the biggest Wikipedia) has this been publicized? Don't you think this needs wider input than only from groups specifically associated with Women and Gender? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee How can a neutrally worded head's up about a survey of interest to this project be canvassing or partisan? It's common to let projects who may be interested in a certain topic to know about these things. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Megalibrarygirl It can be seen as canvassing or partisan if it is selectively communicated to projects that would be more likely to have a more sympathetic view of the aims of the initiative, and not to the wider community. I'm quite sure that's not what's intended, but T&S and Community Health are divisive topics right now, and I do think this needs proper wider notification. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What Megalibrarygirl said. As Opabinia regalis said, typical wp behavior is to stick to those places you edit. Lots of people, allies and non-allies have watchlisted this page. Rosie isn't responsible for distributing the survey, but she did post it in a prominent place so that others would know of it. I appreciate Opabinia regalis' offer to post it other places. Wouldn't have the slightest idea how to do that, as "the usual places (AN, VP, etc)" are unfamiliar to me and I have no idea what these, or most wiki acronyms mean. SusunW (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm clearly not going to get much sympathy here from those with a vested interest in this project (which I have too - I'm working on WiR articles myself), but I really do think these things should be more widely publicized across en.wiki, rather than just to sympathetic projects. I'm sure the number of people who have this page watchlisted is tiny compared to the usual places (and, I'm sure Rosiestep knows where they are, even if you don't). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to put a quick pin in that, Boing! said Zebedee - as far as I can tell this is the only place on enwiki itself that these survey links have appeared, so thanks to Rosie for sharing! I dont think it's canvassing any more than it would be if I'd noticed it and posted it on, say, the MCB talk page. The meta page about this strategy project says that the distribution plan is: "The chosen approach for distribution is using existing liaison networks as well as social media channels" - so if there's issues with notifications they were kind of baked in to the project as a whole, and the best thing to do now is to make sure it gets seen more broadly. That plan probably makes sense for some of the topics in the survey set, and I appreciate the goals there in making sure to hear from people who are more loosely connected to the overall Wikimedia community. But offsite social media as a primary place to find out about surveys targeting your open-source free-knowledge hobby community doesn't sound right. (I guess I'll go say that on meta later, but yeesh how does anyone actually get any editing done from a phone.) Opabinia externa (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sports, sports, sports
Initiative to improve coverage of women footballers
I've just been reading Nick Levine's article A Ridiculous Gender Bias On Wikipedia Is Finally Being Corrected in Refinery29. It reports on an initiative supported by adidas in collaboration with a team of sports writers to create biographies of 200 women footballers who are not yet covered on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see from here that it is being coordinated by Lucy Crompton-Reid, CEO of Wikimedia UK.--Ipigott (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can see that if you really want to find out what's going on on Wikipedia, you have to read Twitter. Is there anywhere a list of the 200 footballers they intend to cover and how many they have already created? It would be interesting to see how they compare with those on men. Apparently on average, those on women footballers are much shorter.--Ipigott (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Wikipedia:GLAM/Adidas & Women's World Cup; which would suggest Battleofalma & reinforce WMUK fingerprints. (Prettyplease WMUK, drop a note on this page when you do something like this, so we can cheer along.) Still some red there. Wikipedia-twitter and wikidata-twitter both are useful, but twitter can equally be a hideous timesink. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: I'd be up for it. I have three Canadian footballers I would like to make :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping in to say that there is also a coverage gap in female referees and managers, especially at the World Cup level as recent as 2015. Perhaps this can be bundled with footballers into a single redlink campaign in the near future. SounderBruce 23:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In discussing Data about BLPS, Andrew Gray tells us that 46% of the BLPs on women are about athletes (i.e. sports). Should we therefore be offering more encouragement and support to those keen to improve our coverage? On our ideas page, we have been wondering whether simply to list "Sports" in general as a priority for July (possibly extending it into August), or whether it would be more productive to target specific items such as footballers, cyclists, etc. (See also the discussion of footballers on this page.) Maybe we could include a "Sport of the month" over the next few months, just as we have a geofocus. Whatever we decide, we'll need to firm things up for July about a week from now. As I'm no expert on sportswomen, it would be useful to have suggestions from those who take an interest or are keen to write biographies on sportswomen themselves. Or maybe some of you think that as the sports sector is one of the most popular on Wikipedia anyway, we should be concentrating on other areas. What do you think? How should we go forward?--Ipigott (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To quickly clarify - 46% of all BLPs are on athletes. However, those are very strongly skewed male, so they represent a smaller share of women - 32% of all female BLPs are of athletes.
One really interesting thing I found is that there is a pronounced spike in athlete-biography curation connected with the Olympics... and that this spike is much more gender-balanced than the usual levels of article creation. Don't know to what degree that's scalable/transferable as a focus, but it's quite intriguing. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a lot of biographies in sports, regardless of gender and whether or not they are currently living. Of the BLP sportswomen I've made, only three of them were Olympian competitors. As for other women athletes, I've focused on marathon, golf, and tennis to name a few. I tend to use Wikipedia:Notability (sports) to help guide me to who should have an article or not. Maybe that could help? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the recent past, we had an almost-year-long focus on women in science. This year, we are doing a year-long focus on women's suffrage. Maybe in 2020, because of the Summer Olympics, we could have a year-long focus on women's sports. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, like many in the community at large, I feel we already have enough or too many sports bios in general, partly because the notability criteria are a) pretty generous, and b) much less subjective than in other fields, so arguments are fewer. Readers seem to agree, as the long tail of sports bios get very low views after a particular event is over. Of course, if you are interested in boosting statistics on coverage, sports is a good way to go. For young athletes in track & field, after a few statistics there is usually nothing much to say, so they are rather easy to write.
Incidentally, one problem with non-star athlete BLPs is that nobody notices when they die many decades later - look at Scandinavian winter sports people from 70 years ago- so not all our "BLP"s actually may be that. We assume people are dead at 110 or something (there's a policy somewhere) unless known to be still living, which by that point will again get media coverage. See for example (this is the entire biog text):"Xaver Affentranger (born 1 December 1897, date of death unknown) was a Swiss cross-country skier, Nordic combined skier, and ski jumper who competed in the 1920s. At the 1924 Winter Olympics he finished 17th in the Nordic combined event, 22nd in the 18 km cross-country competition, and 24th in the ski jumping event. He won a bronze medal in the Nordic combined at the 1925 FIS Nordic World Ski Championships in Johannisbad." Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Related question: What proportion of biographies on enwiki are for male athletes? --valereee (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As someone whose main focus for most of their time on wikipedia has been related to hockey, I've seen a disproportionate amount of hockey bios about men that are sub-stubs because they played one game in the World Hockey Association while Women in the CWHL don't qualify. The criteria for hockey players explicitly exclude women's leagues (WP:NHOCKEY). I have created a few bios about historical women and sports (such as Fay Biles) but I am thinking of focusing on female winners of the Paralympic Order. That way I have a list to start from. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think a focus on women in sports can be a multi-pronged effort which might be of interest to various WiR enthusiasts. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Writing the biographies on Wikipedia
Creating or adding to existing Wikidata items
Taking photos and/or uploading from Flickr, and adding to WikiCommons
@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Thumbs up if you do go on to make female Paralympic Order recipients. I've made a few in the past i.e. Anne Ebbs and Joan Scruton. Last I check there was over ten redlinks for women recipients, so there's a decent amount of names to pick from :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HickoryOughtShirt?4: I'm glad you are taking the initative to turn all the redlinks blue! If you wish, I'll try to help reduce the redlinks where I can (some of the names were bit difficult to find sources last time i googled them). I also added the 2018 recipients. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interested, and wanted to add that focusing on sports doesn't mean all the bios would be about living athletes; there are coaches, journalists, medical specialists, sports historians, sports photographers, team owners, etc. Some athletes become notable in other areas. Plenty of Olympians go on to careers in other fields; I know I've started at least one article on a motor sports pioneer who also made contributions in aviation. I'm guessing there's enough range in this topic to make it interesting for longer than a month. Penny Richards (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed @Penny Richards: I've made coaches/referees/non-living women in sports as well. I didn't mention them cause this discussion started off with BLPs only. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We may have started off with BLPs but any focus we have on sports will of course cater for biographies of all types, whether those they cover are living or dead or are about the players or the coaches, referees, etc. Thanks Andrew Gray for enlarging on the statistic I quoted. But if the average for BLPs is 46% and women account for only 32%, then it looks to me as if more attention should urgently be given to women. I very much like Rosie's suggestion that we should have a year-long focus on sports in 2020. Maybe for this July, we should simply keep "sports" in general as a focus. Depending on how that develops, we could then return to sports in, say, September or October, specifying sports which need special attention. In the meantime, we could put some effort into creating or expanding crowd-sourced redlists. We have many Wikidata lists on different sports but we should perhaps be compiling crowd-sourced lists on athletics, badminton, basketball, cyclists, golfers, ice hockey players, skaters, skiers, swimmers, tennis players and volleyball players. Quite an agenda!--Ipigott (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth nudging this discussion with regard to transgender sports competitors, for whom Wikipedia and Wikidata have very patchy coverage. This query may not be very good (not sure how to build a better one), but as a basic query it shows shockingly few Wikipedia articles in any language for transwomen sports people (at the time of writing just four women). I have read a few articles by Rachel McKinnon who is famous for writing about her experiences as a transwoman cyclist, and was astonished to find that her Wikidata entry was blank and so was missing from my own query. Transwomen in sports is a hot topic, with sports regulatory bodies being politically lobbied to change regulations and medically based definitions of how to define a "woman". Whatever a reader's interest, it would be good for the encyclopedia to have good coverage of the very few transwomen that have become notable in sports, especially considering the press and social media hostility they each receive for being trans and continuing to pursue their sports careers. --Fæ (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slight tweak to the reports, Fæ: ... wdt:P106/wdt:P279* gives you items that have that occupation or a subclass of that occuption. Now 36 hits for transgender female athletes on wikidata - https://w.wiki/4$4 ; and 26 with en.wikipedia articles - https://w.wiki/4$6 ... don't think any of that undermines your argument. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. It's been a while since I played with SPARQL. However the report needs more tuning as we are getting results like Kaba-chan who is trans but not a sportswoman or La Veneno who was an entertainer and porn actor. The mix is probably because 'dancer' is classed as 'athlete', but just filtering on that does not seem to tweak these out.
Here's an amended version which filters anyone with 'dancer' and subclasses, which of course might filter some people who have both a career as a dancer and a sportswoman Query. This returns 22 women, of which 7 have no article, so actually only 15 transwomen who are sportswomen on the English Wikipedia. Interestingly adding transmen returns 19 men and there are 7 intersex people shown. I'll tack this report on my user page for future reference. --Fæ (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good idea. What I just want to add is that we should not be driven by pageviews, rather the importance of the knowledge gap we aim to fill. Sometimes both usually point to the same thing though. HandsomeBoy (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HandsomeBoy, I strongly agree. I've never cared about pageviews! In fact, for the longest time after I first started editing, I thought I was writing in a vacuum -that no one was reading the articles I was creating- and it didn't bother me in the least. I recognized the importance of filling the knowledge gap, one article at a time, and that was/is my motivator. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee: In answer to your earlier query on coverage of female vs. male people in sports, the Denelezh Gender Gap statistics show that on Wikidata (all language versions), only 14.34% of entries on "sports figures" are coded female compared to 85.65% for male. For "athletes", the figures are almost the same: 14.35% female vs. 85.43% male. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, thanks, yes, it does. I was appalled by the proportion of BLP bios that are of athletes -- 46%! Almost half of the notable people alive today are notable due (or at least partially due to) their athletic accomplishment? That's astounding and very troubling. I was wondering how much of the difference in male vs. female biographies even historically could be explained by the fact we have so many athlete bios. Depending on the country, the disproprortion of men vs women professional athletes is still a major factor, and even in western countries it can only be likely catching up very recently. How much of the fact that we have only ~18% women bios can be explained by sports? Does wikipedia have a gender problem, or does wikipedia have a sports problem? --valereee (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how those statistics work at all - there is clearly lots of overlapping/double counting - but I don't think they show %s as high as 46% for the "proportion of BLP bios that are of athletes" - what's your calculation there? Isn't it (both genders, round '000s) 773/3497 = 22% for "sports figures"? One thing that does seem clear is that the linked stats show people born after 1800, not BLPs. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What underpins this weirdness in stats, is the notability policies. For example everyone who ever took part in the Olympics is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, this includes people who never actually won anything, or set any records and for whom we know almost nothing else about them worth writing. In almost every other non-sports topic, people notable for one event might be suitable for a list, but not individual articles. This way of thinking about sports, especially that sports cups, awards, league wins, etc., all make the sportspeople notable, is not the same as the hard criteria we apply to others, including some rather well known cases of women scientist articles that have since been deleted. To my mind, a great improvement to Wikipedia would be to rethink whether sportspeople should be more often on notable list articles, especially when there is little to say about the person in individual articles. --Fæ (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it certainly does seem far easier to justify notability for people in sports (and there are huge numbers of red-linked women who appear to qualify for articles without further ado). Interestingly, the most popular occupations for women overall are artist (6.03% of all bios), author (3.23%), sports (3.17%) and actor (2.96%) whereas for men they are sports (25.35%), artist (15.40%), author (12.82%) and politician (12.14%). This is of course for all languages and time periods but it does seem to show that men will continue to thrive on Wikipedia as a result of their sports coverage as it represents a quarter of all the biographies and is over four times higher than for women. Even in the case of artists (the most popular occupation for women), there are two and a half more biographies about men. But if we are really interested in improving the percentage of women's biographies, it is quite obvious that the easiest way forward is to improve our coverage of women in sports. Unfortunately, I have a feeling most of the WiR participants are more interested in covering other occupations. So perhaps we need to call for more active encouragement from other wikiprojects, especially Women's sport.--Ipigott (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments in the section above - many people feel we have too many sports bios. But we have to recognise that very many prolific editors only write one narrow type of article, on things they are interested in or know about, whether women scientists or football and footballers. And as we know, sport is a major obsession for many people, who are mostly men. In most sports the male events are far more popular than the female ones. The tv pictures of the ongoing Women's World Cup (for those who are even seeing them) show that despite a barrage of favourable media saying how it is becoming a major event etc, the stadia are perhaps 1/4 full. Judging by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's sport it seems a pretty dormant project. I doubt there is much that can be done about this, and frankly the solution is to stop worrying about the statistics, or worry more selectively. It doesn't really matter all that much that there is loads of stuff on WP that hardly anybody reads. At least the sports people tend to be as keen on maintaining their articles as creating them, unlike some groupings, so the rest of us can just let them get on with it. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the answer is more sportswomen. Doesn't that just make us sportipedia? But I do think it's worth editors knowing -- and, really, the reader knowing, and academics and journalists knowing -- that one of the reasons Wikipedia is so skewed toward men's bio is that it's skewed toward sports bio. We aren't excluding women. We're just including a lot of sports figures who aren't actually notable, and many of them happen to be men. It's not sexism, or not all of it. A significant amount of it may be sportsism. --valereee (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even among the athletes who pass our notability guidelines, though, women athletes aren't covered as well as men. Before this year's World Cup started, many of the women on qualifying teams didn't have articles, and outside of Europe most of the women on non-qualifying teams still don't. In contrast, nearly all of the men on pretty much any national football team, even ones from small nations with little to no international success, have articles. Even when you account for relative interest and availability of references there's still a gap. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 14:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is one problem that the "notability" criteria drawn up for some sports list specific leagues etc in which playing confers notability, and which don't include women's leagues? I'm no expert on football or hockey of various forms, etc, but can remember coming across the "But she played in X league" "X doesn't count, it's not on the list" discussions. Do we need to be campaignng to get some of those notability criteria updated to recognise the importance of women's sport? PamD 15:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From the above, it looks to me as if we need to decide whether we should spend time on sportswomen simply to improve our statistics or whether we should keep chugging along with an increase of about 0.01% per week by concentrating on all the other categories. If the latter, then we should not expect to reach 20% women's biographies on the EN wiki any time soon. But it might well be useful to look more closely into how the stats would turn out if we were to exclude both male and female sports biographies. Would it be worthwhile undertaking an analysis along those lines? It might be quite revealing.--Ipigott (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - that would be interesting. There are also some other categories - what wd calls "Warriors" for example. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, I have detailed BLP data to hand for politicians and athletes, but not other professional groups. Assuming that all 536k athlete-tagged biographies were to be excluded from the totals, even if they're people whose careers were more significant for non-sporting reasons - and there are plenty of those - we would go to something like:
1100k total biographies, 20.1% female (up 2.2% from 17.9%)
490k total BLPs, 28.7% female (up 6% from 22.7%)
For the 241k politicians, same caveats, the removal would give us
1400k total biographies, 18.5% female (up 0.6%)
810k total BLPs, 22.6% female (down 0.1%)
I can't give numbers for the effects of BLPs on any other groups without generating the data for them, which would take quite a while, but here's my best guesses.
Excluding artists (327k overall) would cause a substantial drop in % female overall (down 2.8%) and probably a similarly large drop in % female BLPs.
Excluding authors (243k overall) would cause a drop in % female overall (down 0.9%) and probably a similar drop in % female BLPs.
Excluding researchers (160k overall) would cause a small rise in % female overall (up 0.3%), but I can't predict the BLP effect.
Excluding military figures (75k overall, possibly undercounting?) would cause a small rise in % female overall (up 0.5%), and probably a similarly small rise in % female BLPs.
And on the sports theme: excluding only professional footballers (170k overall) would cause a substantial rise in % female overall (1.7%) and probably a similarly large rise in female BLPs.
As noted above, the big caveat here is that these groupings are very broad and don't always reflect someone's main notability. I haven't yet worked out a way to do "only purely sports people", for example. It's reasonable to assume that if we could draw such a distinction, the general trend would be the same but the effects less pronounced. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From everything that's been written on this page in the last 2-3 weeks regarding Sports, it's clear there is a lot of interest in the topic. The fact that focusing on Sports would also improve the % of women's biographies is a plus. So I'm recommending that we make Sports one of our topics in July as well as August! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should we develop non-sports stats?
From all the above, it really does look as if Wikipedia has a much stronger focus on sports than on any other sector. Up to now, we've been discussing biographies but there are also countless articles about clubs, competitions, leagues, teams, national events, etc., etc. Whether we like it or not, it looks to me as if we are already dealing with a kind of "Sportipedia". On the basis of the figures suggested by Andrew Gray, if we were to eliminate sports biographies, we would already have exceeded 20% for women today. And it looks to me as if the percentage would continue to rise more quickly than at present as we have a significantly higher proportion of biographies of male sportspeople each and every week. I have therefore been seriously wondering if we should set up some kind of mechanism for monitoring progress on women's biographies without sports, publishing updated stats at least four times a year, perhaps even more frequently. That might make for a much more encouraging environment for our participants who do not regularly create articles on sports and sportspeople. It would not mean we should discontinue writing biographies on women in sports but I believe it would provide a more encylopedic perspective on how well we are progressing.--Ipigott (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think having separate stats outside of sports would be beneficial, as that would be excluding a part of all of the overall percentage of women biographies. Alternatively, yes I make a lot of sports biographies but I've made a lot that specifically pass the WP:SPORTS criteria. If i didn't, then Diede de Groot, Wendy Williams (diver), and Kristy Johnston, for example, would still be redlinks. As there are male biographies being written about Grand Slam, Olympic and World Marathon Majors winners, the women in these events should also be covered as well. However, sports are not my only topic I write about either :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a very good idea - that already 29% of BLP bios are female if sports is excluded came as a shock to me & no doubt will to others. Keeping an eye on these figures seems important. Also refining and checking them - I remain very suspicious that the footballer BLP figures contain enough supposedly very old people, who in reality passed away years ago, to make a difference to the figures. At the same time (having looked around English women's football) it seems clear we don't have lots of bios for current players. Some current team squads are all blue, but for others only the international players are. I found our articles unhelpful as to whether a team counted as "fully professional". Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cue sports
Hi! I've recently been doing some bios (as well as tournaments, another articles) for pool articles (and other cue sports like Snooker), and there is a huge gulf in blue link women pool players. There are literally hundreds of notable players such as Kristina Tkach who I recently created. I see you have a list of redlinked people by profession, but there isn't a list for Cue sports (or pool in general). Could this be something I could look into? I'd like to start with some players that have the most redlinks before working down.
(The men's isn't THAT much better, but a bracket like at 2019 Austria Open is night and day for bios.)
Hi @Lee Vilenski: - for wikidata redlists, at least, it depends on there being a wikidata item for a person, with an appropriate Occupation= value, such as billiards player, snooker player, cue sport player. Thin pickings, but here's a start: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Cue sport players. It may be that if you can point to lists of female players, we can import them into wikidata and/or improve coding within wikidata to improve the redlist offering. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. So someone like this doesn't show up as no job is defined? Does having an azbilliards indentifier help with this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
azbilliards ID doesn't help much. I've added it to the select; we're now up to 29 items. There are only 285 instances of that ID on wikidata, presumably mostly for men and/or women with articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worth a try. AZB is on articles I've created, but I don't know about wikidata. I'll see if there are any others I can find anything else that might help. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More sports-related Wikidata lists
Is there a Wikidata list for Paralympians, e.g. "participant of" (P1344) + "1964 Summer Paralympics" (Q748663)? If not, would someone be inclined to create it before July 1, when we start our Sports event? Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per earlier conversations, it would also be good to have these Wikidata lists: coach (Q41583), referee (Q202648) (including subgroups of: official (Q1757103), boxing referee (Q2859667), referee (Q721051), mixed martial arts referee (Q52008305), referee (Q47530518)). Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redalert2fan, wonderful; thank you! BTW, I added the list to our Sports editathon page, and to the Index of redlists. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be some problems with Listeriabot and manual updating right now so unfortunately I can't make and check the list at the moment. Redalert2fan (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to create a Wikidata link for Rugby League please? The women's game is growing strongly and there are adminstrators and match officials that should have biographies too. Rtande (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rtande: So what you want is a redlist like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Rugby Union but then for the Rugby League? I checked and there are only 3 women players with the occupation rugby league player (Q14373094) on wikidata, 0 with the occupation rugby league coach (Q59239421) and there is no wikidata item for rugby league administrators. It certainly is possible to create a list, but unless I am missing some occupations/looking at the wrong ones the list will be quite short at the moment. It could also be that some of the women you are thinking of do have an item on wikidata already, but don't have the aforementioned occupations set meaning they don't show up right now. Or they do not exist on wikidata. Please tell me what you want me to do. --Redalert2fan (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Football at Olympics
In terms of specific notability guidelines, I wanted to find out if football at Olympics is seen as inferior to other tournaments with respect to determining the notability of footballers. I know this is the case for men, but it shouldn't be so for women since there is no age restriction, am I right? HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to be the case for men. WP:NFOOTBALL: "Players who have played in ... the Olympic Games." WP:NOLYMPICS: "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games". So, they're all notable and the competition is not seen as inferior. The only thing that seems to stink a little in this area is "or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games", because paralympians are still seen as some sort of second class athlete. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFOOTBALL covers women as well as men, and it is unhelpful to imply otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I didn't imply otherwise and I cannot parse my reply to construe your rather odd & mistaken take on it. I was responding to the point "football at Olympics is seen as inferior to other tournaments ... I know this is the case for men". --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"It doesn't seem to be the case for men. WP:NFOOTBALL: "Players who have played in ... the Olympic Games...." seems to have that clear implication to me, but I'm glad if this was not intended. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well let me take you through it very slowly. HandsomeBoy made the assertion that they know it is the case for men that football at Olympics is seen as inferior to other tournaments, and wondered if that applied also to women. I replied that his assertion was not correct, and that two notability guidelines specified that all athletes who competed at Olympics were notable. I still entirely fail to see how you can construe that as an unhelpful comment about the notability of women footballers. ""It doesn't seem to be the case for men" says implies nothing about women. "Players who have played in ... the Olympic Games..." seems to imply that all players who have so played are notable, but even if you apply a hostile construction that for some reason I had applied that to men only, in so far as the thesis in the question was 'because men therefore women', in the context of the question establishing the notability of male olymiad footballers would establish the notability of females. I continue to take strong exception to the clarity of your impression of an implication which is wholly absent. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, it must have been another platform where I got the wrong impression. HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOLY is pretty clear that any athlete that appears at an Olympics is defacto notable. Whether that's true in practice is up for debate (SNG vs GNG). I thought a national cap was enough for inclusion per WP:NFOOTY anyway? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-a-thons?
I've been wondering: has anyone considered reaching out to a local sports team to see if they'd be interested in participating in an edit-a-thon related to women's sports? Many sports teams already do family days and other things like that, so it seems like it would be a natural fit. Besides which, it might be an opportunity to work some with younger fans and give them a chance to try their hand at editing. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New article on murdered scientist, which has been nominated at ITN for inclusion in recent deaths. If anyone could help out with expanding and making her notability more clear it would be great. On a quick glance the citation record looks strong to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is fine and her citation record is superlative[6]. How sad to learn of the untimely death of a person, particularly one of such great achivement. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
List of 5,000 women composers
In connection with the item "Looking for more sources" above, I have found a complete list of all those listed in the International Encyclopedia of Women Composers at The Music Sack. By clicking on a name, you can also find other sources in which the composer is mentioned. It looks like a useful source for Wikidata too. I was wondering if there is any easy way of finding out which names are still redlinks in the EN wiki without having to edit them all manually. I have checked out the first 20 names and see that only three of them have articles. (cc SL93).--Ipigott (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is great. I've been updating links to existing bios and will continue to do so in the next day or two. Oronsay (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clone of RonBot #11 requested
Hi everyone, just wanted to let you know that I've requested a clone of User:RonBot#11 at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Clone_of_RonBot_#11. As the bot has not run for 3 months, and User:Ronhjones has also not been active since then (and his email has been disabled), it seems sadly that he may not be able to run it any longer. It was so useful in identifying declined drafts that we could assess for notability and work up into articles about notable women, and I would really like to resurrect it, so I'm hoping one of the bot operators can clone it and get it running again. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Faces of Progress.
A little initiative I set myself, and, while I don't necessarily think everyone has to be female for it, I'd like quite a few to be. (Though Civil Rights activists and the like are also highly viable contenders, although I'd prefer to not have too many straight white men; people will find straight white men to hold up without my help). It's listed at User:Adam_Cuerden#Faces_of_Progress, and I could use suggestions for the remaining (sigh) 41 states. Would like to finish this before the person who inspired it leaves office. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 15:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually want to ask you to do another photo until the Inter-Allied Women's Conference one is done, but I am rationalizing this as I am not asking you, rather you asked. Wilma Mankiller would be awesome for Oklahoma, though I am not sure any of the images we have are PD and I couldn't find any working on her article. Possibly instead then Kate Barnard? SusunW (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to have to reject Felton. Though she has good points, "a white supremacist and slave owner; and one of the few prominent women who spoke in favor of lynching" is maybe not the best example. As for the others, since this is my project, a.k.a. me trying to find images to do restoration on, it's going to be down to the availability of images in need of that. That said, I'm definitely nominating Dauenhauer for FP. That's a great image. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 20:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Belatedly here to say yikes @ myself re: Felton... I went by images without reading the actual articles, which was clearly not the best strategy. Lesson learned! nonmodernist (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Going to have to research to see what images are available, but they all seem worthy. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 20:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to chip in some ideas from my starts; all have images, but not great ones, so there's the possibility of better. Penny Richards (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Following in the footsteps of Penny Richards, I'm happy to chip in some ideas from my starts/improves. All have images, but not great ones, so there's the possibility of improving them. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well! The previous set is cleared, hell, we've had one pass since then. As usual of late, I'm not linking the nominations directly to avoid accidentally creating a voting guide, but those interested may go to WP:FPC and look around there. So, without further ado: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 09:22, July 11, 2019 (UTC)
We Can Do It! the FP restoration I... kind of stole from Yann - who was completely capable of doing it - because I really should wait more than one day after volunteering to do it if Yann didn't want to.
Nell Mercer, of the somewhat underdeveloped article.
Lillian Feickert, New Jersey suffragette and first woman from New Jersey to run for the United States Senate.
Hmm, a somewhat un-pc image as regards "Convicts" & "Lunatics"! Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, agreed, but no point whitewashing the past (otherwise, we knock off all the rough edges, and mislead), and I get the point: Men had to do something to be excluded, women were excluded by default. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 20:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added it to Disability in the United Kingdom. The article needs more historical content anyway, and this kind of message was a common form of disablism in the suffrage movement. Penny Richards (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if someone could copy-edit Ann Peterson if it needs one. I don't really feel confident in writing sports articles, but I do want to nominate this one for DYK. SL93 (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked it a little, added an official Olympics source, and also made a redirect from her full name Ann Stewart Peterson and added her to Peterson (name). Not sure about the tone of the anecdote about the 10-second business. PamD 18:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look too. There's a few things that didn't get explained for me. What did she win to qualify for the Olympic team? I'm with PamD and think the timing for broadcast is an odd one. Hope this is of some help Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: Unconvinced by the ABC anecdote. Bit "so what" from me. "Twelve men in the control room prayed for Peterson to leave the platform". Uh-huh; high drama. Encyclopaedic version would be "ABC television managed to encompass an athlete actually doing something" and would for that reason not feature in an encyclopedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still looking for more information, but this is from the 1960s. SL93 (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This would likely answer that question, but I can't read it. I'm tired of paywalls for non-modern topics. SL93 (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: I removed the ABC mention and I thought that the "What did she win to qualify for the Olympic team?" was already answered by the article with "During this time, she gained a spot on the United States' Olympic diving team by competing in the women's 10 meter platform competition for the Olympic trials" and "She was in the lead going into the finals with 169.86 points, later adding 46.74 points, 50.82 points, and 51.75 points to her last three dives". SL93 (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tagishsimon: I changed the entire entry to this - "Peterson diving was the first footage recorded by ABC for the 1968 Summers Olympics coverage airing in the eastern United States." I think that is notable enough for an encyclopedia and historic coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: That's very much better & unimpeachably encyclopaedic. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SL93 I was looking for coverage of her 1967 Pan Am medal,[7] found a bonus article that she won 2 golds that same year in the National Intercollegiate Championships.[8]SusunW (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Thank you so much. SL93 (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
De nada. Couldn't find the NYT article, but I think you've done a solid job on the article without it. SusunW (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to have a NYT subscription, that article was from an AP wire story. By searching for a key phrase in newspapers.com, I came up with another version of the same wire story that has all the relevant text from the NYT about Peterson, and BONUS, includes photos of Peterson. See it here on newspapers.conm I don't think it adds any details that aren't in the "Ann Peterson Wins Diving" reference which looks to have been derived from the same AP wire report, but you might want to add it so folks can go see the photo? Cheers. --Krelnik (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I went ahead and added it to an external links section. SL93 (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done Working on adding images to articles. (BTW Ser Amantio di Nicolao it is an excellent show.) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Patience Torlowei, June 2019
Patience Torlowei, June 2019
,_Birgitte_C.png)
.jpg)
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
The Lord's Prayer cutout art by Martha Anne Honeywell
Emma Calvé in La Navarraise
Hermaphrodite, the first photographic medical documentation of an intersex person. (The term "hermaphrodite" was used historically).
.jpg)
Kristina Inhof, our newest FP as of, like, 5 minutes ago.
We Can Do It! the FP restoration I... kind of stole from Yann - who was completely capable of doing it - because I really should wait more than one day after volunteering to do it if Yann didn't want to.
Nell Mercer, of the somewhat underdeveloped article.
Lillian Feickert, New Jersey suffragette and first woman from New Jersey to run for the United States Senate.
.jpg){kind=link}