Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roweflute (talk | contribs) at 23:10, 16 November 2019 (→Draft:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    "Komm rein, mach mit", in German meaning "Come, join us".
    Shortcuts

    Would a Galician or Spanish speaker be willing to translate an article?

    Eugenia Osterberger has extensive articles on the Galician and Spanish Wikipedias, with the former being marked as a quality article (one of only 190 such articles on that encyclopedia!). But there has never been an English article for this person. Would someone be able to translate one of the other articles into English? HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    HenryCrun15: I am indeed surprised to see that this Galician pianist and composer has been covered so profusely in many other minor versions of Wikipedia, including Austro-Bavarian, Breton, Catalan, Luxembourgish and Mirandese. Even more surprising is that she is not covered either in French or German despite the fact that she was born into an Alsatian family, married a Frenchman and spent the last 24 years of her life in Nice. I can only suspect that the minor languages club together on such "regional" stars. The lack of any extensive coverage of her career in English is rather disconcerting and would therefore normally point to problems of including her in the English Wikipedia.
    Nevertheless, as I am fluent in Spanish and have a soft spot for La Coruña, I'll see if I can put together a short article about her in English over the next day or two. Rather than "translating" the 8,000 words of the Galician article, I'll probably produce something along the lines of her local biography. Thanks for your interest in Women in Red and for suggesting articles we could work on. Thanks too for your most recent three biographies on Silje Storstein, Anna Kim and Ursula Poznanski, all of whom have likewise been covered in many other language versions of Wikipedia. It certainly looks to me as if you should become an "official" member of our project. You can register by clicking on "Join WikiProject" at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I've now formally joined the project. (I had added the infobox to my talk page, thinking that was enough but I was wrong.) And thank you for the lovely translation of Eugenia's article into English! HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Help with women BLP

    Hello everyone, today I want to discuss about Lisette Cooper an American entrepreneur founder and managing partner of Athena Capital Advisors, she is an altruistic woman and an affiliate to the Kripalu Center. does she have enough coverage to satisfy [WP:GNG]? here some of her coverage:

    In case she has what it takes to be included, how shall I proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontotonian (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the type of subject that attracts both spammy news-by-press-release sources and spammy undisclosed paid Wikipedia editors. It would be helpful if you could make some effort to winnow down your list of urls above to the highest quality ones: sources that are truly independently published by a publication that exerts editorial control over its publications (rather than just copying press releases) using words written by someone not associated with the subject (rather than copying a press release), and that provide in-depth detail about Cooper rather than merely quoting her or listing her among other similar people. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This advice cannot be bettered. BIOs that are open to challenge at AfD because of inadequate notability waste the time of everybody. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    For those still invested in this thread, User:Torontotonian has been blocked as a sock of a editor previously involved in trying to create the article in question, likely for undisclosed payments; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josher8a for more. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Disappearing articles

    Hallo, On my watchlist I spotted a batch of deleted redirects (you know I make a l-o-t of redirects) to Anna Rydlówna and Emmy Dörfel, and found that those two articles had been deleted because they were created by an apparent sockpuppet Queen-washington of blocked editor Slowking4. I've created a new stub for Anna Rydlówna, though without reading Polish I can't go far, but at least she's there now with an image and a link to the Polish wiki article, and I've re-created the redirects I'd made. I'll now have a look at Emmy. Just a heads-up that there may be articles on your watchlists which have disappeared: you may want to do a rescue. I can understand the policy of "We mustn't allow blocked editors to bypass their block by creating sockpuppet accounts", but it always seems sad when what was apparently a reasonable little article disappears, along with its infrastructure of incoming links. Ah well, such is life. @Beetstra: pinging the deleting admin for courtesy as I'm mentioning these deletions. PamD 08:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify: the sock has a tendency to use their articles/work as trophies, and the master is currently blocked on 3 different wikis (here, commons, and wikidata). Sometimes there are problems with articles (either they are sloppy, bad translations, or attribution is poor or even close to copyright violations). I try not to delete articles where there is substantial work done by others (though on the couple of hundreds I spotted only 5 or 6, and 2 or 3 that I did delete had some minor content additions). Feel free to recreate everything (but with new content). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Beetstra:. As someone who creates a lot of redirects from variants of names etc I feel sad to see a target article disappear, as all that work gets lost (just as when something is draftified, too). But I can see the reason for deletion, certainly.
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/January 2019 has links to the two I've re-created, and has a few other red links which seem to be part of this cleanup operation, so if anyone is looking for a little challenge they could have a go at some of those - not all nurses, one is dabbed as a volleyball player. The blocked sock seems to have been active from October 2017 to just now, so presumably a month-by-month check of those lists would find a scatter of articles worth rescuing. PamD 09:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Over the last couple of weeks, several socks were blocked and their creations removed (a lot by me, some by checkusers or others). I do feel that quite some/most of their created articles are notable subjects (so, this may be a good list of articles-to-create ... ). And I feel sad as well that these 'need' to be deleted, but then, if the sock was not creating them in the first place they would not have existed either. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One that I watchlist and had made minor edits to (Anna Mazzucato) suffered the same treatment. The writing wasn't very good, though, so maybe better to make a fresh start than to ask for a refund. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much, PamD, for bringing this important matter to our attention, and thanks too to Beetstra for providing a link to the deletions log. I see that the recent deletions cover close to 2,000 articles by Slowking4, of which a considerable number seem to be women's biographies or descriptions of artworks. The batch is likely to impact the WiR WHGI statistics, especially as many of Slowking4's articles cover women's sculptures or their creators. I have looked back over our metrics for August and September and see that about 20 articles for each month have been deleted. Maybe some of our WiR members who are admins could look through these articles and decide whether it would be worthwhile to try to recreate them. The list of articles created by Slowking4 still includes over 1,000 articles and lists of which most are stubs although notably there are also 11 GAs and around 230 start class or better. Perhaps it is possible at least to draftify any GA or B articles which have been deleted so that those of us who are not admins can assess the usefulness of recreating them.(cc @Rosiestep, Victuallers, Megalibrarygirl, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, and David Eppstein:)--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a remark: I am strongly against undeletion, I would strongly suggest that articles are independently recreated. This editor will use their creations and edits as evidence that the community wants them to edit. Slowking is likely on their way to a global ban as they are already blocked on 3 independent wikis (here, commons, wikidata). It must be made clear to them that their effort is futile, and that their only way back is what I suggested to him a couple of months ago: stop and go back to your main account. They flat out refused. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible to provide the content of the GA and Start class and better articles to us somewhere that we could create them without having to do all the associated research for each one - and thus restore them as fast as possible without exactly undeleting them?? ☕ Antiqueight chatter 09:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Antiqueight: I've emailed a couple of last versions to people already, and yo can ask any admin to do that. I know that user:Ser Amantio di Nicolao has been recreating quite a number of earlier deletions, judging from the edit summary from the deleted content. I forgot to say that to the earlier people that I emailed to (user:Randy Kryn, user:Blue Rasberry and user:Caineh): be careful, I've noticed one case of a very sloppy creation (read carefully through this revid (admin only) - there are 2 big mistakes; revid with translation mistakes that persisted until the last version), and a case of .. insufficient attribution (the latter solved by the sock in a much later edit). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern centers on the hopeful resurrection of Sakuntala (Claudel) by Camille Claudel, maybe the most important woman sculptor of the late 19th and early 20th century. Can it please be put back as is if there are no copyright concerns? One reason for its removal is that the creating sockpuppet banned editor is using it as a trophy. I see nothing wrong in that off-site trade-off, let them have their trophy, for a page on this magnificent sculpture by Claudel is trophy-worthy and, much more important, encyclopedia worthy. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Randy Kryn: It seems to me that the German version is significantly better than the deleted version. This may be a good opportunity to begin rewriting the article. See also [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. There seem to be plenty of sources to build an new article on here. I see you have made more edits than anyone else on the biography of Camille Claudel and that you created Musée Camille Claudel. Are you interested?--Ipigott (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but I would not be able to do the page justice in a total rewrite, especially with much of the information coming from the German version. If you or somebody else wants to open a rewritten page I'd be happy to do what I could to improve it. As I recall (haven't looked at the email copy as yet) the deleted article was pretty good, and with further edits and references, as you suggest, could be enlarged and improved from the sockpuppet trophy-worthy version which is now deleted. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder if it would be possible, and helpful, for someone to create a table showing deleted articles created as WiR contributions, showing Wikidata links etc like our usual redlinks lists? That way it would be easier to check for articles which are in multiple other Wikipedias and perhaps priority to consider re-creating, or to look for those of interest if the Wikidata short description was included. I can quite see that undeletion is a bad idea as we need a new edit history which gives no credit to a blocked user. On the other hand, asking to be sent a copy of the deleted version might give a head start to locating possible sources. PamD 14:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Beetstra, for your clarification. I could see that all the ones I mentioned had been created by Slowking4 and deleted by you when I tried to re-create them. To answer PamD's query, as far as I can see Slowking4 was not a member of Women in Red. The articles created were therefore not listed in our meetup lists but they were included in our general metrics lists for the months in question as they covered women's biographies or women's works, etc., and were either picked up by bots or added manually (no doubt by me). I hesitate to give Tagishsimon any extra work but perhaps he could just let is know whether it would be possible to set up a Wikidata list of articles coded human and female which have been deleted from the EN wiki on a certain date or during a certain month. In most cases, that could also provide information on occupation, etc. Like Pam, I suppose we could also think about listing the redirects which became redlinks on 24 October. Maybe the best way forward is to look through the deletions for the other months, as I did for August and September. I am still waiting for feedback from the admins, especially Ser Amantio di Nicolao who seems to have been working on some of the articles.--Ipigott (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The rationale for this whole deletion campaign does not make sense to me. This idea that someone might take creations as "trophies": so what? Why do we care what some puppetmaster thinks of their work? Why are we using what they might think of their work to influence decisions on whether to keep or remove content? Why are we allowing the sockmaster to continue to influence us by allowing ourselves to be influenced by their trophy-collecting behavior? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    David Eppstein, do you take pride in your creations? Would it encourage you if your articles stay? Would it discourage you to see all your work destroyed? Dirk Beetstra T C 17:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, but I don't think other people here should be making content decisions based on whether it encourages or discourages me. Even less so when the decisions are based on how it affects banned editors. We took the effort to exclude them, so we should exclude them, not continue making content decisions based on what they think or do. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    David Eppstein, OK, so then the decision becomes: leave them, they are blocked and they sock, but because they do good work they stay. Where did I see that before? (I know how this would normally end for me, the last admin who did not follow the popularity vote did not come to a good end). Dirk Beetstra T C 18:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you trying to threaten me, merely for expressing my opinion here? Really? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    David Eppstein, threaten? No. My apologies if my post is interpretable as such, but that is really the last thing that is/was on my mind. Dirk Beetstra T C 20:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but then I don't understand what you might have meant instead. To me it read as "the last admin who disagreed with me came to a bad end and I will see to it that the same happens to you". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    David Eppstein, The part between brackets was about myself ... Dirk Beetstra T C 20:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the only way I can read it as a threat is if I omit the 'I know,', I have expanded it a bit now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for misinterpreting you. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    David Eppstein, no problem, written text is sometimes unclear, and I’m not a native. Dirk Beetstra T C 20:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But the underlying discussion occurring before this detour is David Eppstein's good point that articles shouldn't be deleted because of an off-site trophy case. Because that point of view seems fair, and the trophy case of the sockpuppet was a main reason for deleting the Claudel sculpture page, can it please be put back? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Randy Kryn, you can rewrite it from what I have sent you.
    There is more than only the trophy issue. This editor was dragged before AN/I because of what I call coatrack articles:: create articles so they can insert a non-free image. Those are still issues here. Moreover, as exemplified above, there are sloppy creations of BLPs. There are copy paste errors, there are translation errors. I err on the safe side, And if checkusers would have noticed the editor 2 years ago (but their software is crappy) we would not have had the articles in the first place. Leaving this is just enabling, encouraging the behaviour. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to what David Eppstein said above, who is actually hit by these deletions? What percentage of the deleted revisions was attributed to sockpuppets? Also, if the problem is "coatrack articles: create articles so they can insert a non-free image", it's enough to delete the images; in fact it's better, because an article without image, or with a free image, would be a stronger and more visible form of WP:DENY than something hidden in the logs. Nemo 08:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nemo bis, the vast majority of prose is due to edits be these sockpuppets, the rest is almost exclusively repairs and categorisation. And it is not just coatrack, it is not just trophy, it is not just creation of BLPs with errors, it is a combination. Leaving their material is what enables this sock, it is what keeps them continuing to work. If that is what we want, keep the bad people because they deliver good thing, then it is time to discuss abolishing G5 and wait until their crude copy-paste errors get to more serious BLP issues than a mistaken birthday or gender swaps. Or stop this editor when they start with a fresh sock. Dirk Beetstra T C 11:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies for being late to the party...I'm starting a new job on Monday and so my mental bandwidth for anything that requires critical thinking has been somewhat limited.

    I recreated a number of the sports articles that Slowking had created by copying and pasting the originals back into new articles; I thought that as an uninvolved editor, I could do that with impunity as long as I checked the articles at the point of creation. Two things changed that: one was this discussion on my talkpage, and the other was the discovery, in my spot-checking, of inaccuracies in some of the articles. Ultimately I think there are enough of the latter that the articles are not worth recreating. It's far, far better to start from scratch than to undelete most of the articles. That being said, I'm not entirely against undeleting a few, if there are substantial contributions to them from other editors. But otherwise I don't think undeletion is in the best interests of the project. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Ithere are about 6 or 7 articles that I did not delete because I noticed really significant edits, for the rest the articles solely contain only categorisations, wikimarkup repairs, taggings, copy/edits of the common mistakes. Some have nonsubstantial additions but I have tried to judge all histories since the sock edits (I don’t exclude that I have missed another one or two, one was already brought to my attention. Note as well that I have noticed pages which had edits that persisted past repairs by others. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Creating new articles

    I've started with scratch for three of these so far (Bonnie Dorr, Ruth I. Michler Memorial Prize, and Anna Mazzucato) and let one other go after investigating but being unable to find enough material to convince me (Sema Salur). It's obviously a lot more work than just copying the old text but (even beyond the licensing/attribution issues) if it's going to be credited to me I want it to meet my own standards for new creations and I don't think that's true of a lot of the deleted articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    David Eppstein, quantity over quality ...? Dirk Beetstra T C 08:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to exemplify the sloppy creation of pages: the recreated Sakuntala (Claudel) had in its latest version the sentence (that was included in the original): "The title is given from the background of the group of figures in the play Shakuntala by the Indian poet Kālidāsa." .. That is a literal translation from the sentence in the German article on this subject (de:Sakuntala (Claudel)): "Titel gebender Hintergrund der Figurengruppe ist das Schauspiel Shakuntala des indischen Dichters Kalidasa, das die Geschichte einer Liebe beschreibt." .. which is better translated as "The title of this group of figures is based on the play Shakuntala by the Indian poet Kālidāsa." Note that reference to the source (the German article) is only given in the 4th edit to the page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Beetstra: As you mention Sakuntala (Claudel), which we're recreating, I must say that I am surprised you mention a minor translation problem as a factor in support of the article's deletion. Not everyone is a born translator. In my opinion, the information drawn from the German version was pertinent. If you look carefully at the new version of Sakuntala, you will find there are also a number of translation problems which are fortunately being addressed by another editor. (After spending hours trying to sort out the lack of inline referencing, I thought I would leave it alone for a while and work on one of the other deletions.) I wouldn't mind betting that you will find minor translation problems in a fair proportion of articles about artworks created outside the English-speaking world.--Ipigott (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ipigott, again, the translation errors alone are not the issue, and I did not delete because there were translation errors. In this case the translation becomes completely nonsensical (so your argument that not everyone is good in translating would be more correct as ‘the creator may not be good in English'). A) these are clearly translations in line with the community rejected automated translations, b) the creations are sloppy, c) many of the articles are BLPs, and a wrong translation there can easily be a problem and d) as these sloppy creations are combined with sloppy copy/pastes that may have even be worse on BLPs.
    Many of these creations are exactly the problematic edits that the sockmaster made and that are part of what got the sockmaster blocked. This example is not about a human, but there are on (even still living) humans often mistakes of gender, birthdays, or name of subject. I did not read deeper into articles, but it is just waiting for more serious BLP errors. Dirk Beetstra T C 09:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me if I've missed it, but is there a list of the deleted articles in question? Perhaps a separate list of deleted articles created by socks...so at least they can be recreated without concerns as to notability? Might be a useful subject for a month's focus, too. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ser Amantio di Nicolao, my deletion log is at the moment the only list. Easy to copy/paste/parse/copy/paste into a wikipedia list I guess. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I dumped the list of deleted pages into my to do list - but I haven't sorted which are women or removed the completed pages etc. Anyone is welcome to move the list to a page for recreation and investigation..User:Antiqueight/Draft#previously deleted pages.. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 16:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree that if there were consistently serious translation errors in BLPs, that could be a reason for deleting articles en masse but Sakantula is an article dealing with a work of art. When I come across mistranslations in the articles I review or copy edit, I simply try to correct the mistakes myself. Despite what you say about machine translation, editors are strongly encouraged to draw on non-English versions of the articles they create. It is therefore to be expected that translation errors occur. I was able to find copies of the deleted Sakuntala on several Wikipedia look-alike sites as well as a cache on Google. I found it was reasonably well presented and well sourced. For me, it was exactly the type of article which could have been draftified as a basis for the creation of an improved mainspace version. I was unable to see the edit summary but it appears the article had incorporated additions from other editors too. Many of Slowking4's other deleted articles also seem to be worthwhile, especially those about outstanding figures and their works which can be found in the other language versions of Wikipedia. Not being a specialist in sports, I am unable to appreciate the importance of most of Slowking4 mini-stubs which form the bulk of his creations, though I expect the most important ones will be picked up fairly quickly. In this connection, I appreciate the comments from Ser Amantio di Nicolao. As for the longer articles dealing with the general area of women's history and culture, I will continue to search through those which have been deleted from our past monthly listings and bring the titles of the most useful ones to the attention of our editors. I'm pleased see we now already once again have articles on Bonnie Dorr, Dora Barrancos, Anne Harrington and Frigga Haug as well as Ruth I. Michler Memorial Prize and Anna Mazzucato (also mentioned above).--Ipigott (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ipigott, as I said, I was not deleting them because of translation errors, I mention them mainly to warn people to be cautious when using the deleted content.
    And as I said earlier, there are NO substantial edits. In the case of Sakuntala (Claudel), there are 15 edits in total, the first 4 by the sock, then 1 {{refimprove}} tagging, 1 addition of a random space, 1 revert of the addition of said random space, then a handful of edits by User:Randy Kryn, who first consolidated sentences into paragraphs (the article was one-line paragraphs), and added a template; an edit with adding and removing wikilinks; a typofix/wikilink edit; another wikilink, consolidating dates, and a rewrite of a concept ('..small' to 'including .. smaller copies'); two hotcat categorisation edits; a capitalization-edit; and finally a hotcat recategorisation. In terms of prose, the rewrite of the concept is the only 'substantial' part, which has not changed anything (and the utterly nonsensical sentence remained untouched). By far most of the articles, including the creations from 2017, are like that. 70% of the subsequent edits to their creations are (re-)categorisations, 10% is reference formatting, 5% is infobox consolidation; 5% is bot-performed improvements on discouraged formatting, 5% is improvement tagging, 5% is typofixing. Of the 500 or so deleted articles, on only 5-1012 I've seen substantial additions by other editors (which sometimes boiled down to just 2 sentences of added prose). Dirk Beetstra T C 13:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra: Thank you for your explanations. I really did not expect such a detailed response and have obviously been misled by earlier contributors. I appreciate your looking through the deleted articles for additions from other editors. We now have a clean redlist from Antiqueight (possibly including articles from other editors) which should make it easier to monitor progress. As you have probably gathered, the problem for Women in Red is that many of the articles were about women. Bit by bit, we should be able to restore the most important ones. It's just a pity that we have to spend so much time on re-creating articles when it might have been possible to base work on existing versions. (I'm not too sure how permissible it is to draw on copies from the Wikipedia look-alike sites or Google caches which are still accessible in most cases - without the edit summaries, of course.) But I do sympathize with the need to take action against sock puppets and realize you have probably taken the only viable course of action.--Ipigott (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ipigott, thanks for that answer. I do feel that I have to explain, accountability for how I made the decision I took on a case-by-case basis (and I undoubtedly did mistakes, I was pointed to an article I deleted where I did not notice that a +208 bytes edit followed by a -209 bytes edit both were constructive an adding significant prose).
    Technically taking cached copies and use them verbatim would be a copyvio. I however will also gladly give (mail) you that last version (but please, don’t overload me now, bug some other admins as well :-) ), with the remark that the prose needs to be rewritten, but ELs and refs can be used for info. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    From June and July we have: Eleanor M. Fox, NY law professor; Margherita Oggero, Italian novelist; Maria Tarnowska (nurse), Polist nurse; Franziska Schutzbach, German sociologist; Juliet Macur, American journalist. Most of the others were short stubs on footballers and academics.--Ipigott (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy to userfy an article on request (as I have always done), or email the text if it is a copyright violation. I am confused by the above dialogue - as I understand, the articles have been deleted because numerous factual errors have been found and the corpus of work cannot generally be relied on as suitably accurate material for a free encyclopedia. Is that a fair assessment? One possible solution is Beetstra could select a random article to undelete, nominate it at AfD, and see where the consensus lies. In particular, the "trophy hunter" claims sound wide of the mark - are we going to start deleting things like Cottingley Fairies because Eric Corbett did most of the work of it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333, no, they were deleted under G5, created by a sock in violation of their block/ban. The bad translations, copy/paste errors and possibly some fair use issues are just on top of that, but not the basis for the delete. (Please, just send the last version by email to the requester and leave the history deleted, we have G5 for a reason). Dirk Beetstra T C 19:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And material from EC is not in any form deletable under G5 .... Dirk Beetstra T C 19:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: "they were deleted under G5, created by a sock in violation of their block/ban" That is not what G5 is designed for. It was created in June 2003 [7] in order to stop sockpuppets repeatedly recreating the same or similar type of article (such as a non-notable hedge fund, rapper, corner shop or bus shelter) that had already been deleted via an AfD discussion under slightly different guises (it predates A7 / G11 which did not apply when the policy was created). So, if somebody was repeatedly creating articles about non-notable Pokemon, and got blocked, we could use G5 to delete any other non-notable Pokemon pages if we knew it was the same editor socking, on the grounds we would assume the pages would be deleted at AfD. The policy gained traction around 2006-07 as a war of attrition between Jimbo Wales and Gregory Kohs after Kohs decided to basically troll Jimbo by creating marginally notable articles and dared Jimbo to delete them. It was not designed to delete articles about notable women from the encyclopedia. Please don't do this again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333, no. That is not what G5 is for. It may have been be designed for that, but articles of notable subjects can be deleted just fine. There is nothing in the wording of G5 that takes the notability factor in account. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just gobsmacked by that. All I can say is : You are wrong, policy does not agree with you, and your opinions are completely against everything this project stands for. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ritchie333: Thanks for stepping in here. We obviously need the kind of expertise you are able to offer. While I can understand the frustration experienced by our good friend Beetstra, I think perhaps the deletion of over 500 articles by Slowking4 without leaving more than a handful of drafts goes beyond the usual follow-up on the suspicion of sock-puppetry, especially as many of the deleted articles seem to have been fairly well researched and sourced. Several of my fellow members of Women in Red have been working on the re-creation of important deleted articles but it would have certainly been much easier had we been able to build on draft versions, as for example we were able to do with those created by our inquisitioned "Flying Dutchman" which survived for several months. I have been going back over the recent WiR deletions month by month and would be grateful for access to draft versions of the articles which appear worthy of re-creation. I have not looked into the deletions of ministubs on footballers and water polo players but many of those might be considered by others to be in need of revival too.--Ipigott (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have brought my deletions for review (again) to WP:AN. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It makes an interesting read: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#mass deletion of pages created by a sockpuppet of Slowking4. It's interesting to see how much discussion has come from my initial observation of a handful of deleted redirects to a couple of winners of the Florence Nightingale Medal! PamD 15:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one other article was enough to trigger even more attention: Noam Cohen wrote that «The slowking4 episode further exposes how capricious Wikipedia’s article creation and deletion process can be. Initially, 559 profiles disappeared from Wikipedia because of an administrative fight. Those deletions are under review, and 28 have been "recreated" thus far, but still: hundreds of pages once lived happily on the site, and now they’re gone». Nemo 18:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    New FPCs

    • Mabel Vernon, the woman who organized the Silent Sentinels protests for women's suffrage.
      Mabel Vernon, the woman who organized the Silent Sentinels protests for women's suffrage.
    • Henrietta Rodman, founder of the Feminist Alliance, fighter for the rights of married women teachers to equal rights as their unmarried counterparts for equal work, and eccentric.
      Henrietta Rodman, founder of the Feminist Alliance, fighter for the rights of married women teachers to equal rights as their unmarried counterparts for equal work, and eccentric.

    ...Figgered it was wise to actually mention these before they drifted too far down the FPC page. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 18:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Mabel Vernon is an FPC, yay! Thanks, Adam Cuerden. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And passing too. Rodman has no votes yet, but I've noticed FPC is prone to randomly just not getting people looking far enough down the page to see all the nominations as new ones come in. I have an image of Millet up now that I'm pretty sure would be passing normally, but just got skipped over, hovered at 1 vote for ages, and then slowly crept up to just short of a quorum. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 20:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Rodman suddenly jumped up to 4 votes overnight. Such is FPC. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs 19:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    As of Dr. Caroline Spencer, who just passed, we have 2% of all featured pictures, per the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Showcase#Featured pictures. This is lower than the number of woman-related featured pictures, of course, since Women in Red is not WikiProject Women, so things before its founding don't really count as under its bailiwick. Also, I believe the majority of featured pictures tend to be animals, fungi and plants, with places as the next biggest category, although I really don't want to try and prove that, as it'd be really annoying to do so.

    I'd say this is good progress. I can't give exact figures because the code does the calculation on the fly, so it's always going to be using the current total number of featured pictures, but we've gained about a third of a percent since July, and that sure seems good progress in a short period of time. Plus, I don't think anyone was updating the list during my 2017-2018 Wikibreak, so... probably massively undercounted anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs 21:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Adam Cuerden: First of all, congratulations on such a significant increase in such a short time. Great stuff! But I think you must have mixed things up a bit on when the various wikiprojects started. WikiProject Women in Red, originally called Project XX, was founded on 18 July 2015. WikiProject Women came a few days later on 27 July. WikiProject Women's History dates back to early February 2011. WikiProject Women scientists came in November 2012, WikiProject Women artists in November 2013, WikiProject Women writers in August 2014, and so on down the line. As far as I know, the first wikiproject dealing with women and addressing gender balance is WikiProject Feminism which goes right back to February 2008. Hope this helps with your chronology.--Ipigott (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant more that Women in Red is meant to improve content, so it can't really claim anything that pre-exists itself. WikiProject Women could reasonably grab every photo of women that's in FP. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs 17:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Elena Kuzavini

    News went viral recently about the death of popular Instagram model and bike enthusiasist Elena Kuzavini. I assume she was an Ukrainian. She died at the age of 41 on October 19 in a road accident. I was initially wondering why she was so popular and only got to know that she had about 800, 000 followers in her Instagram account. So taking this as a fact, I attempted to create for her but reversed my decision when thought about the notability issue. When I searched for her most of the sources covered only about her death and bot much else. Abishe (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you,@Abishe:, did the right thing. It's probably WP:TOOSOON.Fred (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I am thinking of leaving this project

    Hello all! Sorry to sound pessimistic, but my short time here has taught me that no matter how much you fight to enable women better and fair coverage on Wikipedia, it's an unwinnable battle in this day and age, still. I refuse to have to defend every single biography I create when these people obviously pass notability guidelines. Time and time again I've been harassed by clueless deletion nominators who don't know better but to express their (what I want to believe are unconscious) biases by seeking to delete material that is of good value, and worst of all that Wikipedia itself says it's working to improve. These are all empty promises. If such a blatant problem of underrepresentation existed one would think a monumental effort to be in order. Instead, we few that chose to do something about it are met with outrageous contrarianism based on fallacy and arguments that don't hold up to minimum scrutiny. Two of my recent articles were nominated for deletion, and it saddened me greatly to have to swim against what I can only characterize as a sea of offhand contempt towards women that have clearly made a difference. I think it almost irrelevant to state that this would not happen when faced with male biographies of a similar caliber. I know because I've observed this very fact, even though it is a weak argument. Nevertheless it goes to show the current state of affairs. And the problem isn't that simple, given editors are also unwilling to perform the most basic of research, e.g. looking into a person's background, citations, influence, or contributions, among other simple facts. I am starting to think work elsewhere would be much more consequential, and perhaps the battle should be fought by stronger men and women. I am failing by sheer exhaustion; no wonder people leave the encyclopedia. I will still fight, albeit probably somewhere else. Thank you for reading. PK650 (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't be discouraged. Some deletion editors (or course not all or even a majority) revel in their deletion count, they seem to see their nominated deletions as trophies and seldom take the time to improve the pages they fight to delete. Some, even when good sources are added and the page is "fixed", continue to argue for deletion. It is not anti-women, it often is just a numerical count, and is one of the "dirty little secrets" of Wikipedia which I would hope is addressed more fully. Thanks for bringing your concern to a talk page and not just leaving the project. Wikipedia surely needs editors like you, those who care deeply enough to be sometimes discouraged. I hope you reconsider, and focus on the successes and the good pages you've worked on. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    PK650, to add on to what Randy Kryn said, you have been putting in a ton of great work in an area of Wikipedia editing that is truly brutal. New page creation is really hard, and it comes with a much higher probability of having your work be undone than other forms of editing. By focusing so much energy on new page creation, you're taking the risk that a big proportion of your work could suddenly be deleted. My advice is to take a while to focus on honing and improving some of the biographies that you or other people have created that you think are the best, and that are about inarguably notable subjects. Trying to make articles more complete is a totally different type of fun and challenge, and it also is a very high impact way of sharing information about important people. A big motivation of Women In Red is to increase the proportion of articles that are about women, but there is certainly also a quality gap between articles about women and articles about men -- it's just much harder to measure. If you step away from article creation for even a very short while, I bet you'll have tons of new ideas and energy whenever you feel ready to come back to it. And you've already done a great service to the encyclopedia -- a quick numbers crunch shows that pages about women that you created have already received almost 1,000 pageviews! You've definitely earned some lemonade, and if there's anything I can do to help you not burn out, please let me know. - Astrophobe (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked around your contributions, & you don't seem to have lost any to deletion, at least recently. It is always very annoying, but so long as the discussions are concluding "keep", it's just temporary annoyance. The latest two noms are by the same editor, and as you point out at the other, they nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rama Akkiraju under the mistaken (and very sloppy) impression the subject was a man, somewhat undercutting your "this would not happen when faced with male biographies of a similar caliber" and "sea of offhand contempt towards women". That seems headed for a "keep". The other, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Frome, seems more in the balance, but I notice that User:Xxanthippe, a very experienced editor and a member of this project, has !voted delete as TOOSOON. There does seem to be a feeling that citation figures that would be very high in some fields are commonplace in hot areas of computer science, and these are key claims in several of your bios, with not that much else to support notability. Many nominators at Afd are and always have been less than ideal, but there are large numbers of articles that do need deleting, and I think the process generally gets the right result, normally only taking a few days to get it. Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument in that instance was that the nominator stated "I cannot find any reliable in-depth WP:RS for him" when the article was about a woman, hence he clearly hadn't read the article at all. The other argument relating to sexism was based on what I've gathered during my short tenure in the encyclopedia as a whole, and you would be quite obtuse to deny the fact, when it's even been commented on by Wikimedia itself. The point is that I shouldn't have to fight for biographies to be kept. They shouldn't be nominated in the first place, which is the whole point, wouldn't you agree? I don't see the validity of the TOOSOON argument given her contributions (specifically re street view) were done years ago. Almost all articles I've created have come from redlinks advertised in this very Project, so in essence you're implying this project's curation is faulty; if so, such redlink lists and their efficacy should be addressed. Re your citations comment: the academic guideline is vague (probably on purpose) and citation numbers can indeed be contentious, but a) do not believe for a second all these women's claims to notability are based on just that (that is insulting, not to mention if you measure an article's impact you should look at other factors); b) in many instances this is seconded by other coverage; c) we can discuss the area of computer science in detail, but numbers shouldn't be just bandied about without expert knowledge; d) articles are supposed to be springboards towards potential expansion and improvement, Wikipedia being a collaborative project as you know. You can't expect biographies to be excellent from the beginning, and editors should be encouraged to improve articles and not outright delete them, hence impeding one of the greatest qualities this encyclopedia claims to possess. PK650 (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to give one last piece of friendly advice: I really do not think it is worth putting so much energy into arguing on Wikipedia. You can spend an arbitrarily large amount of time and energy arguing with people on the internet, and you are almost certain to get absolutely no results and burn out quickly. Put the same energy into improving the encyclopedia (or living your life) and you will feel much better and get way better returns. Just my two cents. - Astrophobe (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you all for your kind words! PK650 (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know my own productivity has been down the last couple of weeks for the same reason (one of my articles was deleted, a rare event, but also I have the excuse of too much to do in my actual job). I expect it will perk up again later. If it helps you feel better about the Frome case: for academic deletion discussions, Xxanthippe always considers carefully the merits of each case, but primarily using citation counts rather than other criteria. John Pack Lambert generically votes delete on all cases with a generic justification that shows no evidence of having looked at the article, except for scholars of religion, and can safely be ignored (I imagine the closing admins have seen this behavior enough times to make the same observations). I haven't seen flowing dreams enough times to form an opinion, but their comment is not policy-based. And among the rest, the keeps are edging out the deletes. So don't lose hope. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, PK650, for sharing your concerns with us. It's thanks to young, enthusiastic contributors like you that the encyclopaedia is progressing. I have looked through the impressive number of new articles you have written in such a short time and see that you have obviously taken some trouble to pick out women whom you think have made an important contribution to our world. It is therefore entirely understandable that you should feel frustrated when their notability is questioned. Maybe I can nevertheless offer you some suggestions. First of all, do not rely too much on the Women in Red redlists as a reliable indication of notability. Many of the names are simply listed on the basis of their rudimentary inclusion on Wikidata on because they have been found in biographical dictionaries or indexes. Before you start writing a new article, look carefully for good secondary sources, such as those from newspapers, journals and books, and make sure several are solid enough to be included as references. Then start your article by explaining clearly the major achievements of the person and their claim to notability. As a rule, it is easier to write biographies of people who are no longer living, particularly those who have died fairly recently, as interesting background and overviews can be found in their obituaries and related articles. On the other hand, I share your interest in including enterprising women who are still with us. It would be a great pity if you were to give up the ghost so soon as you are obviously a talented editor and have much to offer. Let's see how things go over the next month or so. Many of us here would be happy to help you along if you encounter further difficulties. Just keep us posted.--Ipigott (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't leave, PK650. As has been mentioned above, you are not alone in having to defend articles against unwarranted deletion requests. I have been in the same situation, even though I have been here for some years. You do get through these things, even though it may take a while. Those articles created by you, mentioned on your talk page, are the kinds of articles that we need. I have added an image, infobox and Commonscat (Commons category link) to the Ella Russell article. If you do decide to have a rest from article creation for a while, you might consider it worthwhile to learn new skills meanwhile. You might enjoy having a go at sourcing photographs for biography articles, or whatever subject interests you, and learn how to upload them to Wikimedia Commons. There are information pages there to help you, and you may also find it helpful to examine existing image pages on Commons to see how they are set up. Storye book (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • PK650 There are some really great suggestions and thoughts in the posts above to consider before leaving the WiR project. I too share in the frustrations from time to time. It helps when I focus on the fact that we ARE making a difference in the demographics of the encyclopedia. It's not going to happen overnight. I find it useful to think about our contributions to Wikipedia as a feat of endurance, rather than a sprint. It helps when I focus on the big picture – that the next generation will have a better online encyclopedia. That's so awesome! It is really fun, as mentioned above, to edit several topic areas, not just WiR. Articles for Deletion is an interesting place, most of the editors I've encountered there are deeply invested in the en-WP project. Some of the nominators are very experienced editors, and other times there are inexperienced editors who nominate, and occasionally "bad" nominations happen. When the latter happens, I feel like it's our job to point out why the nomination was inaccurate and continue to improve the page while it's in the AfD. Most of the time it's a discussion and not an attack. I also find it useful to not take things personally; to cultivate detachment. If you do decide to leave, I hope you come back in the future, as you have made some really great contributions. Netherzone (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi PK650, it's taken me a few days to see this. I hope you've found the comments from other editors here encouraging. I find the deletion process very frustrating at times too. I've only been editing for about a year, and it took me a while to figure out what Wikipedia means by notable (as much as there's any consensus on that!), how to say it in articles and deletion discussions, and what sources to include to show it. And a lot of advice seemed contradictory - include more references! You've got too many references!
    The editor who nominated your three articles for deletion seems to be on a bit of a mission to delete. Although nominators are supposed to check for evidence outside the article that might support the subject's notability, not all do - or they do a very basic google search. Some AfD nominators miss quite obvious claims of notability, sometimes, too. That's a very unfortunate part of Wikipedia - I often wish there was a more rigorous process to go through to nominate an article for deletion (and even more so for speedy deletion and proposed deletion).
    You've probably noticed that I did quite a bit of editing on Ella Russell. I have access to databases of digitised newspapers, which I find invaluable for writing about pre-internet subjects. I have a private subscription, but it's also available through Wikipedia, and some other WiR editors have access to similar databases too. You might like to think about asking for access yourself, or contact another editor who might be able to find sources for you (Megalibrarygirl, for example, is a WiR member who has great resource-finding skills, and is very helpful).
    I hope you'll stick around! The deletion discussions can be very discouraging, but they can also be an opportunity for other editors to find sources and evidence of achievements, and help show that a subject is notable. While some editors who participate in those discussions seem to vote delete without looking outside the article, others like helping to search for more information and sources, so the result can be stronger articles and affirmation that the subject is indeed notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, yes please, don't get discouraged and feel free to ping me if you need a reference. I'll do my best to find them! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarice Phelps

    On my talk page, Celestinesucess has asked whether she should create an article on Clarice Phelps on the EN wiki. Many of you probably remember the case described last April in Claire Jarvis's "What a Deleted Profile Tells Us About Wikipedia’s Diversity Problem". Recent developments including her nomination for the IUPAC Periodic Table and "ORNL engineer the first African American woman involved in discovery of an element" seem to me to confirm her notability. Any thoughts?--Ipigott (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just seen that we still have Draft:Clarice E. Phelps. Maybe the best procedure would be to enhance that version with information from the sources mentioned above, and any other pertinent material. TonyBallioni who has been involved in this case might like to suggest how we should proceed on this? (cc Jesswade88)--Ipigott (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:DRV would be the correct venue to request a lifting of the salting. I don’t feel comfortable lifting it myself after multiple discussions and an arb case. I don’t plan on being involved any further as the whole experience has been fairly unpleasant. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never been involved in a desalting exercise and would prefer not to be the one to launch it. It seems to me that it would be better if an admin could take it on. The main reason I contacted you, TonyBallioni, was that as far as I could see, Fram was the one who saved the draft but she is no longer available. As we're dealing with a scientist, perhaps David Eppstein can help out here. Or maybe we should start a new version of the article. Would that be permitted? I've just been doing exactly the same thing with Sakuntala (Claudel) which now seems to be OK.--Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ipigott, Cullen328, Fram, and TonyBallioni:What is "salting" and "desalting"?I understand that Fram is still active but has a topic block.Oldperson (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oldperson: It's explained here. It looks to me that under the present circumstances we are simply forbidden from creating a new article. Strange situation.--Ipigott (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ipigott:Thank you. I had no idea what a "salt" was. When I query in help it gos to a redirect, evidently the acronym is no longer used. I checked your citation then googled Clarice Phelps and found the following on simple.wikiepedia (I didn't know there was such a thing). The whole affair does not look good for en.wikipedia. Following is a copy and paste from simple.wikipedia

    Phelps' contribution to the discovery of Element 117 was the subject of controversy after her article was twice deleted after discussion from the English Wikipedia.[1][2][3]
    As a result of the controversy on May 1, 2019 Kit Chapman wrote that Phelps was "...the first African American woman." to be part of a team that has discovered a new element. In response to claims no expert had made the claim.[4]Oldperson (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Jarvis, Claire (April 26, 2019). "What a Deleted Profile Tells Us About Wikipedia's Diversity Problem". The Wire. Retrieved April 29, 2019.
    2. ^ "Wikipedia doesn't think this Black female scientist is notable enough for a page". The Daily Dot. 2019-04-29. Retrieved 2019-04-30.
    3. ^ Jarvis, Claire (25 April 2019). "A deleted Wikipedia page speaks volumes about its biggest problem". Fast Company. Retrieved 2019-05-02.
    4. ^ Kit Chapman [@ChemistryKit] (1 May 2019). "Btw: to those who have said that no expert has said Clarice Phelps is the first African American woman to discover an element... Hi. I literally *wrote the book* on the history of transuranium element discovery. I've met all the teams. She is the first African American woman" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
    The whole point of the Rama arb case was that individual administrators can’t undo community decisions, so I don’t think anyone is just going to undo the salting since the deletion has probably been discussed more than any deletion in recent memory. I appreciate that many people want the article included, but requesting restoration of the article is best done through community process. Like I said above, I don’t really want to be involved with this anymore as dealing with the aftermath of the original deletion wasn’t really an enjoyable experience for me. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this pretty much means that it is required to go through WP:DRV rather than be lifted by an individual decision. To make a case at DRV, it doesn't work well to argue that the opinions expressed in the previous AfD were incorrect. Instead, you need to argue either that the closing administrator wrongly judged the consensus of the opinions, or that the circumstances concerning the subject have changed significantly between the close of the AfD and now in a way that would create significantly more notability than was present at the time. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    David Eppstein: As I have already explained, there have been important developments indicating that Phelps now deserves an article. Complete newcomers wonder why she has not been covered. The other admins I have contacted do not want to be involved. Have we reached the point on Women in Red where we not longer have any support? If so, perhaps it's time for us to stop trying to sort things out.--Ipigott (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am personally unenthusiastic about the Phelps case because it really does have the appearance of tokenism that this project is often wrongly accused of: she was a minor part of a big research collaboration, her accomplishments were hyped up as if the research was solely hers (e.g. the breathless headline in the first link of this thread, "the first black woman to discover an element"), despite the fact that she is not even listed among the 33 authors of the research paper in question [8], while other less-underrepresented participants in the same research were ignored; a deletion case occurred of a type that is routine when the accomplishments of junior academics are hyped up; and then a big fuss was made when the deletion case had the predictable outcome. I think there are still plenty of better-established women scientists lacking articles to work on instead, and I would rather focus my efforts in that direction. But if others want to push the case I won't stand in the way. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it is helpful to note: the article's deletion was discussed at this AfD and the deletion was reviewed at this DRV. User:Rama undeleted the article and User:Fram moved it to draft space at Draft:Clarice Phelps where it has continued to be edited. Rama's action in undeleting was dealt with at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Thincat (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I just finished reading the original AfD discussion, and must admit that the delete arguments are poignant. However I think a strong case for If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. can be made, especially when as mentioned there are lesser lights that have their own articles, but it does appear that there are different standards for sports and scientists. There are some new developments like ORNL engineer the first African American woman involved in discovery of an element dated July 2019 and Clarice Phelps is being nominated for the IUPAC Periodic Table of Younger Chemists for her outstanding commitment to research and public engagement, as well as being an important advocate for diversity. She is the first African-American women to be involved with the discovery of an element, tennessine (Element 117)., there is another reason for WP:IAR and that is that WP stands as being accused of racism/sexism. A deleted Wikipedia page speaks volumes about its biggest problem This is publicity WP doesn't need.Oldperson (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite the recent developments I have mentioned, is the best advice we can therefore give to Celestinesucess is that she should steer well clear of Phelps and try to find other women who are far more worthy of being covered on the English Wikipedia? If so I'll try to forget about this unfortunate discussion and spend my time on supporting articles on more worthy WASP-type candidates. I do nevertheless think it's a great pity that the English version of Wikipedia has to cope with such constraints and that we have no admins who are willing to provide any real support. Do we in fact happen to have any African-American admins or are they only to be found on non-English versions? (I appreciate the small measure of encouragement given on User talk:Beetstra). --Ipigott (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just seen we have Category:African-American Wikipedians. I wonder if any of them are active admins.--Ipigott (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Or just active - I looked at a few random ones - they lasted edited in 2008, 2007, 2009, 2011 ... But that's true of most such lists. Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked through them all and not one is an admin. Shouldn't there be some specific encouragement for African Americans to become admins, both men and women?--Ipigott (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just from the list, maybe there are many AAmerican admins who haven't joined that category. Specific encouragement may be applicable as a mention in the Signpost (which the pool of active Wikipedians and potential admin candidates read). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not going to involve myself further with this article: if she is notable, she may have an article. I just want to comment on two minor points, one about myself: above it was said "I understand that Fram is still active but has a topic block.", which is not correct: I am no longer an admin, but I have no other kind of topic block or ban. The other point is that, from where I stand, the racism (and sexism) are not from the site of enwiki: the real problem is that we have to be "celebrating" that none of the scientists are African-American women, but that hurrah, they have included one such technician in the team. Using this as something positive, extraordinary, is rather condescending and paternalizing (neo-colonial, we would call it in Belgium). That none of the other technicians are notable but she may be, only because of her background, is a sign of the continuing racism and sexism in the US (and many, many other countries). I am not convinced that going along with the narrative that celebrates such "success stories" is actually showing enwiki to be anti-racist and anti-sexist instead of the exact opposite. Fram (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    In this connection, I would argue that Nathan Brewer [9] is equally deserving. See also Periodic Table of Younger Chemists, [10]. And as this is Women in Red, how about Magaret Sivapragasam [11]. If separate articles are not found to be acceptable, we could at least have an article on the Periodic Table of Younger Chemists or, failing that, cover developments under International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. If we list names there, then at least some of the existing red links will turn blue.--Ipigott (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. On rereading my post (and especially the final line, let me just emphasize that I am not accusing the editors here of having racist or sexist motives, the contrary is true. Just that sometimes the result of trying too hard may be the opposite of what you intend. Fram (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram Seriously I am thrilled to see your comment. It was I who said you were topic banned. Apologies my old and feeble mind slipped between you and Fae I am a relatively new editor and you, at least to me, were an enigma.. Leaving that behind, I thank you for your insight. I did not read the citations as in depth as you, and stand in awe, that you brought to the fore an issue which eluded me. That the mention of one of many technicians, apparently because of her race, is in itself racism. However itis just by such "tokenism" that youth of today are motivated, believing that they can also achieve, so a great good. Then again the greater good and righting great wrongs are not part of WP's mission, but maybe just a little bit, grease the skids a bit, after all what harm done? Say turn a blind eye (for the greater good), rather than be so fundamentalistic (doctrinaire) after all isn't why WP has the escape clause If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it., then again I am an unabashed bleeding heartliberal, not always so, until 30 years ago were just the oppositeOldperson (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oldperson, since you say you are a relative newcomer, may I draw your attention to a very widely accepted counter-argument to the claim Ms Phelps does not merit coverage, because we aren't covering similarly qualified male colleagues - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. A widely admired essay WP:Arguments to avoid (WP:ATA) suggests we shouldn't argue that a topic should have a standalone article because a similar topic has a standalone article. And it suggests we shouldn't delete standalone articles simply because similar topics don't have standalone articles. ATA is not an official policy. But it is one of the dozen or so most quoted essays, so contributors generally treat it as a de facto policy.

      Even if Ms Phelps has male colleagues as qualified as she is, as experienced as she is, with publication records as impressive as hers, she may nevertheless measure up to our inclusion criteria, where her male colleaugues haven't, if the authors of non-technical publications have chosen to profile her.

      There is a trend that I find disturbing. Some experienced contributors are showing a growing tendency to ignore key elements of key policies. It is my interpretation of WP:Verify, WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Reliable sources require us to set aside our personal opinions, and trust the judgement of the authors of RS. It should not matter whether we personally think Ms Phelps is no more deserving of a standalone article than her male colleagues. Acting as if our opinion on her notability matters is, IMO, editorializing, a breach of neutrality. If RS chose to profile her, and did not choose to profile her male colleagues, then she is, by definition, more notable than they are. If someone finds a male colleague, with similar qualifications, publishing history, who has similar profiles in the non-technical RS, that is not an argument for deleting the article on Ms Phelps. It is an argument for creating another standalone article on that male colleague.

      This may really piss off those in the delete camp, but I think the RS coverage of our internal discussions of whether or not Ms Phelps merits a standalone article helps establish her notability. Essjay would not merit an article if it weren't for him triggering a wikipedia controversy. There are a handful of other people whose notability is largely or solely built on RS coverage of internal discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • TonyBallioniI do not know enough (yet) about WP guidelines and "rules",, however Geo Swan makes a very good argument above. I am not accusing you, not at all, but we are human and have a tendency to stand our ground. WP:IAR does tell us that the rules are not writ in stone, that there is room for flexibility, judiciously used.Some time ago a colleage, in genetic genealgy, who also happens to be geneticist informed me that WP had it's share of "exclusionist" (he left a long time ago). Again this is no accusation, I have seen enough of your work to earn my respect, even in good faith we do act unconsciously. I totally understand the need to maintain the integrity and quality of WP. I see those pleas on Teahouse for people begging that someone write an article about them, or approve their self portrait, what a place this would be if everyone was accomodated. Never the less Geo's arguments are valid.AS ragrds [WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]. WP rules are not like Moses tablets. And sometimes other stuff exists is not a valid reason for deletion. I can't believe that you are amongst those editors who count coup by the number of articles deleted. After all I have seen your work.Oldperson (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I’ve said: I will not be engaging further in this because I do not think any answer will be accepted other than restoration of the article by those who oppose the deletion, and arguing with people who already have their mind made up (not necessarily you, but many others) is a waste of everyone’s time. I’ve explained what policy is. There is an ArbCom case all but mandating a DRV if this is to be recreated. If someone wants to recreate it, that’s the way to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm {{ping}}ing TonyBallioni, even though he said he is washing his hands of this case, as he speedy deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps (2nd nomination) under WP:CSD#G4 which authorizes the speedy deletion of previously deleted material, and did not address what seems to me to be the highly relevant request from Levivich, to have someone with the appropriate permissions add the deleted history back in, before closing the 2nd afd, so non-administrators could see for themselves whether it was or wasn't a genuine recreation of deleted material.

      It would be good if we could assume requests to delete articles on topics that had had a previous version was deleted would only make good faith requests, where the new version was basically a copy and paste of the earlier, deleted version. We can't do this, for two reasons. First, some contributors aren't sufficiently familiar with our deletion policies, and don't realize that when an article has been deleted, it is completely policy-compliant for any good faith contributor to prepare a brand new version. Second, sadly, some contributors are partisan POV-pushers, who don't respect our policies, who will claim a second version of an article is identical to an earlier deleted version, even when they know this is not true. Icewhiz, the nominator at both AFD was recently indefinitely blocked by ARBCOM, for off-wiki attacks on wikipedia contributors. So should we withdraw our Assumption of Good Faith in these nominations?

      Contributors who want brand new version of articles to be deleted are free to initiate a 2nd AFD, but they can't call for deletion of the new version because a previous version has been deleted. When a second version of an article has been written, those arguing for its deletion are supposed to show how the new version falls short of our inclusion criteria.

      It is my interpretation of policy that when a second version of a previously deleted article starts from a copy of the deleted material, but where the recreator has added new material, or new references, or both, in a good faith attempt to address the concerns raised at the first AFD, it too requires a genuine discussion at a second AFD, instead of a rush to speedy deletion, under G4.

    • TonyBallioni, you closed both the first and second AFD. I don't know how common that is. Even if the guidelines for administrators were silent on this issue, I am going to ask whether you have considered letting previously uninvolved administrators close the 2nd AFD on articles where you closed an initial AFD? Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Geo SwanMakes very good points. Especially this: Icewhiz', the nominator at both AFD was recently indefinitely blocked by ARBCOM, for off-wiki attacks on wikipedia contributors. So should we withdraw our Assumption of Good Faith in these nomination. another issue raised is should he same editor or admin close a 2nd or 3rd AfD request? I think not.Oldperson (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It was substantially identical. I have the appropriate permissions to see the deleted text. It’s common to have admins who closed AfDs to G4 as they’re familiar with the topic area. Icewhiz was harassing me off-wiki, and I don’t think we should throw everything he did away. This went to DRV yet another time after my G4, and was not restored. There is no wikilawyer reason to restore this as everything has been discussed in every possible forum already. If you want to have it created, make an affirmative case for notability at WP:DRV. It’s that simple. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, the second draft was similar but not identical - given that it was a biography about the same person, it was hard to change much. I corrected what was wrong and provided more biographical information and references. Since then, Phelps has been profiled on other sites been recognised by the IUPAC. Certainly, I did not get the impression {{tq|Icewhiz' was interested in helping to improve the article or fixing anything. FWIW, I think technicians are *incredibly* important to academic research, and almost impossible to prove the notability of. Phelps is an exceptional technician, not only for her research activity but also her work on improving access to science - and very few have received the recognition she has. Jesswade88 (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have lots of opinions on this subject, but I just want to point everyone to Draft talk:Clarice E. Phelps, where new sources (since the last AFD/DRVs) have been discussed over the past several months as they've come out. I'm happy to post the DRV request (I think we're well past WP:THREE with the sources in the draft and on the draft talk page), but I've been holding off because I haven't got the sense, based on discussions on that talk page, that enough other editors agree that these new sources satisfy WP:GNG. – Levivich 19:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    My 1,600,001st edit, dedicated to WiR

    Raja Meziane. BBC 100 Women, translated from French.

    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

    Thank you for your outstanding contribution, and for dedicating this milestone edit to WiR!! Oronsay (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I just say also Rich Farmbrough that your gnoming does not go unnoticed. I really appreciate that you go behind me and fix technical things. SusunW (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Congratulations, Rich Farmbrough. I really appreciate the lists you've created. All the best. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite an achievement. You are now fourth of the list of top editors. I also see you have created 1,936 articles. An impressive record. I'm pleased to see your clean-up routine corrects the no-longer-permitted italics in the references. I had started cleaning up those in my articles myself but as you seem to be progressing quite quickly through all the biographies, I'll leave it to you.--Ipigott (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    We need help from WiR members with monthly tasks

    Hey pagestalkers, we need your help towards the end of each month to get ready for the new month. This would include creating the new event pages, creating the new talkpage templates, and/or creating redlists. Are you available? Mostly, it falls on the same people each month, but everyone can use a break once in a while. :) Thank you in advance. See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#Firming up for November. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just wondering yesterday how such tasks were divvied up and who was responsible for doing them or took responsibility. I would be more than willing to help. I will need a bit of direction to know what to take on and what to leave alone at first..I'm not available this month as I have something to complete by month end. But if I know what to do I can take up some of the load next month.. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 11:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Antiqueight: That's a very kind offer. As I do most of the work on preparing the meetup pages, I would be happy to let you know how I go about it as we approach the end of November. It's not difficult -- it just takes quite a bit of time as there are so many things to check for and it's nearly always necessary to create new links to redlists, images, templates, etc. We'll keep in touch. Just let me know when you have time...--Ipigott (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    November "Women Do News" editathons in NYC

    Under Take The Lead, editathons will be held on November 2 and November 16 in New York City. Details, including the names of 83 women journalists yet to be included on Wikipedia, are given here.--Ipigott (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    [[category:Crimes against spreadsheets]] --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive them, they're pretty new to the game. I've been in touch by email. I think it's great to have their support. And at least you can read the names, however inappropriately they're presented.--Ipigott (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pharos, this may interest you. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Anne Morel DYK

    Over at Template:Did you know nominations/Anne C. Morel, Yoninah has blocked my "first woman mathematics professor at U. Washington" hook for Anne C. Morel, on the grounds that we would never pass such a hook for a man (I don't know, maybe this is because historically and in her time frame it was far less surprising for mathematics professors to be men than women?) and has proposed instead making the hook be about her love life rather than her mathematical accomplishments. Alternative hook suggestions could be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    November 2019 at Women in Red

    November 2019, Volume 5, Issue 11, Numbers 107, 108, 140, 141, 142, 143


    Check out what's happening in November at Women in Red...

    Online events:


    Editor feedback:


    Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

    Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

    --Rosiestep (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

    I've stated the candidates, but I don't think I've been that clear on what actually passed, so, just to catch up, here's all the new featured pictures from October. Admittedly, Mabel Vernon hasn't been promoted yet, but it's obviously passing and has only 12 hours left., and I'll be way too busy tomorrow to do much about it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 11:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Adam Cuerden: Beautiful display. I see that on FPs you are up from 7.9% to 8.3% since the end of September. If only we could move at that speed on WiR!--Ipigott (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ipigott: You've added 1 to the total, it's 6.9 to 7.3. And we kind of have. I think we were about 1.5% of FPs here as of a couple months ago, and, as I've said before, our lists are hardly comprehensive, they're our successes as a project, and lack a history before that. I should recalculate the proportions at WP:Featured pictures/People again sometime. I did that late this year (here; and if I do it again at the end of this year, we could easily see how progress is.
    I suspected WP:Featured pictures/People/Political - where suffragettes have mostly been filed - would be doing quite well, so I specifically checked that category to start. I may have miscounted a bit, but roughly 54/234 (23.08%), two of which are by a female photographer (Frances Benjamin Johnson), and not photos of women, and two of which are groups including women. Last year, it was about 12%, so that's nearly doubled, percentage wise.
    Further, since Shirley Chisholm in February 2016 (about when I joined WiR, which may not be a coincidence; I used to be part of the problem), there have been 52 images. 2 of them are the Frances Benjamin Johnson photos, plus four more photos of men not by her, and 46 have been women. Not counting the Johnson photos (that sounds wrong, but I'll leave it because I'm clearly 5), that's 85.19% of that set of more recent photos, and 92.31% if we do include them.
    Conversely, if we look at pre-Chisholm images, we have.. 182 images, of which only 6 were women, for a percentage of 3.3%.
    And I think we can all agree that 3.3% of photos in WP:Featured pictures/People/Political to 23.08%, in a bit under three years, is pretty darn good.
    - Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 01:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Stub contest

    The first round of the stub contest ends at midnight tonight, 31 October. The second round starts tomorrow, 1 November. New participants are welcome. The stubs still remaining from October (i.e. those with less than 160 words of running text) can be destubbed in November. See Stub Contest: Oct-Nov-Dec for details. Post any queries here or on the contest talk page. Despite some interesting suggestions for changing the listings at the beginning of October, participants seem to have coped well with the existing format which will be continued in November. As can be seen from the October lists, it provides for easy monitoring of the winners.--Ipigott (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikidata-based statistics

    Although the WHGI statistics have not yet been updated, I can see from Denelezh that, as a result of the "Disappearing articles" discussed above, there has been a slight drop in our progress from 18.07% on 14 October to 18.06% today. We now have 300,168 women's biographies (down by 591) out of a total of 1,662,210.--Ipigott (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ipigott, This is a shame, but thank you for the update. I guess it's to be expected that sometimes, it's "two steps forward, one step back". By the way, at Wikidatacon, I met the creator of the Denelezh website, and he has plans for additional enhancements in the next few months. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Rosiestep: Envlh has indeed been doing a great job over the years, also in connection with the French Wikipedia. We have in fact been discussing the proposals on further developments but I cannot remember exactly where (probably on Meta). I've been looking through all the deleted articles and see that about 90% are mini-stubs on women in sports but there are also quite a number that are around start class, most of them about women from the other areas we have been covering on Women in Red. Up to now, 18 articles have been recreated and 13 more were not included in the batch of deletions as other editors had contributed to them. When I have a bit more time, I'll prepare a list of the ones I think we should work on. As you have access to the deleted versions, you should be able to contribute more easily than the rest of us.--Ipigott (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    At least it didn't drop us below the 18% again. If someone can pick out the articles with details like what they did or where they were from I will tackle any Irish, writers, artists, academic types. If there are deleted version information email it to be at gmail. I should be able to get a few dozen done in a short while if there is any information about them already. If there are none fitting the above then I will basically start at A next week....I'm hoping to do some Nanowrimo so I may be slower on articles where I'm starting from no information... ☕ Antiqueight chatter 14:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I spoke with Envlh on Monday before taking the train back from Berlin and he said they were thinking of merging WHGI and Denelezh - there is overlap, but I like the birthdates in Denelezh so that you can look at coverage per period. There are so many other visualizations possible, but each one causes women to drop off the list because it adds an additional check for a Wikidata statement that might not be there. As you know, sometimes we should be happy these articles are marked with just two: identifying the article as Q5 & Q6581072. Sigh. Jane (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick reply: Denelezh has not been updated for a month due to a technical issue (downloads of Wikidata dumps fail every week, retries don't work; the root cause has not been identified yet, but it comes from Denelezh server). I'm working on it. Rosie & Jane: I was very happy to chat with you. The merge of WHGI and Denelezh is discussed in phab:T230184. We'll formalize what we want to do, but feel free to drop ideas/needs in the Phabricator task. — Envlh (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I must apologize. The last update was indeed at the end of September, not the end of October. We'll just have to wait for the real figures.--Ipigott (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ipigott: statistics from 11/11 have been loaded into Denelezh. I don't understand why it worked this week, but at least it's there. — Envlh (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted articles worth recreating

    I've looked quickly through the batch of articles which were recently deleted. Among those which appear worthwhile recreating are:

    Hope this proves useful.--Ipigott (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for this - a very useful list. Storye book (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks! I took a look at Sema Salur and Franziska Schutzbach and wasn't convinced — Salur has a notable award but I couldn't find much else on her, and Schutzbach has a very slim citation record, enough to make passing WP:PROF unlikely. But others may have different opinions and it is good to have this list of names and occupations to help us decide. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at Jennifer Weist, the mentions I found were spotify and mentions of her performances. This raises a question for me, just how does one find RS forWP:NOTE, better yet what constitutes notability for a musician?Oldperson (talk)
    See WP:MUSICBIO. Multiple in-depth published reviews of her performances (or reviews of performances of groups that have in-depth coverage of her part) are the most obvious way. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    Thanks David Epstein Just the info I was looking for. Someday I will learn these wiki links.Oldperson (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been here for over two years now and I'm still learning my way around the acronyms.... XOR'easter (talk) 04:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Penny Von Eschen appears to hold a named chair [13] and thus would pass WP:PROF#C5. XOR'easter (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And another one before that at Cornell. Eleanor M. Fox also appears to hold a named chair [14]. But instead of either of those, I started a new article for Louise Dittmar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to have helped with the Anna Kessell article, but unfortunately I have a troll following me, which kind of puts me off. But if anyone else with easy access to UK material would like to have a go: Anna Kessell MBE on Linkedin (see the About section), The deleted Anna Kessell article (cached; contains some useful links). There are also plenty of her book reviews quoted online, if you Google "anna kessell" UK sports writer. I have so far found no free portrait image online. Storye book (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have started an article for Anna Kessell in my sandbox but I'm struggling to find reliable sources which aren't the ones she writes for! Will have another look later. Theroadislong (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Theroadislong: How about [15] and [16]?
    Thanks The Irish Times one will be useful, but she writes for the Guardian so that's not so good. Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The Swiss writer Isabelle Morel has a German and French article which should help. It was deleted as a G5 so is eminently notable. scope_creepTalk 11:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Scope creep: Thanks for making a start on its recreation. Do you intend to continue working on it? If not, it could be a candidate for the stub contest (i.e. destubbing).--Ipigott (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ipigott If you plan to hold a contest, please do. I generally complete all I start, if nobody else works on it. I usually leave it for a couple of weeks so Google can re-jig its graph, i.e. making it easier to find content and sources. scope_creepTalk 14:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Scope creep: The stub contest is running and you are of course welcome to participate. I see what you mean from Renata von Scheliha and John Rittmeister -- both well developed articles. So let's leave it for a couple of weeks. Glad to see you have turned your interest to women. All the more the merrier!--Ipigott (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Ipigott That is very nice of you. This is what I try to aim for: Oda Schottmüller. I'm planning to do at least one women article for every man article now. I would work exclusively on here, but I've many many articles to create and the majority of them are men, including a bunch of doctors in the Uk. scope_creepTalk 16:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Scope_creep: I must say I'm really impressed with Oda Schottmüller. You've gone well beyond the German and Polish versions. It's reached at least B class. Why not become a member of wp:Women in Red. You can register at the top of the project page. I think you'll find it useful now that you've started writing such informative articles on women. We all try to help each other along.--Ipigott (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ipigott, I've joined.scope_creepTalk 17:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Think I might do Sema Salur, as the original was only a couple sentences, but I did discover something horrifying: Rochester University puts her page in.... Comic Sans!!! Cue scary music here. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 03:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Adam Cuerden: Hmm, it looks as if you can't actually blame the university or dept - except perhaps for allowing faculty to do their own thing in personalising their web pages and perhaps a lack of guidance! Or she's a free spirit who likes an informal look. PamD 10:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @PamD: Well, despite her poor font choices, she now has an article again, which I think is slightly better than the old one in text, though it lacks a list of papers. I actually put the time in to trying to understand what she was researching, which I don't think Slowking did. I did quote a description, but, honestly, that's because it's so technical that I didn't trust myself not to change the meaning by accident. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 10:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And she now gets a mention at the much-upgraded dab page at Salur (disambiguation), which is now accessible by a previously missing hatnote at Salur... and I really need to get on with some RL stuff this morning! PamD 10:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    If anyone would like a bit more of a poke at Sema Salur, I've got it to about the level it used to be, which isn't great. We might be able to get it to Did you know? if we can expand it a bit more. She's kind of on the borderline of notability, though. Just past it, I'd say, but a massive article may not be on the cards for her yet. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 10:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Marie Vitulli honored

    Congratulations are due to User:Mvitulli for being elected as a Fellow of the American Mathematical Society [17]. The award cites her "contributions to commutative algebra, and service to the mathematical community particularly in support of women in mathematics". Congratulations! —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Congratulations indeed! XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Her paper *Writing Women in Mathematics into Wikipedia no doubt played a part in this. And with yesterday's Tara E. Brendle, I see she is still contributing herself.--Ipigott (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Palestinian women

    Hi all :) I am participating in the Asia Month contest and noticed that in the Women in Red lists of missing articles there is no section for Palestinian women. I got an explanation that the lists are per country and Palestine is a territory... but... That means that Palestinian women are a priori excluded and that just doesn't seem right. Is this fixable? Thanks! TMagen (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @TMagen: Fixed. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Palestine --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Tagishsimon: Thanks for creating this list and it looks nice. TMagen just pinged this question in MeetUp/143 and I exactly did not know to answer to her question in a technical way. Abishe (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Awesome :) TMagen (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Nakadia

    The Nakadia article seems to have been within the scope of this project at some time, but while the link is no longer red the article is not really discoverable as there are no links from any other pages in the main namespace (I stumbled across it when researching an unrelated RfD). I've alerted the subject area WikiProject as well (Electronic music) but that doesn't seem particularly active, so maybe someone here will know of suitable places to link from. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thryduulf: Thanks for letting us know but it's not really our job at Women in Red to link every woman's biography to other mainspace articles. There are over 300,000! To help you along, I've included her in List of Thai people but you could have added her yourself. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    100 Women (BBC) nominated for deletion

    Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I see the conclusion is keep.--Ipigott (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the English Wikipedia more biased than most?

    Although the percentage of women's biographies on the English Wikipedia has been creeping up month by month (now at 18.09%), we are no longer among the top scorers in the WHGI Gender by Language statistics. If we take those just published, we are in fact in the 72nd place among the changes per language version between 14 October and 4 November. Most of the more successful language versions are still very small but it is notable that the increase in women's biographies in many of the larger versions has been much higher: Afrikaans 44.77%, Catalan 41.89%, Greek 39.25%, Norwegian Bokmål 36.50%, Spanish 31,48%, French 28.38%, Polish 26,51%, Swedish 26.51% (not to mention the Asian languages). For some of these, the increases are reflected in the "All time" stats (where the English version is now in 57th place): Afrikaans 8th 36.02%, Norwegian 24th 23.20%, Swedish 35th 21.13%, Spanish 36th 20.71%. If these trends continue, it can be expected that over the coming months and years, the "gender gap" for English will be reduced less quickly than for other languages. Given the comparative size of the English version, I'm not at all sure there is much we can do about this but it may be worthwhile discussing future strategies. What is perhaps more positive is the fact that we create far more new biographies than any of the other major language versions.--Ipigott (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly - it is far easier to move the dial on much smaller wikis. The 50% female bios on Welsh wp is the prime example. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnbod: You're right of course but I think we need to take account of the other larger language versions. Some of them are steaming ahead. We may be able to benefit from what they are doing.--Ipigott (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the smaller language Wikipedias are using scripts to automate the creation of Wikidata-based stubs. Perhaps Robin Owain (WMUK) could give an overview of how that has been done on the Welsh Wikipedia. I think continuing with our Stub campaign (but not automating it) in 2020 should be considered. There is great value in stubs beyond "moving the needle" (M/F biography percentages): new editors face high hurdles to create new articles, but article improvement is less challenging. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can see, scripts are not being used for Norwegian, Spanish, French and Swedish. Between them, over the past two weeks they have created over 1,400 new biographies of women. While many of these are sportswomen primarily of interest to the countries covered, many of the others could well be covered in the English Wikipedia. Maybe Women in Red could devise some kind of monitoring or redlisting mechanism to pick up the ones which we should cover. Is there any way of displaying the date on which new names are added to Wikidata or when articles in the different language versions of Wikipedia were created? Perhaps Rosiestep could investigate this with her Wikidata friends.--Ipigott (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The Norwegian Wikipedias and the Northern Saami Wikipedia are having a WIR competition for the entire month of October, which would explain the large amount of new articles for those. -Yupik (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Black Women Creatives

    Just dropping a note to make people aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Black Women Creatives, which appears to be a list of articles about black women, sources for finding more women to write articles about, and a few redlinks. Looks like a personal project that has been mostly abandoned, so figured I'd leave a link to it just in case it's useful to anyone. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, as you say there doesn't seem to be much activity on this project, not a single message on the talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for noticing this WikiProject. I'll share the link with members of m:AfroCROWD User Group at this weekend's m:WikiConference North America/2019. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Paralympic medallists for 2020 initiative

    According to WP:NOLYMPICS, "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games". Currently, almost all of the female Olympic medalists have been made (to my knowledge), except three at List of Olympic medalists in volleyball. But, there are numerous female Paralympic medalists that are missing articles. For the 2020 initative, this could be a treasure trove to boost the percentage to 20%. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    MrLinkinPark333: Good idea, but why don't we start now. I see there are lots of red links on women medalists in the List of Paralympic medalists in alpine skiing and a few in List of Paralympic medalists in rowing. Perhaps you can direct us to other useful Wikipedia lists or indeed to other sources.--Ipigott (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see we have these in Simple English: María Ángeles Calderón González, María Mercedes Capa Estrada], Concepcion Hernandez Diaz, Sara Luna Santana, Jessica Malagón Moreno, Susana Herrera, Concepción Dueso Garcés, María Monica Merenciano Herrero, María Del Mar Olmedo Justicia. Looks as if they could easily be copied over.--Ipigott (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We talk about Olympics and Paralympics, but I would like to mention about the Deaflympics as well. Sorry to interrupt under this section but to notify the lack of awareness about Deaflympics. Perhaps the number of biographies about the Deaflympic athletes counting both genders are remarkably low. Fortunately, Wikipedia have articles for prominent women Deaflympic athletes such as Tereza Kmochová, Cindy-Lu Bailey, Danielle Joyce, Nele Alder-Baerens, Trude Raad, Tone Tangen Myrvoll etc. I am thinking of creating articles about women who are scheduled to take part in the next month's 2019 Winter Deaflympics. We can also focus that particular event. But the issue is whether Deaflympic athletes would pass the notability criteria similar to that of the Olympic athletes. Abishe (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember hearing conversations about this in the past, but is there any good reason that the notability bar is "competed" in the Summer/Winter Olympics but "won a medal" in the Paralympics? Penny Richards (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ipigott: Any of the Lists of Paralympic medalists would be useful, but as you can see there's redlinks for inidiviual lists as well. Therefore, any lists that have redlinks require manual searching at Paralympic sports. @Abishe: @Penny Richards: I am going by what the NOLYMPICS criteria says. I don't know about whether Deaflympics athletes/medalists would pass the criteria as they aren't mentioned. So I presume if they pass GNG, they should be fine. As for why Paralympians overall are not in the NOLYMPICS criteria, I agree that they should be there too, but again they're aren't. I'd be happy to see all of the women Paralympics medallists made first as the criteria specifically mentions them. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Juli Briskman, delete redirect create new article

    "Juli Briskman" currently redirects to NANA Development Corporation. She was yesterday elected to the County Board for Loudon County, Algonkian District. Between flipping off the motorcade, the firing, and being elected she now satisfies WP:SIGCOV. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    AugusteBlanqui: Just replace the redirect with your new biography.--Ipigott (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've started a draft here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Juli_Briskman if anyone wants to contribute (I'll won't have much time to edit over the next week unfortunately). AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @AugusteBlanqui: If other editors edit it in draft, you'd then need to use WP:RM to move it to over-write the existing redirect. Your current two sources look solid, so I'd say follow Ipigott's advice and create it now at the natural title Juli Briskman in mainspace, over-writing the redirect. While you're the only person who has contributed, you can copy and paste it in its entirety as there are no questions of attribution owed to anyone else. You could stick an {{under construction}} template on it if you're still working on it for a day or two, to fend off drive-by deletion tagging, but it looks fine to be a mainspace stub already. PamD 15:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And I won't edit it, to preserve its single-editor status so that you can copy it, but ... please remember to add "United States" in the lead sentence, as not every reader of this international encyclopedia will know that "Virginia" is in USA. PamD 15:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see you did say "U.S. politician", sorry, didn't notice - I think "American" is standard usage. And could you link County supervisor, as it's not a universally-known term. Thanks. PamD 15:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, looking at the history of the redirect leads to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_29#Juli_Briskman, so there has been some past discussion about this person's presence in the encyclopedia. PamD 15:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    And for 31 minutes earlier today the redirect was overwritten by an unsourced article, which was reverted to a redirect with no edit summary. PamD 15:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ... since when it has been re-created as an article, edited by several different editors, and taken to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juli Briskman. PamD 00:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fellowships

    Is anyone interested in tackling the redlinks in List of female fellows of the British Academy? Currently there are 3 from the 1990s, 5 from the 2000s and 22 from the 2000s meaning there are 30 overall redlinks. I'm interested in going for the oldest inductees first as there are lesser amount of redlinks as well. There are also 29 redlinks at List of female Fellows of the Royal Academy of Engineering (4 1990s, 1 2000s, 23 2010s). I've also made WP:WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships where these names are all listed. Feel free to add to this list! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    MrLinkinPark333: The list is a good idea, as election to FBA/FREng makes all instantly notable. I have started checking against Wikidata and adding references and info there as I go. Have already looked at FBA down to Rachel Bowlby and added Lorraine Tyler (academic) as the link for her is a redirect to a silent movie! In the meantime, happy translating Isabel de Madariaga - from Catalan, Spanish, Italian and/or Russian - see Wikidata. Oronsay (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oronsay: Thanks! I can help add anything I find for de Madariaga. I was going to do her article, but I'm getting bogged down in sources LOL! Perhaps you'd have better luck making her article fuller then I can fill in whatever else I find ;) For the fellowship list, I just went by articles that began with List of female fellows. The only other one List of female fellows of the Royal Society currently has all bluelinks :D --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MrLinkinPark333This write-up may help Isabel Margaret de Madariaga 1919–2014
    This seems to be an interesting avenue to explore. One way of expanding the lists is to turn up categories beginning "Category:Fellows of" and compare the lists from the "learned society" with those already listed in the category. For example, many of the women listed in AGU 2019 fellows are not included in Category:Fellows of the American Geophysical Union. But is a fellowship in these organizations necessarily a passport for acceptance of a biography? There seem to be over 70 such learned societies in the UK (see Category:Fellows of learned societies of the United Kingdom) and over 50 in the United States (Category:Fellows of learned societies of the United States).--Ipigott (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The award of a fellowship may not warrant the creation of an article but it certainly warrants the creation of a Wikidata item, if missing, in order to list all the recipients ever. Nemo 12:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For instance Category:Fellows of learned societies of the United Kingdom currently has 72 subcategories with some 16k articles while Wikidata currently lists over 45k recipients of 26 awards. (Probably more awards need to be classified as "fellowships" and more orgs as "professional societies"/"academic societies".) Nemo 13:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on the society. Some are incredibly notable. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 14:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Others are not - in some cases "fellowship" (as opposed to membership) just requires a time qualification, working in the industry concerned, and a payment. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it depends from one society to another, and in some cases from one time period of a society to another. Fellowship in either "a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" or "a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor" has been deemed to grant automatic notability according to WP:PROF#C3, but the qualifiers are important. I'm pretty sure FBA meets the first criterion, of being highly selective and prestigious. Some others, such as FRSA, don't count for much because their selection criteria don't correspond to great scholarly achievement. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No indeed. There are some 30,000 FRSA, & it is essentially an arty/intellectual club with nice premises in Central London, and an annual subscription. I've had mailshots inviting me to apply. There are around 1300 FBA, about the same as the Royal Society, of which it is the equivalent in the arts (of course they also both have nice premises in Central London too, but no subscription). Johnbod (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Johnbod and David Eppstein: So it looks as if we need a list of which societies are considered notable enough for their fellows to warrant articles. Perhaps you could each contribute to a selection from the UK and US. We can then try to put together lists of redlinks.--Ipigott (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    A useful thing to do, but not a task I fancy myself, or am very qualified to do. In many cases, different classes of membership need to distinguished carefully - the top, awarded, ones may be decent evidence for notability, but the much larger, paying, memberships and fellowships are not. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There are probably hundreds of discipline-specific fellowships in the US that might qualify. The top and more broad-topic ones are membership in the National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering, or American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Below those but still broad and still notable enough for WP:PROF#C3 are Fellow of the IEEE and Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (note: two different AAAS's). Among the discipline-specific ones that connect to my own editing interests, Fellow of ACM, ASA, AMS, APS, AAAI, INFORMS, and SIAM all probably qualify, as maybe also do honorary members of IMS and elected members of ISI. I'm pretty sure I've filled in all the missing women among the Fellows of the ACM, AMS, and SIAM but I know I'm missing some in ASA (see list) and haven't even really tried for thoroughness with the others. Currently I'm looking at Fellows of the AWM, which probably doesn't pass WP:PROF#C3 (even though it's selective) because it's oriented more towards service to the profession than to scholarly accomplishment; nevertheless it can provide something of an anchor to build a new article around, because (like many of these) it comes with a little blurb explaining what the subject is being honored for. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    On a somewhat connected topic, I created Titles of Distinction awarded by the University of Oxford a while back. Essentially, Oxford awards personal chairs (i.e. professorships) to distinguished academics at the university; they do this because of an oversupply of talent and a limited number of statutory chairs and endowed positions with which to reward. Many other universities offer personal chairs, but Oxford's size means there are a lot, and it's almost unique in having an official, public record of all academic appointments (allowing us to build a list of appointees). Anyway, as you will notice, there are dozens and dozens of red-linked women academics (I count well over 20 appointed in this year's cohort alone), most of whom would easily pass WP:PROF. I've said it here before, but comprehensive, reliably sourced lists of people meeting specific notability criteria (like this list of people meeting WP:PROF or the female FBA lists mentioned above) really help to combat biases on here and guide article creation; if you're interested in women in academia, it might be worth a look at this Oxford list. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

    Like many UK universities, Oxford is transitioning from the old British system, where only a few senior academics were "Professors" (and most senior people "Senior Lecturers", and in Oxford a range of other funny historic titles), to the American one, where only junior people aren't professors. So I'd question whether most recent appointments "would easily pass WP:PROF", though no doubt many would. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Another fellowship which has been mentioned here before: the Guggenheim Fellowship. That alone is enough to confer notability, and I know the lists of Fellows by year have quite a large number of redlinks, many of them women. There's also a searchable database here. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    120 new Sudanese women MPs - late Dec 2019/early Jan 2020

    The ongoing Sudanese Revolution has been very much the result of more than half a century of organising by the Sudanese Women's Union and the more recent networking and actions of the No to Oppression against Women Initiative and MANSAM. (If you look through these articles, you should, I think, find a claim that Sudanese women have the strongest feminist network in Africa - if it's not in an article, then it's in one of the references.) The 39-month transitionary institutions of state have some women - head of state, Cabinet of Sudan, Chief Justice of Sudan - though the Khartoum massacre investigation committee to investigate mass murder and mass rape is a men-only committee (No to Oppression against Women Initiative is not very happy about that, but there doesn't seem to be much world-wide pressure criticising the absurdity of a men-only committee investigating rape (some of the rape victims were men, but many were women - per the sources)). This is just background.

    According to the August 2019 Draft Constitutional Declaration, the 2019_Sudanese_transition_to_democracy#Transitional_Legislative_Council has to be created within 90 days of the whole process, so late September + 90 days = late December. And at least 40% of the 300 seats have to be allotted to women. The Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC) will nominate 200 of the 300. I would be surprised if any members of parliament of France, UK, Australia, Canada, US did not have individual en.Wikipedia entries. So there should be about 120 Sudanese women members of parliament to create articles for and link in to Transitional Legislative Council (Sudan) directly or indirectly and notable enough for Wikipedia articles around late Dec/early January.

    Some English-language sources that are generally reliable include https://www.dabangasudan.org Radio Dabanga - and https://sudantribune.com Sudan Tribune. Expect the women's names to be roman transliterations of Arabic script - with lots of variations in vowels; al-Smith may be written el-Smith, Elsmith, El Smith, Alsmith, Alsmeth, el-Smeth, El Smyth, and so on; the best way to follow Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Arabic)#Definite_article would generally be with el-, it seems to me. When searching with a search engine for info, try variations in the roman spelling. GAFAM/Twitter online social networks might have useful info if they lead to serious references. Boud (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    [Just to clarify my last sentence there - it would be great if Sudanese women's groups used non-authoritarian online social networks - the Fediverse network of networks (after all, the whole idea of Wikipedia is knowledge dissemination without authoritarian control) - but my impression is that this is not yet the case.] Boud (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WOMEX

    Alo Wala at WOMEX 2015.
    Photo by Yannis Psathas

    If anyone is so inclined, there's nearly a thousand photos at Category:World Music Expo that need to be categorized by year and the performers' categories added (it will take some detective work for some of the photos to figure out who is in them). I'll be creating the subcategories later on today if no one else gets around to it first. In addition, it seems that the photos from the last two years still need to be uploaded from Flickr. I think we could get quite a few good photos out of these and from a quick glance through enwiki, quite a few new articles for WIR, too. -Yupik (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    And if anyone is interested in scraping WOMEX's list of artists for data, there's currently 8010 of them :D -Yupik (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia causes Google AI gender bias

    I found this very interesting. Not sure if anyone can do anything about it.--Ipigott (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I found Wikipedia Still Hasn’t Fixed Its Colossal Gender Gap interesting too. The write-up is based on Katherine Maher's presentation at the Lisbon Web Conference. I hadn't realized Wikipedia had now dropped to ninth place among the most popular web offerings -- I thought we were still among the first four or five. Also interesting, the apparently negative effect of so many Wikipedia editors coming from North America or Europe. Had a feeling that as I am not only British but also male, I might do better to withdraw. But of course Maher should find an African to take her place too.--Ipigott (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see our own List_of_most_popular_websites puts us in 10th place with six of the first ten being Chinese.--Ipigott (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also the effect of so much key data now being in the box at the top of many search engines - the loose change google etc donate to us is a very minimal gesture, given the benefit they get. One day the Indians will set up their equivalent of the big Chinese sites.... Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Kate Killick

    Written by Schlossbergfes, and currently up for deletion here. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hiltrud Werner: New article for review

    Hi all! Reaching out here to see if anyone would be willing to review a draft I've submitted at AfC for Volkswagen's only female board member: Hiltrud Werner. The draft was declined for not demonstrating notability; I've since responded to the declining editor to provide some more information and made a couple of edits, as has another (uninvolved) editor. I'd like to try resubmitting but before I do so, would anyone here be open to reviewing to give feedback? As a disclosure: I do have a financial conflict of interest as I have written this draft on behalf of VW via Finsbury, as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Thanks in advance for any feedback anyone is able to provide. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any reason you haven't used the German article on her to flesh out the English article? -Yupik (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Yupik, that's a good question! Basically, German Wikipedia is more accepting of primary sources and the additional detail in that article is supported by sources such as the VW website, websites of organizations re: speaking events, and a video interview with Werner. From what I've seen at AfC, editors want to see in-depth secondary sourcing and reject details that are supported by primary sources, especially from drafts submitted by COI editors, so I focused on just including the information I could source to secondary coverage. It would be great to include more of what's in the German article, hopefully it can be added in future if editors think the current draft works as a starting point. Does that help answer your question? Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Participate in #WikiForHumanRights

    Hi all, as you may have noticed, we are beginning work on the WikiForHumanRights Initiative: meta:WikiForHumanRights. This year is a pilot collaboration with UN Human rights, and we are looking for local language organizers to support hosting on Wiki events. Would Women in Red be interested in participating? There are two ways that make a lot of sense in my mind to still be within your scope: first making December or January a Women Human Rights Activist month (see an initial evaluation of the space at wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject_Human_Rights/human/activists) or by focusing on the topic of "youth standing up for rights" highlighted by the UN. If you all are interested, please report it at: meta:WikiForHumanRights/Organize. Cheers, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at MediaWiki talk re blacklisting titles containing Wikidata Q numbers

    A request was opened 2 days ago at MediaWiki_talk:Titleblacklist#Request_to_prevent_"Wikidata"_titles_from_being_created to "Prevent the creation of titles with any of the 4 following character strings: (1) (Q[number] (2) (q[number] (3) (P[number] (4) (p[number].

    Many of the redlists created for our Women in Red projects contain redlinked titles consisting of a name plus the Wikidata Q number, particularly where the name is already in use as an article title for a different woman (who has a different Q number in Wikidata).

    The editor who proposed this change has clarified that "The blacklist doesn't prevent redlinks from being created or typed out; it prevents content (such as an article or a redirect) being created at that title." Another editor suggested that "we can configure it here so that - even if ListeriaBot continues to create redlinks to these bad titles - when someone tries to create a page at that title, it'll show a message like "Please don't create your article at this title, give it a meaningful disambiguator like '(Nigerian politician)' instead of '(Q424242)' ".

    Please could more knowledgeable WiR members consider the implications of this and comment at MediaWiki_talk:Titleblacklist#Request_to_prevent_"Wikidata"_titles_from_being_created? Perhaps the original proposal wouldn't affect WiR projects at all, or perhaps the suggested message about changing the Q number to a disambiguator when creating a new title would address the concern I had about new editors being able to create articles at redlinks as easily as possible.

    Pinging @Tagishsimon and Ritchie333: who were also pinged at MediaWiki Talk. I hope other experienced WiR members will see this here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The only negative aspect of all this is that people are annoyed when they create a new biography and see that there is still a red link on the Listeria list they used to identify the person they wanted to write about. Once the new article has been correctly linked to Wikidata, the name disappears from the Listeria list. It looks to me as if adding the Q item number is a sensible temporary solution.--Ipigott (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)

    My name is Elizabeth Rowe. I had some notability as the principal flutist of the Boston Symphony Orchestra before making mainstream headlines for a gender discrimination lawsuit (see Boston_Symphony_Orchestra#Unequal-pay_lawsuit). I followed the instructions at WP:YOURSELF by disclosing my conflict of interest and submitting a draft page about myself to Articles for Creation. The reviewer said I was “almost certainly [] notable” but rejected the page and encouraged deletion because it “must be reviewed by a neutral editor.”

    I thought review from a neutral editor was precisely what Articles for Creation was designed for. However, if I am not allowed to submit, I would be grateful if an independent editor here can help out. Thank you so much in advance for your help. Roweflute (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for creating your draft and for following procedure in so doing. On a first reading, it looks fine. (I made some light edits and added a small amount of material.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    XOR'easter, Roweflute, I think the subject is notable and the article will not be deleted at WP:AfD. I would be willing to accept the draft, provided that the CoI is properly disclosed on the talk page of the article. You could use the {{Connected_contributor}} template to do that. Vexations (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I’ve added the connected contributor tag. Roweflute (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red&oldid=926517602"