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 Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk | contribs) at 22:06, 20 February 2020 (→Women bios on Wikipedia's social media accounts: replies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

    January 2020 at Women in Red

    January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153


    Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020!

    Online events:


    Editor feedback:


    Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

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

    Draft:Carol L. Boggs

    Could someone familiar with notability rules please take a look at Draft:Carol L. Boggs? It was rejected at articles for creation, but she's a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Looking through past discussions, I think that's sufficient for notability, but that's way out of my wheelhouse. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've commented there. She does pass WP:PROF#C3 but the draft is inadequately sourced for what it claims about her research. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur that she is definitely wiki-notable per WP:PROF#C3 at the very least. A quick Google Scholar check says she has an h-index of 45 and 30 articles with over 100 citations apiece, which is a strong argument for WP:PROF#C1 as well. (Yes, citation indices are fallible metrics, which is one reason why we treat them as only one way to meet one of the possible criteria of WP:PROF.) The article is maybe one solid editing session away from being mainspace-ready, IMO. It needs some comparatively minor adjustments for encyclopedic tone, and claims about the significance, impact or novelty of her research need to be supported by secondary sources, or else trimmed. We can say, for example, "She studied the giving of male nuptial gifts in butterfly species," but not "Her work on male nuptial gifts opened up a new research arena," unless some other reference (a textbook, a review article, a citation for a major award) says so. XOR'easter (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added sourcing for her fellowships. But there's something odd about the references: access date 10 October 2019 for several refs, but article created 8 Jan 2020 in editor's first edit (account created 28 December). Presumably copied from a sandbox ... but wouldn't the edits show in editor's contrib list? Is it a copy of something previously deleted? Puzzling. PamD 17:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been accepted as Carol L. Boggs. Thanks all for the help. SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Waste of my time

    Someone from the Project Women in Red asked me to translate this article. She is a Brazilian archaeologist. Now I was informed that the draft] may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. Please do not request translation of articles that meet criteria for speedy deletion. Dr. LooTalk to me 22:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Its speedy deletion had nothing to do with its content. It was because it sat there as a draft, untouched, unedited, and not proposed for promotion to article space, for six months. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've requested it. I'll get it to article on restoration if I can. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 18:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've restored it, which any admin can do for a draft tagged for WP:G13 ("abandoned draft"). I agree the stock template message, "In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace" is not appropriate here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I won't get to this til tomorrow - (I wasn't expecting such a speedy restore) but if anyone else wants to review it faster than that, go for it!! ☕ Antiqueight chatter 18:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: I had a similar problem at first with Danielle Younge-Ullman when it was still in draftspace. I was kind of frustrated about it, because I had been working on it and just got kind of busy (6 months can go by pretty fast). I got a message and before I had even logged on for the day, it had been deleted. I'm still hoping to improve the article myself when I have time, as it's a fairly short stub. Also, this happened [1] and [2]. It seems that G13 equates a draft not being edited for 6 months to indefinite hosting of material not suitable for mainspace, even if the draft hasn't even been submitted to AfC yet (or is awaiting a review). Clovermoss (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are draft articles in user space deleted after six months too? For example, if the article had been at user:Ipigott/Cláudia_Rodrigues_Ferreira_de_Carvalho would it also have been deleted? If not, despite recommendations from AfC, there is a strong case for encouraging new contributors to keep new articles in their user space rather than in "draft" until they are ready for mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone swing by and take a look at the draft now and see if it's fair? If yes, we can pull it into mainspace. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 12:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I swung, I looked, I pulled. Cláudia Rodrigues Ferreira de Carvalho. @Luizpuodzius: - not, as it turns out, a waste of time, but rather a good outcome :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ipigott: Theoretically user space drafts are exempt from the delete after 6 months rule unless they have AfC boilerplate. (In practice, the distinction is sometimes ignored.) By the way, anything deleted G13 can be refunded on request; if I'm active I'm always willing to do that unless there's a copyvio problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm also willing to undelete if requested - just give me a shout. I'm usually around, except when I'm pretending to have a social life. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. Cdefm (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Me too. Thanks! Dr. LooTalk to me 20:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Art+Feminism 2020 San Diego edit-a-thon

    Hi everyone!

    I am organizing two Art+Feminism edit-a-thons this year here in San Diego, one in the Spring and one in the Fall in the lead up to the 2020 election. What is the best way for me to connect with members who might be interested in 1) participating either in-person or online and/or 2) be willing to help as a trainer/instructor/helper during these events? Any guidance is appreciated!

    Thank you! Praxis2020 (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Praxis2020: I see from Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/February 2020 there is a meetup in San Diego on 2 February but as far as I can see, you are not involved. I recommend that as a first step you create a meetup page of your own. Once we have dates and details, we can announce it on our main page and it can also be listed with other A+F events. If you need further assistance, I recommend you contact Rosiestep on her talk page. Hope everything works out well.--Ipigott (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)]][reply]
    Praxis2020: I see from Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/January 2020, there is also a meetup in San Diego tomorrow. It might be useful for you to go along, see how it is organized and perhaps invite participants to help with your own events.--Ipigott (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for responding! I will look up their next event and start there as you suggest. 66.75.225.244 (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Linda Rodin

    I just rescued this from the slush pile. There are a pile of news sources, including The Daily Telegraph and Vogue, it's just that I'm a complete ignoramus when it comes to fashion, so wouldn't really know where to begin expanding it. Can anyone here help? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ritchie333: Thanks for rescuing; have revised. Feel free to tag me for any fashion-related articles. MapleSoy (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SCAR Medal for Education and Communication

    Hi! A while back Janstrugnell organised a multi-month editathon to create and update a stack of bios on women antarctic researchers (Signpost article; project page). The main antarctic research society (SCAR) is inviting nominations for the "SCAR Medal for Education and Communication". We have two nominations from academics in the society, but thought it might be nice to have one from "Women in Red". I've no idea if that's feasible, or whether the organisation structure of the meta:WikiWomen's User Group would make that a better option. Anyway, let us know if that might be possible - it'd be a great opportunity to further emphasise the importance of Wikipedia biographies in those circles! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Evolution and evolvability, for this kind invitation. I think it is the first time we have been asked to put forward candidates for an award. We have Category:Female polar explorers which seems pertinent here but in February we once again intend to include Explorers (including the Arctic and Antarctica) as a priority. As I see that nominations are to be made by 4 March, we could perhaps use that opportunity to discuss the matter further.--Ipigott (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for thinking of us, @T.Shafee. I'll connect with you via email to get more details.
    As a friendly FYI, in 2016, Women in Red received an invitation to apply for the ITU/UNESCO Women's GEM-TECH award. Though we didn't win, we were honored to be one of five organizations shortlisted in the category "Apply Technology for Women’s Empowerment and Digital Inclusion". --Rosiestep (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Rosie, but the difference here is that we are being invited to participate in nominating candidates for an award rather than competing as Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct - in this case the editathon organising team would be the nominee, and a WiR representative would be one of the three nominators providing a letter of support. Apologies that I was a bit unclear in the original post! I'm hopeful that getting additional format recognition of the value of editathons for education and communication efforts will help encourage similar projects in other societies (and help people within those societies pitch the idea to their groups). I appreciate that this is a little unusual a request - so thank you for engaging with the idea! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Leading Women

    Can somebody take a look at Draft:Leading Women? I can see what look like a few news hits, but the search term is too vague to be able to get suitable sources easily enough. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Searches based on Susan Colantuono will probably give more; by the looks she is notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've promoted this to mainspace after Ritchie333's clean-up - Leading Women. There's a possible COI user wanting to turn it into advetorial, so might be worth putting on watchlists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    New userbox

    I have stolen a userbox template (below) from @Eggishorn: to highlight the number of women I have made blue. I had to hard code it with the number of new articles about women, though, as Eggishorn did. If someone out there better skilled than I is able, it would be great to have a dynamic box along the lines of Template:User humility.

    This user has made 14 women blue.




    Thanks! --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I made Template:WikiChallenge Venezuela edits, which works by adding |N in the template. You could copy the code from that. Edit: making a box like humility where it says how many of the women articles you've made isn't feasible, as the humility box gets data from the total number of articles. Kingsif (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingsif, adding |N is exactly what I meant. I didn't mean for it to give you a percentage (although that would be cool, too). I took a look at your template's code, but I am not sure what I am looking at as a non-coder. Do you think you could take a crack at it? Thanks! -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slugger O'Toole: I've made User:Kingsif/WIR userbox. Type {{User:Kingsif/WIR userbox|1}} for:
    This user has made 1 women blue.



    I also moved the link from the text to the logo, but could add it to the text easily, too. I've centered the text, and added category so that it automatically places the user in the WIR editors category if they aren't already. Kingsif (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OOOH! Looks pretty! I'll defintely add this to my userpage (once I count all of the women I've made over the years lol!) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingsif, Many thanks! It looks great! -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great idea, Slugger O'Toole, and great user box, Kingsif. So I've spent the last half hour counting and discovered that 1,207 of my 2,315 articles are biographies of women or articles about their works. But I can think of several other editors who have contributed substantially more than that. Maybe some of them will start counting too. From time to time it's useful to let people know what we've been doing.--Ipigott (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    **cough cough** I mean, if we're talking about letting others know what we've done... Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Eggishorn: Well you've already created two informative biographies of women and I'm sure there will be many more. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ipigott:, thank you. There's at least one more in my sandbox being worked on. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sweet; and I've added it to my userpage. Thanks for creating. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Congratulations, Rosie, on your 1,380 articles about women. As they are nearly all Start or C class, that's quite an achievement. Now we just need something similar for all your "women" additions to Commons.--Ipigott (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Rachel Rossi

    This landed in the slush pile yesterday. I've cleaned it up, and there seems to be possible indications of notability, including receiving some awards and working on the Kavanaugh Drama Fest, but it could do with somebody else having a look at it. Any takers? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Now at Rachel Rossi after improvements by Ritchie & Yngvadottir. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Krista Jobson

    As above. Some sources, copyvio removed, needs expansion and general sprucing up. Since flutes and concert orchestras are involved, I wonder if Gerda could do something with it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Depends on sources, and not now. I do Recent deaths these days, and yesterday had to handle 2, and am behind with many things, and then go around with an impossible - well it happened, so was possible - arbcase close. I looked over the candidates for whom I had voted, but - relief - 3 of the 11 for whom I had voted were not elected, and of the remaining 8, 5 voted as I would have done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As Mrs Doyle once said, there's that little word "no" the Lord gave us when we didn't want any cake .... er, didn't have time to drop everything and fix an article somebody else didn't have time to do. No worries. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Daron Nefcy

    I just stumbled upon this person. She created Star vs. the Forces of Evil and should meet WP:CREATIVE 3 -- but it's salted, which I'm not sure makes sense due to the show's popularity. Thoughts? ミラP 00:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a 2015 salting for someone who is unimpeachably notable. I imagine Ritchie333 could unsalt it should there be (and perhaps even if there isn't) interest in writing an article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andy Dingley: The deleted revision of the article by RHaworth (WP:A1) was incorrect as it was an infobox with the information you stated in the above post. I have restored it. Although RHaworth has now been desysopped, things like this will probably crawl out of the woodwork from time to time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Tina Hassel

    Apparently notable German journalist/broadcaster, currently at MfD. Looks like a translation, perhaps someone can help out? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried, but it needs a German speaker to decode the sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I agree a German speaker would be useful. Unfortunately my German is vestigial. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Espresso Addict, Tina Hassel is notable as the editor-in-chief at the ARD, Germany's public broadcaster. Unfortunately, the article appears to have been translated by someone with limited English skills. "Hassel wies den Vorwurf mangelnder Distanz zurück" was translated as "Hassel pointed complaints about lack of distance back". Even Google translate does a better job than that: "Hassel rejected the accusation of lack of distance". The sourcing is not great, https://www.presseportal.de/pm/7899/2249607 is a press release (German: Pressemitteilung (PM)), and the WDR was her employer, but the article itself is worse than a machine translation. The German article has more sources, but they're not great either. Vexations (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Vexations, and Yngvadottir for the improved translation! Espresso Addict (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now at Tina Hassel; another good WiR save. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to keep informed

    Since last week I was working on few articles related to rights of Pakistani Women. Usually I refer to international publications and Pakistani news paper websites seems to work ok.

    Whenever I tried to access some university & some women orgnisation websites like Punjab University & Shirkat Gah ( a women's organisation) website to search if I can find any research papers some of those websites seemed to be authorized websites but practically technically seem to be insecure & compromised cyber security point of view (I am not a cyber security expert) instances on PC or browser getting hang & diverting to phishing web side kind of experience are being encountered frustrating number of times. Until we don't get some cyber security guidance it's better be careful.

    Just sharing to keeping others informed

    Bookku (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft: User:Cdefm/Elizabeth Rose, Lady of Kilravock

    I found Elizabeth Rose, Lady of Kilravock 1747 – 1815, Missing articles by occupation/Writers - UK, Number 29. I think I've done all the adminy things, except she may need extra categories. What I struggled with was establishing her 'essence'. I might have bitten off more than I can chew, but I gave it a go anyhow. I've come to the conclusion that she was a literary critic and an accidental author. I'm not sure if this is correct, have I gone in the right direction in her article? If anyone has the time, could they take a look and let me know what they think? Can I call her a critic and an author? Also, feel free to edit, correct, add, amend as you see fit. Cdefm (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    From Worldcat, her letters (11 editions) seem to be significant.--Ipigott (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ipigott Thanks. I've added a sentence and reference. Cdefm (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Katherine Tanner Fisk

    today, while reading about Alyse Gregory, I found about Katherine Tanner Fisk. There is a lot about her on beginning of the 1900s publication, and she was plauded by Willa Cather and was an intimate friend of Jane Addams (since the time they were in school together). I think it would be nice to have an article about her, even a stub. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice to hear from you Elisa. As you probably know, I don't usually write biographies of English-speakers but, as you suggested, I have made a start on this. You appear to have access to sources which show up as non-accessible pages when I try to find them on Google books. Perhaps you can add some content to the article yourself.--Ipigott (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    added some more info. there is much more, maybe I will add some more in the future. Or other can. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already done a really good job on this, Elisa. It just shows what can be done when you have access to the right sources and can revive a long-forgotten but obviously important figure. It's also good to see you are again ready to contribute to our women's biographies. Hope you stay around.--Ipigott (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting help with Ruth M. Arthur

    Hi all! I noticed that one of my favourite childhood authors wasn't on here, so I was going to start writing an article about her. The big problem though is that I don't seem to be finding much at all about her online and paper sources in this country don't cover her. Would anyone be willing to help out? I've put the info I could find out about her on a subpage of my userpage and created a list of her works based on the info in the databases of the British Library and National Scotland Library. Strange coincidence: someone created a beautiful article about one of her books yesterday! Thanks for any and all help! -Yupik (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There's probably enough in https://www.enotes.com/topics/ruth-m-abel-arthur together with her publication list, to launch an article? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    & http://sf-encyclopedia.uk/fe.php?nm=arthur_ruth_m --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Review (1972) of the Little Dark Thorn: [3]
    Review (1974) of After Candlemas: [4]
    Review (1966) of A Candle in Her Room: [5] --Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You've found some amazing sources, thank you (and ClarityKTMpls too)! I've launched the article out of userspace into the main article space, but right now there's still not a lot of text. This is a lot of commented out text with sources inside the article itself, if anyone is inclined to play connect the dots. I'll also continue working on it to make sure it stays out off the deletion list. :) -Yupik (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]
    If we have anyone who can add Japanese names to Wikidata, this author's name in Japanese is ルース・M.アーサー. For some reason, Wikidata isn't letting me, perhaps too many languages already in my babel box :D -Yupik (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Nicole Sahin

    Just spotted this one, with a comment "potentially notable". It needs some cleanup and referencing; possible sources include this, this, this and this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ritchie333, [6] is a press release, and [7] isn't much better: "Globalization Partners Inc., whose Global Expansion Platform™ enables you to hire talent in more than 170 countries within days, without the need to set up costly foreign subsidiaries, announced Donna Marshall has joined the company as Senior Vice President of People Operations reporting to CEO Nicole Sahin." Those aren't sources we can use. Vexations (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This draft reeks of WP:COI with hallmark new user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JennaNeiterman who does just enough edits to launch an article into mainspace. So I'm thinking throw-away account, $$$, and - as to the article - burn it with fire and afterwards salt it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It says she was named Gamechanger of the Year and Entrepreneur of the Year in New England — but by whom? The supposed source is a random podcast that provides no actual further information. The whole thing looks like a paid job by way of a throw-away account. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A forgotten American patriot

    I would appreciate any help at Draft:Elizabeth Willing Powel. I am not good at starting new articles. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. That got a bit improved over the last couple of hours. Hats off to C&C and GMG (and a couple of other usual suspects). Outstanding work. "Not good at starting new articles" indeed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We gon make it purdy. GMGtalk 00:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I think it would have been more appropriate to say "I hate working alone". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

    Just to announce that this is running in March. Ser Amantio is putting up an Amazon voucher prize for most British and Irish women bios destubbed or improved. Any expansions done among your creation work would be much appreciated. Sign up in the participants if interested, a good chance to win some free books!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. Blofeld: Good to see you're back in business. Excellent initiative -- but you have to read a long way down the explanations to see that biographies are also acceptable and that there is a special prize for "Most articles destubbed and improved on British and Irish women". Maybe biographies could be mentioned earlier as "This focuses particularly on places and listed buildings, but the contest will also include biographies and everything else." Is it possible to do preparatory work in user space before 1 March and then move or copy the edited text to mainspace in March? This would allow contributors to make an early start and cover more items.--Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I did originally have women's bios mentioned in the main focus but Espresso and Pam D complained that it seemed inappropriate. I think the fact that we have as much of a prize for women's bios as by entity should be sufficient enough to be productive. It's really a geo/building focus but I always try to benefit women bios in some way. I added biographies to the goals anyway as suggested. Anybody can do what they like in their user space, as long as the articles themselves are done in March and the dates don't say it was done in February. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. Blofeld: Just before the beginning of March, I think it would be useful to announce the special prize for women on our main page and on our A+F meetup page. People will be able to pick up stubs from Category:British artist stubs, Category:Irish artist stubs, etc. The exchanges here should also help. Quite a challenge!--Ipigott (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll see if I can get one of the tech guys to generate a list of British and Irish women stubs by occupation and create some lists, sound good Ipigott?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. Blofeld: It's not too difficult to pick the women's names from the stubs listed under Category:British people stubs, etc., but I note there is nothing specifically on activists or feminists.--Ipigott (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed Articles

    I would like to submit new pages on feminist activist and entrepreneur Amy Nelson, as well as The Riveter, a company she started that acts as a modern union for working women (political advocacy, office space, events, etc.).

    I work for The Riveter and understand Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policies. Therefore, I have created drafts here and here, so independent editors can objectively review them for neutrality and notability.

    Thank you in advance for your time and feedback. Hannahh206 (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hannahh206: Thanks for taking this approach, Hannahh206; much appreciated. The Amy Nelson article seems well-written and sourced, and neutral in tone; the subject appears to me to pass WP:GNG. I'd be happy to move that to mainspace as is. I think the best approach is to use {{Connected contributor}} on the talk page; I'll vouch for the article's neutrality. Exactly the same deal for The Riveter, but two observations: 1) you launch into specifying its focus in sentence one, without explaining what it is ... presumably some sort of American organisation; 2) The final paragraph comes close to marketing; I'm okay with retaining it, but it might trigger other people's spam sensors. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagishsimon: I nearly always agree with your assessments but in this case it seems to me that the sources are directly connected to Amy Nelson or her company in the form of interviews, etc. Before we recommend moving this to mainspace, it would be good to have a couple of truly independent sources. We need to be careful about articles created by those with COI concerns. I'm not suggesting we should not accept the article but I think it would be useful to have one or two truly independent secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Quartz, Forbes, CNBC. These may be interviews; they are not sources directly connected to Amy Nelson or her company. YMMV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    @Tagishsimon: I made some changes to the draft page on The Riveter based on your feedback and added a Connected Contributor template. Let me know if you feel that one’s ready for main-space.

    @Tagishsimon:@Ipigott: it seems you two disagree as to whether Amy Nelson qualifies for a page. What is the proper way for securing a decision one way or another? Would a third tie-breaker vote from a third editor be the proper etiquette? Hannahh206 (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hannahh206: I've promoted both articles - Amy Nelson and The Riveter (organization), and added a declaration on Talk:Amy Nelson. Ipigott is right that more, & more independent, sources are desirable; and I hope in the fullness of time these are added. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Lady Laura Troubridge

    Hi everyone. I picked up Troubridge from Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Writers - UK number 180, Laura Troubridge, Q28325435. But it seems there is a little confusion over two women with the same name. One is known as Lady Laura Troubridge (nee Gurney), the other as Laura Troubridge. The file Q28325435 seems to have both women as one. I was too far gone in my research to turn back by the time I realised, so decided to finish the article I was doing on Lady Laura Troubridge (nee Gurney), and then follow it up with a second article on Laura Troubridge. To make way for the second Laura (and not to confuse myself) I've moved the article I've written from my user to main userspace. I haven't put authority control or categories into the draft article yet, as I'm not sure if something needs to change in wikidata (Q28325435) first to split the two women? Can anyone advise me what to do? Cdefm (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This article now links to Wikidata (Q84512674). I suggest Q28325435 should be completely deleted as it is indeed very confused. Any items pertaining to (Q84512674) could then be added there. Perhaps our Wikidata expert Tagishsimon could sort it out.--Ipigott (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds fun. I'll take a look later today. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're good. There are two people with similar names, both novelists, both with a father or a mother called Gurney. Both wikidata iteams look as if they have the right data for the right person, and the wikipedia article is attached to the right person. I've not check all of the IDs on the earlier wikidata record; there's a possibility that some are for the later record; equally a possibility that they're not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Epic hatnote there! Disam page needed? Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you everyone!!! I'm now tackling the second Laura, the one who is now Q28325425. The whole web seems to have confused the two women, additionally the second Laura has more than one 'professional' name by which her works were known. And then, some people confuse these two women with a third, Una, Lady Troubridge. It's a maze out there. Wish me luck! Cdefm (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    PS Diambuguation page still way above 'my pay grade'. I've haven't even tried one of those yet. But it looks like I've cracked the hatnote. Whoo hoo! Cdefm (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone do a pass on this article for me?

    I wrote an article on Megan Rosenbloom and submitted it for DYK and it got flagged as promotional. I don't know what is wrong with it, figured someone else could maybe make a pass and try to make it more encyclopedia? Thank you! Jessamyn (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at it and the article does not strike me as being an advertisement. That said, the language in the lede could be very slightly toned down and rewritten, with most items in the introduction could be moved down to a career section. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much, I took your advice. Jessamyn (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Invitation to attend event

     You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/March 2020/International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon . RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

    Feedback

    I am a fan of this project (found out about some women i had no idea existed who did great things in history), but please drop the Valentines' day theme for Women in Red this month. Many of editors of this project are from countries where Valentines Day is not a thing (Poland, New Zealand, Arab countries, etc) and it defeats the purpose of it. For February, come up with a different theme for Women in Red. It's not hard. thanks 41.102.71.57 (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello! Of course, we don't want to be off-putting, but ... what Valentine's Day theme? The red heart on the page is just the project logo; it's been there since April 2016. XOR'easter (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's in the February with Women in Red newsletter (above). I must say I was surprised to see Valentine's Day being celebrated in late January when the newsletter was broadcast, but I skipped over it and moved on. Oronsay (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was rather clever of Rosiestep to match the red heart in the recent invitation image with that of Women in Red. But I fully understand the concerns expressed above. In fact, a number of countries have officially banned Valentine's day (although I don't think there are any problems in New Zealand). We experience the same difficulties on the EN Wikipedia in connection with Christmas and the New Year with the result that we usually opt for something vague like "Seasonal Greetings". We should perhaps be more careful in future. For clarification, though, the new "themes" this month are Explorers, Black women and Women in horror. Fortunately, I don't think there will be any objections to our focus on International Women's Day on 8 March.--Ipigott (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I placed the Valentine's image on the February invitation. I didn't mean to be insensitive, yet I was by not thinking it through more carefully or seeking opinions on this talkpage. I apologize for that. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cathy Whims

    Hello! I expanded the Cathy Whims article back in March 2019. I'm considering a Good article nomination, but I'd love to get a bit of feedback from project members here first. I'm not concerned about notability, but is the article long enough to be promoted? Also, are there places to search for possible images for the infobox? Thanks for any article improvements or feedback in advance. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Another Believer I think the article needs to broaden coverage if it is to be reviewed for GA. Dr. Blofeld and Montanabw were my mentors in GA. They said the article should be at about 15,000 bytes of text before final editing. That seemed really daunting to me on my first nomination, but making the article as comprehensive as possible, typically requires at least 8,000 - 10,000 bytes of text. A search of Google makes me think that kind of coverage is not going to be easy to come by. I typically avoid working living women up for Good Article, as maintaining the status as their lives change requires a good deal of commitment, but if you really want to go for it, I wish you luck. SusunW (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SusunW, Thanks for your feedback! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another Believer: Susun has offered some very sound advice. Nevertheless, from time to time much shorter articles are promoted to GA. Among the most recent promotions, Willard Ryan is considerably shorter than Cathy Whims (although ORES continues to give it a C class). It seems to me that the weakest item in your article is the lead. You should develop it further on the basis of the main achievements mentioned in the article. It would also be useful to check for recent news to make sure the article reflects any important developments. Perhaps you could contact the subject for a photo suitable for Commons -- and possibly date and place of birth. I would then encourage you to have the article reviewed or simply go for GA where constructive comments will follow. It might be useful to bring it to the attention of WikiProject Women in Green which specializes in promoting women's articles to GA and beyond. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ipigott, Very helpful, thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    redirects, disamb, and miscellany

    I wrote an article on Nancy Clarke (entrepreneur) today. As there was a redirect from Nancy Clarke to White House Chief Floral Designer, I searched wikidata and realized there are 3 women with this name already in various projects, so hopefully I converted the redirect page to a disamb page correctly. When I went to make a redirect page for Ann Clarke, it already exists as well, but it redirects to Bryan Clarke. Weird thing is there is no mention of an Ann on his page, so I searched wikidata and there appears to be a Canadian painter (aka Ann Clarke Darrah) but no article on wp. As there is no article to blue link the artist to, I am unsure about creating a disamb page and totally unclear if it is simply acceptable to repoint the existing redirect to a page that actually mentions Ann Clarke? And then when completing the wikidata entry for Nancy Clarke (Q84607970), I get the message that I must add a source for claims that she is Afro-Caribbean and speaks English. I have no idea how to do that. She was a manumitted slave and a free woman of colour as confirmed here[8] and that she spoke English is confirmed here[9]. Can someone who has more skill with this help or advise me what to do? Thanks! SusunW (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikidata & the redirect sorted. As we don't know who Bryan Clarke's Ann was, we're not in a position to do a DAB. Obvs, someone may steal the redirect back. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Tagishsimon, it just quickly went way over my skill level. Truly appreciate the help! SusunW (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked the editor who created the redirect from Ann to Bryan why they'd done so, and they gave me a link to a source which explained all. So I've now added info about Ann Clarke (immunologist) at Bryan Clarke and at Frozen Ark, as she was the subject of an episode of BBC Radido 4's The Life Scientific which of itself goes a fair way to establish notability. And I've made a dab page at Ann Clarke, though I wonder how many dab pages we need for Ann(e) Clark(e) and whether the reader would be better served by just one! PamD 18:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ann Clarke (immunologist) is now blue. PamD 11:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And there are just two dab pages: Anne Clark and Ann Clarke (both of which include Ann) with incoming redirects. PamD 12:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work, PamD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent PamD! I knew posting it here would facilitate improving the encyclopedia, but had no idea it would lead so far in integrating so many more women. Thanks for the assist. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Daisy Edgar-Jones

    Bringing attention to the DRAFT for Daisy Edgar-Jones - actress has at least 2 notable roles and media coverage. Co-star Paul Mescal from upcoming series Normal People has been published. Starklinson 07:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

    @Starklinson: I've promoted it to mainspace - Daisy Edgar-Jones. It may or may not now get nominated for deletion; we'll just have to wait and see. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dictionary of Women Artists

    Dictionary of Women Artists. An international dictionary of women artists born before 1900. By Chris Petteys.Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1985. I'm half way through an article on Laura Elizabeth Rachel Troubridge (1858-1929) m. Adrian Hope. Draft:Laura Troubridge I'm struggling a little to 'gel' her career together as there's some confusion between women with the same or similar names, and she changed her 'professional' name a few times through out her career. I found a reference to her in the Dictionary of Women Artists but can't find a view the actual record online. Can anyone help me? Cdefm (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cdefm, I cannot find a copy of that on-line either. You can request her entry in it here Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and possibly they will find it. I did try to check the books at archive.org and hathitrust. While I did not find that book there, there are plenty of mentions and I did find this lovely photo of the other Laura Troubridge, which since it is from 1912 can be loaded to commons. I'm happy to do it for you, but perhaps you know how or want to learn how. SusunW (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SusunW Thank you, I'll try the Resource Request and take a look at HathiTrust. I have added external links to some of her works at HathiTurst, so this could be a new one? Please feel free to add the picture to the other Laura, Lady Troubridge. I'm having to learn Wikipedia tech at such a fast rate my brain is starting to smoke. I'm thinking, if I master one additional skill with each article...I'm doing great. Cdefm (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally get it Cdefm. Wiki tech is not intuitive for me and I am constantly having to seek out someone with higher skill levels and magic wands to help. I'll be glad to load it to commons. SusunW (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cdefm fwiw I've put together a disambiguation page Lady Troubridge. I think the Laura page you're currently drafting might best be launched as Laura Troubridge (diarist) to leave the Laura Troubridge page as a disambiguation page. In other news, Cdefm, you have enough edits, I expect, that you don't need to go through Articles for Creation; you can move your own drafts to mainspace (or ask here). Whatever works best for you. THank you for the articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Tagishsimon I'll launch the one I'm working on now as (diarist), although during her time she was an artist. It's only after she died that her diaries became 'famous'. But then people should read the article, no? Thanks for info re: moving to mainspace. Although it may be a dangerous thing to let me loose like that. But who doesn't like living dangerously...Cdefm (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cdefm, glad to see the resource exchange was able to provide the article for you. It's a great tool to know about and I hope that the article was helpful. SusunW (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes! Thank you for the tip SusunW I've just finished my draft. It's turned out the longest yet. It was like putting together a puzzle when you just knew some of the pieces were missing. My writing skills are not the greatest. If you're feeling brave, I'd appreciate a second opinion. It's Draft: Laura Troubridge Cdefm (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cdefm: You have been doing a really good job on the diarist article. I would nevertheless recommend that you try to expand the lead to reflect her major achievements. When you are ready, move the article into mainspace yourself and add pertinent categories, authority control and defaultsort. Congratulations on advancing so quickly with Wikipedia editing. It looks as if you are going to be one of our major contributors.--Ipigott (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Feeling rather sheepish. I misunderstood your use of 'lead'. But never fear, there are a good group of people of in here to right my wrongs. Don't knwo owhat I'd do without them! Cdefm (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the feedback Ipigott I found her difficult to piece together and I lost confidence that I had gone astray and got a touch of verbal diarrhea on this one. So the encouragement was much needed. I'll see what I can do about the lead to reflect her major achievements. But I'm not holding out much hope, online sources are running dry. I have a feeling there will be an obituary or something, and possibly mentions of her work, in some of the London newspapers at the time eg The Times, but I only have access to The Guardian which at that time was local to Manchester (I think?). Cdefm (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cdefm I've tweaked the lede a little; it's mainly a question of summarising key points from the body of the article, rather than needing any more info or sources. This is another staggeringly good article which does a fine job of describing the subject; it's now more than ready to be pushed into mainspace. As to losing confidence, that's your Dunning–Kruger effect ... the more you know about the subject, the less satisfied you are with your work on her. The rest of us, much lower on that curve, think the article marvellous :). I think you have to face it that you have to push your children out into the world whether you think they're quite ready or not, and then get on with the next one. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I never....I've learnt something new today. The Dunning–Kruger effect . I didn't know such a thing existed. Very interesting and I'm so impressed I'm now looking for someone to accuse of having it, just so I can use the term. And you are so right, I am guilty as charged! And, thank you for the tweak. To the rescue again. Are there virtual cups of coffee available? I think I owe you one Tagishsimon
    It really is a superb article. Well done! The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there emojis on wikipedia...where's the 'clap my hands' emoji? Thanks. I'll try over come my Dunning–Kruger effect Cdefm (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Manchester Guardian was produced there until the 1960s, but I think from the late C19 was sold and read all over England & Wales & had become, as now, the leading "left" paper. Our article could be clearer on this frankly. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification Cdefm (talk)

    Idea for new community workspace

    Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved.

    For those of you at this very active WikiProject, your input would be very helpful, so I wanted to get your input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen.

    we are discussing this proposal right now at:

    * Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Idea for new community workspace

    Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options above. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know.

    thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiProject Women in Green

    Thanks to considerable support, WikiProject Women in Green which until now has been a task force of WikiProject Women is now a wikiproject in its own right. It will of course continue to work closely with WP Women, Women in Red and related projects. Anyone interested in upgrading articles about women to GA status or higher is welcome to participate in the project.--Ipigott (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Fantastic news! Wishing much success to the WikiProject, its contributors, and its enthusiasts. Bravo! --Rosiestep (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    18.25% as of 10 February 2020

    We are moving the needle! 18.25% as of 10 February 2020! Congratulations one and all! --Rosiestep (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Women in Red at the University of Edinburgh

    The University of Edinburgh has just taken on their own dedicated Women in Red intern, Laurarose2019. Through a series of monthly workshops, we aim to bring inspiring female role models to prominence and combat the erasure of women’s achievements from history.

    For more information or to follow the progress of our contribution to the project, please visit the blog at https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/wir-ed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurarose2019 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is wonderful news, Laurarose2019. What a big leap for our community, indeed! We certainly wish you and the University of Edinburgh the very best. Please do keep us informed regarding progress. Also, if you have questions or comments, just let us know. Best, --Rosiestep (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, fantastic initiative from UofE. Good luck, Laurarose2019, and do let us know if you need a hand with anything. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Boffin does stats on women in wikidata

    Magnus Manske has done an exercise involving lots of charts & graphs ... a sort of Alice's Restaurant of women items in wikidata. - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/Women_in_properties --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Magnus is a great man, but this needs interpretation. The bottom line seems to be that women's WD pages have few properties assigned, compared to men. I will leave it to others to judge how surprising or alarming this is. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, Magnus is a great man, and I find the work to be very interesting, but like Johnbod, I agree that it needs interpretation. Per Victuallers has an opinion? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Nell Brooker Mayhew

    Hello again -- I found the above artist who died in 1940 in the nearly G13-eligible heap; it looks sourced and notable but was declined as not meeting the artist guideline so perhaps I'm missing something. Hope someone can help! Espresso Addict (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There's currently only one painting in a "notable museum" referenced. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I had thought that inclusion in encyclopedia/dictionaries plus being the topic of a book might meet the general guidelines. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a couple more sources by searching for her maiden name. I can't remember which notability guideline says inclusion in a "Who's Who" type dictionary helps notability; she is in three of them. I've added the new sources and moved it to article space. Other eyes most welcome.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Never a bad idea to bring these kinds of cases here because it's not uncommon for AfC reviewers to throw the baby out with the bathwater and decline stuff that's actually notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Script to detect unreliable sources

    Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

    I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like

    • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

    and turns it into something like

    It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

    The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    URL shortener

    Thanks, Rosiestep, for including the URL shortener for WiR on our main page. I was wondering if you or anyone else could place it in a box under shortcut on the right hand side of the page. It looks rather frightening where it is now.--Ipigott (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ipigott, frightening? Oh my. If you could provide an example of what kind of box, e.g. perhaps one that's used on another Wikiproject mainpage, I I can move the URL shortener there. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well not really frightening for me but perhaps for some of the newcomers who look at the page. I played around quite a bit but couldn't find how to move it tidily. I was hoping one of our more technically minded friends would show up and solve the problem - if it is a problem. Let's leave it for a while and see if we get any help. Otherwise I'll devote an hour or so to doing it myself. Unless you think it should be kept where it is.--Ipigott (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rosiestep: OK, I figured out how to put it in a box and move it to the right but I'm not sure it should be right at the top. Anyway, I think it is a slight improvement.--Ipigott (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I like how you did that, Ipigott. That is a better way to display it. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope people will realize what it's for and how it works.--Ipigott (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked things so it would line up better and emit the proper HTML. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Headbomb, that's exactly what I wanted to do. Looks much better now.--Ipigott (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Raketaka

    Hi All, I started a draft for Princess Raketaka of Madagascar, but I have got into difficulty - it seems that there are two death dates? Perhaps for more than one person? But I can't seem to disentangle them from my reading via google translate. Most of the sources are in French and one or two in malagasy. I wondered if anyone could take a look at the Talk Raketaka page and see what you think? This is the wikidata link I worked from: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q67165290 (Lajmmoore (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

    Firming up for March

    Still time to voice your opinion here regarding out March events. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for making an early start on this. It would be good to receive feedback from as many of our participants as possible.--Ipigott (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Assorted drafts on women from G13 sweep

    I did a sweep of stale/abandoned drafts coming up for G13 until my wrists gave out. There were a few more drafts on women that I postponed, if anyone is interested in adoption. Most of these will need work and several appear only of borderline notability. (If the subject is definitely not notable at present that information would be worth appending.)

    • Fannie Quigley American pioneer; deceased (abandoned, contributor still intermittently active) [promising, imo, but not an area I work in](Moved to article space by ThatMontrealIP).
    • Rosa Lachenmeier Swiss painter/photographer; translation from German; living (declined) [quite well developed] -- moved to mainspace--Ipigott (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cäcilia Böhm-Wendt German physicist; deceased; microstub (abandoned, one-off contributor) [I did a bit of Googling without coming up with much on this; would perhaps need a German speaker and/or access to print records]
    • Draft:Elizabeth Anne Wood American sociologist, publishes on sex work; living (declined) [Google Scholar citations moderate on her works]
    • Draft:Kathrin Christians German flautist; living (declined) [borderline, bit promotional]
    • Draft:Yvonne Jones (artist) Welsh artist; living (multiply declined, alleged possibly paid) [this is probably the least promising]

    Thanks! Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I found a little more on Cäcilia Böhm-Wendt, enough to turn the draft from a microstub into a stub. There could be more in German-language sources. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved Fannie Quigley to Article space. Widely covered in good sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, all. There's a huge amount of potentially viable content to be found in the G13 categories (>5%) but it's hard to find amidst the dross. I don't know if there's any way of automating a search for drafts on notable women among abandoned/rejected drafts? Particularly if one could find it earlier in the cycle, before the creator has given up on Wikipedia entirely. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no experience in the area of Wikipedia coding, but I do do some coding here and there. it seems to me that one just needs to access the Wikipedia API, then sort for a) draft space, b) expiring soon, and c) some mention of "she" or d) is in a women-related category. Not a complicated coding job for someone who knows how to access the API.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Espresso Addict: I really like that you have pre-vetted all these good topics. Cäcilia Böhm-Wendt is widely cited, and I have added some sources tot he ones XOR'easter added and moved her page to article space. Thanks.
    Thanks, ThatMontrealIP. Actually I felt a bit guilty at dumping them all on WiR's doorstep, but there's all the 40 or so others I postponed that are not about women to rehome, too. On finding them automatically, categories aren't usually attached to drafts unless they've been draftified from mainspace (a surprisingly common phenomenon). I wondered if the Wikidata lists of women might be of service? Espresso Addict (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cropping photos

    Would anyone be able to help me crop this photo [10] for Rosario, Princess of Preslav? The photo currently has three people in it, she is the one on the left. Also if someone could help with this photo [11] for Feiping Chang, who is on the far right. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure: File:Royal Wedding Stockholm 2010-Konserthuset-400 (cropped).jpg, File:Feiping Chang (5820571256).jpg. I highly recommend everyone go to the Gadgets page in their Commons Preferences and turn on CropTool, as it's perfect for this kind of task. Nick Number (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nick Number: Thank you so much!! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of Headbomb's articles

    As Headbomb has been a very constructive member of this project, I looked up his article creation record and was surprised to see that the majority of his articles have been deleted. As he has being trying to include new articles and redirects on academic journals, I was surprised to see how many of the original articles had been deleted. Even the acceptance of his own articles (e.g. The Journal of Historical Biography, Education (journal), is questioned. Maybe we have contributors who could look into this more closely.--Ipigott (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The majority of my articles haven't been deleted (you can find those here), what has been deleted is a bunch of redirects to deleted articles (usually systematic redirects to academic journals, based on ISO 4/MathSciNet/National Library of Medicine/Bluebook abbreviations, I often create those during deletion discussions to understand how often a journal is cited on Wikipedia). If you want to see what the real tally is, I have created in the neighbourhood of 35,000 pages, with ~300 of those being deleted and maybe 3 actual articles I created deleted over 13 some years.
    Concerning The Journal of Historical Biography I created this as a redirect to Journal of Historical Geography by accident, and requested a WP:CSD#G7 deletion. I'm really not sure how that's nefarious. For Education (journal), see User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2019/December#Education (journal). If you want to AFD it, go right ahead.
    I'm also not sure what this has to do with WIR. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Headbomb: Thanks for responding to this so quickly. I'm really sorry if you found my message offensive. It certainly wasn't my intention. The reason I though this would be of interest to WiR is that you are an active participant in the project and have been helping us along, mainly from a technical point of view, for some time. I noticed, however, that over the past 24 hours you had not only helped us technically but had advised on content in response to a message on our talk page. I therefore thought it would be interesting to look up your new article count to try to identify your main field of interest. While academic journals may not appear to be a topic for Women in Red, it is nevertheless of major interest, especially in connection with biographies of women writers or women in science. Thank you for sending the link to your mainspace articles including redirects, from which I see that over 98% of all your creations have in fact been redirects. These are of course a very important part of the encyclopaedia and it is thanks to people like you that we have easier access to articles. From the link to your user space, we can see that you have created a variety of useful articles on science topics, journals and biographies (although not yet on women). As for "The Journal of Historical Biography", I understand your explanation. I have also needed to delete several of my own articles because of bad titles, etc. "Education (journal)" looks fine to me even if it has a confusing title. I certainly am not pressing for its deletion. I also note, by the way, that quite a number of your articles listed as deleted have since been recreated by other editors and continue to be on mainspace.
    The reason I brought this up is because I thought some of our other members might be interested in investigating some of the deletions but as you seem to be reasonably happy about how things are progressing, that may not be necessary. This exercise has however taught me a useful lesson and that is that the Xtools mainspace article count excluding redirects is not necessarily a good reflection of an editor's creative work. Finally, I note from two of your more recent lists, that there are a huge number of academic journals which are not yet the subject of Wikipedia articles.--Ipigott (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't find it offensive, just puzzling. Concerning "a number of your articles listed as deleted have since been recreated by other editors and continue to be on mainspace" those are typically the result of a page move that overwrote an existing redirects, like moving 'Foobar (journal)' to 'Foobar'. As for articles on women, well being in physics, the situation here is actually better than in most science, at least in as much as all our big shot women have pretty decent articles, from Emmy Noether, to Chien-Shiung Wu, Carolyn Porco, Caroline Herschel, and the like, so there's very few low-hanging fruits left. I did improve Wu experiment fairly substantially, and I'm nominating it for a GA right now (I do need to tackle the review feedback soon though). I would have liked to do more for Women studies journal, but The Vintage Feminist (talk · contribs) beat me to it years ago. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Headbomb: As a result of all this, I've just been looking into your background and was interested to see you are a native French speaker now teaching physics at Dalhousie University in Halifax. (I actually docked in Halifax and stayed with friends in Moncton when I first arrived in Canada in 1968.) I've also read about all the useful work you did for Wikimedia in Frankfurt and your participation in Wikimedia conferences and editathons. Great stuff! Given you interest in the history of physics, despite the absence of low-hanging fruit, perhaps some further investigation will reveal one or two names deserving Wikipedia articles. In any case, it would be inspiring if you could create at least one new biography in connection with our focus on women in March. The Wu experiment looks like a good candidate for GA. It's very technical but even so, you could mention it as a candidate for Women in Green. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Truro, not Halifax, and I resigned last August. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. That was not clear from the sources I found. Same general area though. On the "Wu experiment", it looks to me as if the ORES rating would be much higher if there were more in-line references, especially at the end of each paragraphs. You might also consider introducing Harvard referencing although that is not really required. Otherwise the article looks very well presented.--Ipigott (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Desktop is dead

    Yeah. I'm going to be out of commission until I get funds together for a replacement of some sort. I can do a little bit on the laptop, but the laptop isn't really made for this kind of thing.... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 22:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sad to hear. Get well soon, Adam's machine! —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A non-registered ex officio member?

    I cannot register as a member of this project, but would let it be known, for the record, that I am fully supportive of your remediative work to produce and expand articles for notable individuals, articles in many cases that are very long overdue. I invite people to engage me at the latest article that you see me editing, if I can be of any help. It is only my lack of availability to such important works as WIR that makes me sad to remain non-logging. Cheers, a former Prof (who, having been real-world harasssed as a logged editor, no longer does so to edit) 2601:246:C700:19D:7C8D:56CB:34EB:ED61 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    “I just go on doing, as they say, my thing. I believe this takes a certain courage.”

    Nice article about one of our members, with a thank you to Ser Amantio di Nicolao (P.S. the quote suits you well) for kindly mentioning the Women in Red community. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you kindly. I shall always mention Women in Red when given the chance. :-) (As for the quote, I'm glad you like it - Barber is one of my favorites, and has been for years.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And also a thank you to its author, Stephen Harrison. In a way, the article is a good demonstration of what Wikipedia cannot do. The Wikipedia biography of Steven Pruitt gives an accurate but rather dry summary of his achievements while Harrison's carefully structured interview reveals a person we would all like to have as a friend. Sometimes I think it is unfortunate that we are so limited in our use of primary sources. But thank goodness we have external links.--Ipigott (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    THIS^ ☕ Antiqueight chatter 14:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wonderful quote and interview, @Ser Amantio di Nicolao:! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Amir Talai

    Not sure if WIR does men who support women, but he did hold a sign at Women's March that went viral over the internet. Cwmhiraeth's claim that the topic fails to meet WP:NACTOR, subject not having had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows or stage performances. and CAPTAIN RAJU's claim that He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for Entertainers in the AFD (which wasn't posted to any deletion sortings, which would have changed the AFD outcome) are both 100% false because his NACTOR claim is established in the notable work section in the Draft:Amir Talai infobox. I'm too busy with other stuff in WP to improve the article, but was wondering if anyone could do that. Ping LovelyLillith who started the AFD. ミラP 18:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Miraclepine: Go read Wikipedia:Canvassing. The above was not a good idea. It is possible to bring an AfD to a thread like whilst satifying Wikipedia:Canvassing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tagishsimon: The AFD is actually three years old, and I was gonna check if anything has changed since then. ミラP 19:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Adma Jeha d'Heurle

    Newly created article Adma Jeha d'Heurle by Mkraetzer was speedily deleted by HickoryOughtShirt?4 after being tagged for deletion by Dede2008 for multiple (mostly valid) reasons — It was written as an obituary, used the sort of promotional language that one expects in an obituary, and could well have been a copyvio, although the claimed A7 speedy criterion was clearly invalid and should not have been used. In any case, as a distinguished professor of psychology it appears to me that she passes our academic notability standards, particularly WP:PROF#C5. If anyone wants to try again, with a more encyclopedic version, there are sources at [12] and [13]. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Tara McGowan AfD

    Hi all! An AfD was opened a few hours ago for the Women in Red article Tara McGowan. With the major caveat that I originated the article, if you asked me yesterday I would seriously have thought this would be a total WP:SNOW -- it has 26 (!) more-or-less WP:RS, including several very strong in-depth WP:RSP, two full-length magazine profiles (which the New York Times even called "glowing profiles"), and on and on. If that doesn't pass WP:BASIC ... - Astrophobe (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Women bios on Wikipedia's social media accounts

    Hello WP:WIR! I'm Ed, perhaps better known to some people here by my volunteer username The ed17. I'm here today to ask for suggestions of women's biographies for an upcoming themed week of organic posts on the @Wikipedia Facebook and Twitter accounts. Ideally, these articles would be of high quality and have a good 'hook' that will help catch people's attention, but I'm open to any and all proposals, including things you've written. Thank you in advance! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Ed for giving us the opportunity to suggest articles for the social media. I'm really not at all clear about what you mean by "organic posts". As there are currently over 300,000 biographies of women, we could easily comply with any sphere of interest you care to name. It would also be good to know whether you are interested mainly in historical figures or living people. As for high quality articles, WikiProject Women in Green lists those which have recently been ranked as GA. Inter-Allied Women's Conference is a revealing historical article which has been upgraded to FA. Of those to which I have contributed myself, I would mention the ballerina Margot Fonteyn and the Mauritanian singer and politician Malouma. It would be useful if you could give us an idea of how many suggestions you need and perhaps further details of your social media project. You may be interested to know that thanks to Victuallers, Women in Red regularly contributes to Twitter (https://twitter.com/WikiWomenInRed) and many of our images are posted on Pinterest (see for example https://www.pinterest.com/wikiwomeninred/february-2020-editathons/). See also our Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/wikiwomeninred/. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Ipigott! Thanks for these great suggestions and links. I'm planning between 14 and 16 posts, and I will add those articles to the potentials list! To answer your questions: 1) I'm interested in any high-quality articles regardless of time period, and by "organic" posts, I simply mean that these won't be paid ads (I'm sorry for using jargon). I'm definitely an avid follower of @wikiwomeninred on Twitter, and I'll respond to Roger below now. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Ed, thanks for the post (and your contributions). We have a Woman of the Day (see top of this) and I/we'd be very interested in a themed week especially if we can influence more editors to help fix systemic bias in Wikipedia. How can we help? Happy to share our #wikiwomeninred Twitter account for a good cause. Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Victuallers! Great to hear from ya. I'm looking for recommendations from project members of articles to post in the first week of March, which as you probably know will end with International Women's Day on 8 March. Do you have any particular favorite articles that you've posted to @wikiwomeninred over the years? :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red&oldid=941823482"