This page is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This page is of interest to WikiProject Women in Red.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
WikiProject Women in Red is a community-led project launched in 2015. We're interested in reducing the gender gap in content coverage across all languages, especially concerning women-related biographies, but also women-related topics (broadly construed), such as artwork, books, sports events, and scientific theories. This concerns both works/topics by and works/topics about women. Specifically, we collaborate on
the creation of new articles
the improvement of existing articles (featured articles, good articles, DYK articles, stubs...)
events such as edithatons and hackatons
developing gender-gap related metrics
the identification of missing content Wikipedia ought to have
scholarly publications
We're not, however, trying to solve editor gender gap, meaning that we think both men and women are equally able to create articles about notable women.
How is WikiProject Women in Red related to other WikiProjects?
WiR is intended to be a parent project and a resource hub for other projects (in all languages) whose scope covers women and their works, such as
What specific efforts is WikiProject Women in Red making to reduce/improve the content gender gap?
We maintain lists of blogs, conferences, contests, discussions (Wikipedia; Wikimedia), editathons, Inspire grantees' projects, mailing-lists, meet-ups, newspaper articles, scholarly articles, social media campaigns, workshops, etc. We use Wikidata to manage several aspects of the project because of its size and scope.
We hope to collaborate with international festival organizers (example: Litquake).
In addition to needing editors to write the articles, several key volunteer positions have been identified: Data Coordinator; Promotions/Events Coordinator; Lead Coordinators for each language.
We hope to establish a teaming arrangement with the Wiki Education Foundation as we believe university students are important to this endeavor. We would like to build on the education outreach efforts described by User:Kruusamägi (Wikimania submission: Possibilities for university cooperation: Estonian example) "Every academic year more than 500 articles on Estonian Wikipedia are created as part of local cooperation with universities."
Anyone can join! You do not need to have edited Wikipedia before, nor is the project restricted to women. Any help you can give, big or small, is greatly appreciated! To get started read our primer.
Hello folks! Next month as part of National Allotment Week in the UK, I've been invited to speak on a panel about women and vegetable gardening. Its come about because I told a friend about the event on Plants & Gardens (which started as an idea in my head), and like lots of others here try to regularly edit about women in botany/biology/etc. I have a ten minute slot & I wondered a) if there are key things you'd like me to mention and b) if any of the stats wranglers had any figures for how green-fingered professions might have improved (or not) while the project has been running. (I bet Women in Science has also done a lot of contributing too) Lajmmoore (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lajmmoore, I checked the contents of Category:Women horticulturists and gardeners and only 23 of the articles existed when Women in Red started in 2015 (marked x below), so 40 have been added since, including some by yourself. TSventon (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contents of category
Helen Vickroy Austin 2017
Ernesta Drinker Ballard 2011 x
Helen Ballard 2020
Iris Bannochie 2006 x
Émile Napoléon Baumann 2018
Jelena de Belder-Kovačič 2018
Rae Selling Berry 2015 x
Sue Biggs 2018
Sylvia Blankenship 2023
Andrea Brunsendorf 2018
Maggie Campbell-Culver 2013 x
Angelika Campbell, Countess Cawdor 2024
Pamela Cunningham Copeland 2017
Emma G. Cummings 2018
Anna de Diesbach 2009 x
Margaret Bell Douglas 2019
Jane Edmanson 2018
Margery Fish 2016
Catherine FitzGerald 2019
Olive Fitzhardinge 2012 x
Elizabeth Gilmer 2009 x
Jane Norton Grew 2023
Annie Gulvin 2018
Jane B. Haines 2020
Beatrix Havergal 2009 x
Isabelle Bowen Henderson 2024
Amelia Egerton, Lady Hume 2018
Alice Hutchins (gardener) 2021
Charlotte Knight 2015 x
Snježana Kordić 2012 x
Joy Larkcom 2021
Abra Lee 2021
Norah Lindsay 2009 x
Cecily Littleton 2022
Tatjana Ljujić-Mijatović 2018
Mary McMurtrie 2014 x
Corinne Melchers 2020
Hilda Murrell 2004 x
Lady Dorothy Nevill 2008 x
Anna B. Nickels 2021
Ethel Anson Peckham 2015 y
Frances Perry (gardener) 2007 x
Elza Polak 2018
Nora Pöyhönen 2016
Hortensia del Prado 2021
Isabella Preston 2016
Chrystabel Procter 2018
Elsie Reford 2010 x
Patricia Easterbrook Roberts 2018
Eleanour Sinclair Rohde 2006 x
Lester Gertrude Ellen Rowntree 2014 x
Kate Sessions 2006 x
Theodosia Burr Shepherd 2018
Holly Shimizu 2021
Midori Shintani (horticulturalist) 2021
Lady Beatrix Stanley 2020
Frances Tophill 2015 x
Elisa Bailly de Vilmorin 2014 x
Edna Walling 2005 x
Susana, Lady Walton 2010 x
Karen Washington 2017
Cynthia Westcott 2017
Frances Garnet Wolseley, 2nd Viscountess Wolseley 2016
Women in Red & National allotment week slides For anyone interested, the slides I used are uploaded to Commons now! Bear in mind I had 12 minutes, there was a lot of interest in this project, and the wider world of Wikimedia Lajmmoore (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Endurance against oblivion: The case of the Articles for Deletion with gender perspective in Wikipedia"
I read the paper with interest and agree with the difficulties cited about writing about women. What I missed was a firmer, more strategic proposal on how to reduce the number of women's biography deletions, especially on the EN wiki. Perhaps Hiperterminal has some suggestions in this connection.--Ipigott (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I find myself unimpressed by this paper; it shows a very poor understanding of the AfD process, and of deletion process in general. Most deletion of new pages doesn't happen at AfD. The paper doesn't actually show data for how many pages were nominated for deletion by gender, nor for how many were actually deleted. 115 pages is a tiny sample, easily skewed in either direction by a UPE/COI cleanup, for instance. And they confuse cause and effect when they suggest lengthening discussions. Indeed the only concrete finding here is that AfD's for biographies of women scientists attract more attention: and eyeballing their figure, end with deletion less frequently: which, in a vacuum, indicates the opposite bias they claim (I'm not saying such a bias exists in actuality). Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least it is mercifully short! I think by now we expect "a very poor understanding of the AfD process, and of deletion process in general" in papers, don't we? They have adopted the (to my mind) unhelpful and confusing way of describing successfully-defended Afd's as "miscategorizations" (by wrongly "categorizing" the article as non-notable). I think this was first spotted in a paper by Tripodi et al, given a very rough ride here. As usual the possible impact of this project and similar initiatives in - say, possibly - producing more new female bios by very new editors is not even mentioned. That would be super-difficult to handle in statistics, but it should be at least mentioned, to my mind. That "that AfD's for biographies of women scientists [and other types of women I think] ... end with deletion less frequently" is not a new finding - the argument is that the bias is shown in an excess of nominations, which may indeed be the case. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello both @Hiperterminal is one of the authors, so perhaps you could be mindful of that in the tone it is discussed in, use good faith, and be constructive for how future iterations could be improved. Lajmmoore (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for this comment. I was thinking the tone was unnecessarily rude and doubt about myself. I will put a little bit more of love to my research but many thanks for give me a perspective about how I was reading the comments. For me it is very useful. At the end, it is not hard to be constructive, right? Hiperterminal (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think all comments here are constructive. If you don't like them you could pick areas of research where the subjects can't talk back. As a bonus friendly tip, next time get a native speaker to check at least the title of the paper - I'm sure Lajmmoore would be happy to help. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD's for biographies of women scientists [...] end with deletion less frequently: which, in a vacuum, indicates the opposite bias they claim (I'm not saying such a bias exists in actuality) – this was Tripodi's (2021) core finding and none of the nitpicking of that paper on-wiki has actually been able to explain it. If AfDs of women are more likely to end in keep than AfDs men, then that is ipso facto evidence that more notable women are ending up at AfD than notable men (Tripodi's 'miscategorization'). This is not a positive bias. – Joe (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Roe there are two possible reasons that might explain why AfDs of women are more likely to end in keep than AfDs of men: firstly that nominators are more likely to nominate notable women than notable men for deletion and secondly that AfD participants try harder to establish the notability of women than of men. Tripodi accepts the first reason. TSventon (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I suppose Tripodi's conclusion is based on the assumption that AfD outcomes are an accurate test of notability. I think that's a defensible assumption at scale, but certainly not always true. – Joe (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least 3 possible reasons: #3 being that the long-running furore over "gender imbalance" leads to more new bios by very new editors (often their first and only edits on WP) of subjects that are non-notable, or close to it. It would be amazing if that factor had no contribution. By contrast, many male bios at Afd are COI-ish puff-pieces of lawyers/doctors/businesspeople that have absolutely no chance at Afd. They get a few opposes very quickly, & other regulars don't bother. This probably explains, Joe, "why AfDs of women are on average longer than AfDs of men". They also tend to be on people from areas where notability criteria are more complex (academia, arts, activism), and there is more to debate. Plus there are sorting/alert lists, both on and off-wiki, for female bio afds, but not for male ones. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I read her paper but as I recall Tripodi found that bios of women aren't more likely to be nominated, just more likely to be kept, which excludes most explanations based on differential article quality. But what you're suggesting is that new articles on women are more likely to fall into a notability grey zone, and therefore produce more contentious/less easily closed AfDs, whereas men's are more clear-cut? This sounds similar to Hiperterminal's hypothesis below. – Joe (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understandably, neither of us can be bothered to re-read her paper, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't attempting any new research on whether bios of women are more likely to be nominated, but cited older research, some of which suggested they were. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The three reasons aren't mutually exclusive. Nobody can deny there is a corps of editors who put considerable effort into demonstrating the notability of women scientists, but not men. Many members of this project do so. And that effort is a good thing! But it absolutely skews the length of AfDs. I also agree with Johnbod's thesis, and I don't really think it can be disputed; a movement dedicated to writing new biographies is inevitably going to create a few that are of marginal notability. It is easy to see how those would lead to contentious AfDs that end in keep/no consensus outcomes. Essentially, my point is that the data in this paper speak to the existence and effectiveness of the WIR project and of like-minded editors: it tells us little about why a gender gap persists. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. It's interesting that AfDs of women are on average longer than AfDs of men; do you have any ideas on why that might be, Hiperterminal?
I'm also not convinced by the conclusion that there is a causal relationship between the length of a discussion and the likelihood of a keep outcome, though. I think you're overlooking a potential confounder in the level of consensus. In other words I suspect the causal graph is not:
I am still working on my thesis and developing ideas about the different factors. Another not published yet, are the arguments used in the debates. I still need more data but, I have an idea that notability (or non-notability) is clear for men but not for women or other genders. Seems people can easily vote for non-notable men (2 votes to generate consensus) but where there is a woman, people doubt more if is notable or not, generating a longer debate.
Slight correction, I joined this WikiProject in February 2019 (I didn't start editing at all until September 2018). Thank you for the ping, I'm honoured to be mentioned here. I've never been the most active on the writing women's biography angle but I do try to improve our coverage on subjects that at the very least women like me are interested in. Some examples of that are: no kid zones, Rock 'n Play, and Creatable World. My only GA is Katherine Hughes (activist). Clovermoss🍀(talk)11:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My congratulations to you, as well, Clovermoss. Well done! Enjoy the honor and I hope you revel in whatever is ahead. BTW... that your only GA is a woman activist... fantastic! --Rosiestep (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Humaniki, the site we use to update our statistics each week, is offline at the moment, returning a 404 Not Found error message. I don't know who to contact about this. Hopefully, another Women in Red editor can follow this up. Oronsay (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for keeping a eye on this Oronsay. The person to contact on serious delays is Maximilianklein but last time I alerted him, the problem had been automatically resolved before he had time to look at it. I realize many contributors are interested in seeing when we reach 20% women but let's give it another couple of weeks and see whether things are back to normal again.--Ipigott (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Silver seren: I've included a pertinent template at the top of the article. While it is understandable that the subject of the article is keen to add personal details, this is not acceptable under COI, especially as many of the additions are self-promotional. I think an administrator should revert the article to the version of 25 July. JoelyProudfit should be informed on her talk page that the best way to have suggestions incorporated into the article is to list them in order of priority on the article's source page together with reliable secondary sources. Let's see how things evolve over the next couple of days-Ipigott (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else already added a COI template to her talk page, but she seemed to ignore it. I'll give a little bit of time, but I'm definitely going to eventually just do a wholesale revert of the changes. SilverserenC14:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She has replied on her talk page now to my COI notification, so hopefully with that, we'll be able to productively help include any COI edits as long as their supported by RS and follow our other guidelines.
I pointed her to request edits on the article talk page using the COI template and explained the RS requirement.
I'll let you handle the either reversion or copy-editing if some of their changes are supported by RS, since COI edits are strongly discouraged, but not strictly forbidden, so maybe we don't need a wholesale reversion, but I'll let you judge it based on the content added.
I just helped step in with the COI note to start when you made your original request here and as I said to the user on their talk page, I'm happy to help guide her on the COI disclosure and edit request portion at least. Raladic (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After further discussion on their talk page, the user now understands the process, I have pinged you on their talk page to discuss the best path forward and they have started making the edit request process on the article talk page, so I think you should be able to take it from there and work collaboratively with them to help fix issues of the page in line with our guidelines and policies. Raladic (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts have been initiated for the five women who have served as chairmen of the powerful Public Utility Commission of Texas (the title of the office is "Chairman"). Any help in getting these drafts finished and moved to mainspace would be of great benefit to this project. Most of these officeholders have also held other prominent positions in public life or industry.
Similar notice to above, except the article itself doesn’t need attention, I’ve significantly expanded it already. It is nominated at ITN, and the nom would appreciate some attention, in part due to the circumstances around the discovery of her death meaning it’s just been nommed but already in the lower half of the page. Kingsif (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif: In cases like this, it's important to post the item asap. It seems to me that thanks to your additions, she is adequately covered in the article.--Ipigott (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, I was contacted by someone from Jesus College, Oxford, who is involved with an initiative to celebrate "hidden figures" in the college, as they are celebrating the anniversary of the college admitting women later this year. They shared a list with me, in case editors here might feel inspired by some of the names:
Almeria Vaughandaughter sister of Peter Vaughan, the Warden of Merton College, who married the Jesus College principal David Hughes only for him to shoot himself some weeks later... ref
Anne Rastell, she was the aunt of poet John Donne, was married to Griffith Lloyd- he was the first principal of the College 1572 to 1586.
Jane Thelwall, the mother of college benefactor Eubule Thelwall and her portrait with Eubule as a child on her knee still hangs in the College WD (image)
Goody Asaph her portrait wearing a traditional Welsh tall hat hangs in the Principal’s Lodgings “a seventeenth-century portrait of an unknown serving woman offering an onion to a monkey on her right arm; she is sometimes called ‘Goody Asaph’.(image) - I wonder if her portrait is notable, rather than her?
Elspeth Hughes-Davies campaigner for womens’ education, womens’ votes, Celtic studies, educational reform, wife of Principal John Rhŷs, in 1878 she hosted in College the inaugural meeting of the Association for the Education of Women, the committee which led to women’s colleges being formed in Oxford, (ref) & her daughters Myvanwy Rhys (1874-1945) - mentioned in the 1911 census as researcher in history; living in the principal’s lodgings in college & Olwen Rhys decoded a Greek and Latin cryptogram in the Juvencus Manuscript (ref to archive) & the Olwen scholarship (ref)
May Harper a leading figure in the cultural salons of the early twentieth century: the daughter of Principal Daniel Harper lived in the Principal’s lodgings and was an exponent of literary circles with friends including Oscar Wilde. (ref)
Alix Jennings an artist in her own right, she stepped in to help when the College needed a portrait of T E Lawrence to be done posthumously. born in Carlisle as Alice Agnes Thomson the daughter of a plumber and engineer she lived to age 96. (ref) (ref)
I've added the list to the Education event, but I'm dropping it here in case anyone is looking for inspiration - quite a few are connected to Wales as Jesus College has historic links with the country. My understanding is that the college is creating a trail, and when you find a person, you'll scan a QR code to go to more information, and I think some of the places you will go to are Wikipedia articles which already exist e.g. Saint Frideswide owned the land the college was built on, so the link will go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frithuswith (but don't hold me to this as I'm just passing on info, rather than being directly involved). Thanks in advance Lajmmoore (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Humaniki for 5 August shows 20.028% for French but it also shows several other European Languages have passed the 20% milestone: Norwegian 24.950%, Spanish 23.405%, Swedish 22.504%, Finnish 21,404; Catalan 21.198% and Portuguese 20.413%. Now that English is at 19.907%, it looks as if we'll soon be among the twenty percenters too.--Ipigott (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to take a closer look at women's coverage in other languages by submitting "All" on Humaniki. Some of the results for reasonably well developed versions of Wikipedia are unexpectedly high:
Punjabi 56.075%
Igbo (Nigeria) 47.268%
Asturian 42.809%
Malaysian 39,629
Hausa (Nigeria) 36.684%
Afrikaans 35.674
Others listed at over 20% include Basque, Georgian, Cantonese, Korean, Armenian, Hindi, Georgian, Macedonian, Marathi (India), Indonesian, Albanian, Gaelic, Hebrew, Galician and Persian. While the criteria for including biographies of women in some of these may not be as strict as for the English Wikipedia, these results indicate a real interest for writing women's biographies in versions covering some of the world's most important languages.--Ipigott (talk) 08:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Yupik, this is indeed a serious omission, especially as 50.1% women biographies is quite an achievement. It would be useful if Maximilianklein could incorporate it for future listings. With over 23,000 articles since 2012, it looks as if it should have been included when Humaniki was released in mid-2021.--Ipigott (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, but then Humaniki is missing out on statistics from a lot of the newer Wikipedias, many of which are from digitally underrepresented communities. - Yupik (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was talking about this yesterday (with my user:Sara Thomas (WMUK) hat on), and did a rough calc that we need 1815.6 1816 articles to get to 20% on en.wiki.... Lirazelf (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried my own calculations using the 5 August figures, including other genders. My estimate is that an extra 2340 female articles would have been needed to reach 20% on 5 August. If I assume that 30% of new articles are female and 70% are male or other an extra 5615 female articles would be needed. TSventon (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the Welsh wp at 50% (or used to be). But they only had 20k bios in total, & the 50% was reached by a frankly artificial translation push from English. I wonder if there have been similar effects in other languages? Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article about Punjabi Wikipedia here, which mentions Mission 50,000, a call-for-action to reach 50,000 articles, in order to celebrate the 21st birthday of Punjabi Wikipedia.TSventon (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be practical, should we start thinking about how we (& other allied gender projects) might celebrate when we *do* hit 20%? (I'm assuming we *would* want to celebrate and share the collaborative success somehow) - what would that look like for our community?
I agree with Lajmmoore that it should be a time of celebration, and we should plan for it.
All... What do you think about an Open Letter on Meta-wiki, written in tandem with the the other language WPs who have reached/surpassed 20%? This way, it isn't just EN-WP honking its horn.
And/or we could write a piece for "Diff" and The Signpost?
Do we want help from WMF Comms in developing various comms? (I know the folks in that department...) Maybe they could get the attention of the "big" "international" newspapers to write about it, too? --Rosiestep (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A first step might simply be to bring this discussion to the attention of those concerned with improving coverage of women at Meta. For some of the languages, such as those in Nigeria, the efforts of the WMF seem to have achieved the intended objectives. As for an article in Signpost, work could now begin on a draft but I suggest we wait for confirmation of 20% on the EN wiki before publication. As for Welsh Wikipedia, it should have been included with 50.382% women on 5 August.--Ipigott (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is discussion happening in the various Telegram groups about this (rather than on Meta-wiki). For those of you who are interested in learning more about the TG groups, e.g., WikiWomen or GenderGap, feel free to ping me. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my calculation of the further articles needed it could take around 3 months from 5 August to reach 20%, so now is a good time to start planning. TSventon (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Women in Religion is happy to announce the release of the "Call for Submissions" for Volume Four of the Women in Religion biographies series published with the Parliament of the World's Religions. The working title for this volume is Women Challenging Dominant Religious Practices and Expectations through Women-centered Traditions and Spiritualities. Please consider a proposal; if interested, see here or contact Colleen Hartung (User:Dzingle1). The submission deadline is September 15, 2024. We are looking forward to another successful publication that will allow us to continue our work of raising up the visibility of so many noteworthy women who remain undercovered, both in the general scholarship and on Wikipedia.
Ah, Safari Scribe, huh? Once again. I'm definitely seeing an WP:NJOURNALIST pass for #3 with creating a "significant or well-known work", but you could probably better emphasize that by adding the reviews. Check out how I set up the book reviews reference list for Bryan Mealer and you can do the same for Henderson's book. Here's the reviews that I found from a quick search.
In addition to those as reviews, you can probably also use this (Page 2) to add some more biographical details. And then there's this long form journal analysis, which seems like it should be usable in the text for something. SilverserenC14:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a couple minor changes. But I think it's good to go now. Feel free to re-submit. If it gets declined again (which I admit is entirely possible with how overly strict AfC is in not properly following their own rules), then I'll just move it to mainspace myself. SilverserenC18:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren, it sounds like you've noticed a bunch of poor declines by this editor before. Have you been pointing them out to him? I've noticed some weird declines too but in general he seems happy to learn when it's pointed out to him by more experienced editors. -- asilvering (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, her memoir alone should be enough for WP:AUTHOR #3 (as she has created [...] a well-known work [which is] the primary subject of multiple independent [...] reviews). It looks as if she has received a fair bit of coverage (and accolades) beyond this for her other work too (the Fulbright-National Geographic Award, one would think, is a significant award or honor enough for WP:ANYBIO #1). I'm stumped as to why we would NOT want an article (or at the very least, a stub) about her. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Along the lines of the Artis Henderson discussion above, another article which has not had much success clearing the bar at AfC is Draft:Brittany Spanos. Here too, I'm baffled by why we would NOT want a short article about this person (whose work is cited over a thousand times in this very encyclopaedia).
In this case, I honestly feel like the original AfD may have been a (rather hasty) mistrial of sorts. When I now read Due to the recent AfD discussion that resulted in a consensus to delete based on a lack of notability, this draft must overcome those concerns in order to be accepted, I do wonder if the stain of the previous AfD has introduced an inadvertent prejudice that has led to yet another mistrial.
The history of the draft has been preserved on Talk, if anyone has the heart (or stomach) to take this one on. I did my best – short of simply overriding the reviewer who declined the article via AfC (which may also be an option).
@Cl3phact0:: I see there has been no further work on this since 1 July. While in my opinion the earlier draft met basic notability criteria, the fact that it was deleted on the basis of a discussion will make it difficult to justify unless significant new developments come to light.--Ipigott (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: Yes, that is because my feeling was (and remains) that the reviewer who knocked it back (July 1) didn't actually take much time to consider the history in detail, nor did they acknowledge the fact that I essentially re-worked the whole thing from top to tail before re-submitting (June 30)it was re-submitted, by which time it was already a completely different article from the draft that was deleted (and subsequently draftified) post-AfD – which itself, had been (and was still in the process of being) heavily revised between the initial submission and rather abrupt conclusion of the AfD. Hence my frustration and why I'm rather flummoxed by the whole affair (again, see Talk). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cl3phact0: I'm rather confused about the history of the article and would be interested to see the version that was first refused (with date) as it would be useful to see exactly what changes were made before the draft was again refused on 1 July. I think FormalDude, who is a member of Women in Red and has produced excellent work, may be interested in this discussion and in the details on the draft article's talk page. I think it would also be useful to pick out three or four of the sources which provide informative details of the subject rather than just passing mentions. Reviewers do not have time to look at a long string of sources in detail and sometimes base their decisions on monitoring just a few of the references.--Ipigott (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having already sunk way too much time into this one, I am loathe to escalate this into anything even vaguely resembling a contentious spat. That said, of course FormalDude's take would be welcome. My perspective is simply that I don't think the article ever really got a fair review from the moment it landed at AfD – which is where I first spotted it (I didn't originate it, nor do I particularly care about the subject). Dsp13 (who made the original stub) may also be able to help with context/history. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cl3phact0: In my view, what's played out is a rather normal and routine process of Wikipedia. A topic with borderline notability was discussed by the community at WP:AfD and editors made policy-based arguments in favor of keeping and deleting the article, and it so happened that a consensus emerged in favor of deletion. While I would've voted to keep the article, it's important to understand and accept that other editors are making valid arguments. Maybe you're seeing something in that AfD that I'm not though. If you feel that process was invalid or incorrect, you could open a WP:Deletion review.
I appreciate that you re-worked the article, but its structure was not the reason it was deleted. It was deleted for notability, specifically a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, and therefore it needs more sources to overcome that. Hopefully that will happen in the future and the article can be created then. ––FormalDude(talk)11:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to add that the consensus to delete will not permanently impact the topic. Even if it doesn't get more coverage in the future, Wikipedia policy could change such that the topic ends up meeting notability requirements in its current form. And, after enough time has passed, it would probably be fair to reevaluate the topic altogether simply because community consensus can change overtime.
But if an AfC reviewer were to independently approve the draft now, they'd be completely disregarding the consensus of a group of editors that gave their time and effort in evaluating the article at AfD. AfC reviewers do not have that authority, the only way that can be done is with a new consensus developed at a deletion review discussion. ––FormalDude(talk)12:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude: Thank you for this. What's odd about the situation (and therefore, perhaps a flaw in the process itself) is that you would've voted to keep the article, Ipigott is of the opinion the earlier draft met basic notability criteria, presumably Dsp13 (who published the original stub) thinks we ought to have an article about Spanos – and obviously I wouldn't expend my time on it if I didn't agree. Furthermore, the references that support some of what I imagine would be fairly uncontestably acceptable criteria to justify her inclusion if this were a brand new, fresh draft hadn't been published when the article went to AfD, and the "Swiftposium" at which Spanos was the keynote speaker (and which is mentioned in the AfD discussion by Oaktree b as a possible decider) hadn't yet happened. (I suspect that we're there with WP:JOURNALIST #1 and possibly #3, and my instinct is that WP:COMMONSENSE applies here too). I had hoped these facts, plus a thorough reworking of the article to make all of this clear, would have gotten us past the initial (hasty, and again, in my view, none too consensual) AfD outcome. I chose to ask the Administrator who closed the AfD and deleted the article to Draftify instead (rather than elevating the whole matter to a process of contestation) as this seemed the least fractious (and therefore best) way to see that the article gets published (which, let's not forget, is our objective here). All of this to say, in response to your thoughtful remarks above: as yours was a new, fresh AfC, I was indeed surprised by the outcome. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm seeking some clarification around the scope of inclusion of non-binary people, which is a bit unclear to me from reading the main project page, which says If the subject of the article self-identifies as a woman—binary and/or non-binary and/or other. From my understanding and my personal relationships with several non-binary friends, they identify as non-binary and not as women. So, my question here is, does that mean that someone who identifies as non-binary is out-of-scope for the purpose of WiR project, or in-scope, since I find the sentence on the project page is ambiguously worded? Raladic (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The and/or wording means that the project covers people who identify as women, non-binary or both, so people who identify as non-binary and not as women are included. TSventon (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for the clarification, I think what threw me off is the emdash after "as a woman" without a comma after "binary".
Any objections to changing it to If the subject of the article self-identifies as a woman—binary, and/or non-binary, and/or other.
Actually, while of course technically an article policy, should we remove the and per MOS:ANDOR and make it If the subject of the article self-identifies as a woman—binary, or non-binary, or other gender minority (such a genderfluid). (note I also added an example for other, so it sounds more human centric than just "other" and expanded to gender minority, which I presume is meant by it? Raladic (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your rewording makes it sound like you wish to exclude from the scope people who identify as non-binary and do not identify as women. The new wording reads to me as having "woman" primary, so that it only concerns women binary and women non-binary people (whatever that might mean). Why would you want to do that? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the opposite, I want it to be clear that non-binary people who may not self-identify as woman are included, which is why I was asking for the clarification at the top to begin with, as I wasn't sure if they were currently considered included or not.
I think the issue here isn't solved by removing the commas, but removing the em dash would help. For example: If the subject of the article self-identifies as a woman and/or non-binary person. -- asilvering (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I like your solution for "other", which I missed when I wrote my suggestion above. So I have a better suggestion: If the subject of the article self-identifies as a woman, a non-binary person, and/or any other gender minority. This explicitly includes non-women gender minorities like trans men and non-binary people who are explicitly not women, etc, and I think that's fine, since the purpose of this project is to combat a coverage imbalance weighted towards cis men. -- asilvering (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks, I think this brings it exactly to the point I was seeking clarification on as one of the articles I wrote last week was about a non-binary person and was just nominated for AfD, so I was trying to seek clarification if it was included in the scope of Women in Red, since I've written and improved several articles for WiR.
Allthemilescombined1: A convenient way of creating new articles in your user space is to use User:Allthemilescombined1/draft article name, e.g. User:Allthemilescombined1/Marisa Meltzer. This also makes it easier to identify drafts you are working on. I'm not sure whether you think the present version is ready for mainspace. I would be happy to move it but suggest you first work on the items under "Additional press" and provide proper references rather than simple links to the articles. They could possibly be used to expand the "Career" section. Please let me know on my talk page when you think the article is ready for mainspace. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Via Matthew Kilburn @matthewkilburn.bsky.social: After nearly two years of work, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography release on noblewomen in the long early modern period is out: https://www.oxforddnb.com/newsitem/835/whats-new-august-2024
Someone will have to add the ODNB identitifers to the relevant Wikidata items. I encourage editors here to help do so, as once they have the names above will appear on our redlist. Gamaliel (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added ODNB identifiers to the Wikidata items, except "Born to rule? The origins of the medieval English episcopate", which does not have a Wikidata item and is not particularly relevant to this project. TSventon (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My head is spinning after looking into Ann Fairfax (landowner) (1725/6–1793) above. We have a redirect Ann Fairfax to a pseudonymous novelist, and an article about an English noblewoman Anne Fairfax (1617/1618 – 1665) (they were related by marriage). But although ODNB calls her "Ann", many sources call her "Anne", including those closely associated such as the website of Fairfax House and the abbey she supported, later Ampleforth College. There's also her portrait (held at Fairfax House, so presumably named by them).
And the Orlando database has our Anne Fairfax listed as Ann or Anne Fairfax (wife of the former parliamentary..., although our article makes no mention of "Ann". I guess the two spellings have historically been interchangeable. PamD14:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, PKM, for this useful information. I have twice suggested that we should include "Nobility" as one of our monthly priorities but it has not yet been included as while some thought it suitable, it was also felt that most women in this sphere were only notable as a result of their husband's or family's achievements. I must say that in reviewing new articles on women, I constantly come across noble women who are notable for their own achievements. Perhaps with this publication, we can reconsider its pertinence to Women in Red and include it in one of our priorities in the coming months. (cc Oronsay, Rosiestep}.--Ipigott (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PamD, I have tried to bring the redlinks, including Lady Mary Gregory, into line with the ODNB. It won't always be the best title, but it is a starting point. TSventon (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I *just* got back to New Zealand after Wikimania (yes, a bit delayed...but it is a long way from Poland, so it was worth taking extra time in Europe to justify the travel), to find my reward from @Victuallerseducation challenge in January this year. An actual physical Women in Red barnstar, a Women in Red T-shirt and some other goodies. Thank you so much Victuallers! Especially because the vagaries of the UK/NZ postal system meant sending this twice. Your achievements, and others like @Lajmmoore's round the world trip, inspired me to set the goal of one start class women's bio a day this year (focusing on women professors in New Zealand, such that I am close to completing them all). I am severely behind on my target but will be working hard to catch up over the next month or two. DrThneed (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrThneed: Thanks for all your contributions -- 207 Start and C-class articles since the beginning of the year is no mean achievement. Keep up the good work!--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hawley is amazing as Alice Paul in "Suffs" on Broadway. They are an alternate and I don't see reviews anywhere...so, too soon for notability? As Alice Paul, they resembled Meryl Streep, though they don't resemble Meryl in photographs. They will be a star. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I went in and made some edits to your draft. Since Strachan is a physician, I'd recommend going into Google Scholar and finding more of her academic publications to add to the article; I've added a couple to get you started. Stylistically, I also removed the title Dr. from the text of the article, as that is discouraged by the manual of style unless it's being used to distinguish between two people with the same surname.
The other edits I made were mainly just for flow and ease of reading - feel free to revert those back to earlier wording/formatting if you'd like. :) ForsythiaJo (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Allthemilescombined1 The section about her earrings doesn't really seem encyclopedic and could be reduced to something like "She is of West Indian descent. Her mother is a physician, and she has a twin brother.". PamD07:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking an interest in this biography, Rotideypoc41352, but I haven't been able to find any detailed coverage in reliable secondary sources. She is linked to various auction houses but her work does not seem to have been considered significant enough for inclusion in the permanent collections of major museums or galleries. See Notability of creative professionals and WiR's Ten Simpe Rules. I always suggest looking for at least three informative secondary sources before embarking on a biography. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This just goes to show how useful it is to bring things up on this page. I'm happy to see the article is now in mainspace and look forward to further successes with articles refused at AfC---Ipigott (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all. I just tried my hand at setting up a redlist for women revolutionaries and it seems to have populated well. But for some reason the bot seems to have added infoboxes into the descriptions which has resulted in some skewing. Does anyone here know how I can remove the infoboxes and fix this so it doesn't happen again going forward? I'd appreciate the help. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed infoboxes like these have been appearing in other Wikidata-based redlists. Some editors might find them useful but they certainly add to the length of the listing. If we really want to surpress them, we should probably bring it up on Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Apologies in advance if this is a bit of a silly question. I'm curious whether we can still contribute new articles to a meetup project after the end of the highlighted month? I'm not familiar with the general policies around it. Ornithoptera (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ornithoptera thanks for your question, so I think we tend not to - but there's no hard and fast rule. For me, I give myself a few days leeway, otherwise I add them under #1day1woman. Whatever the contribution, thank you! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Lajmmoore for letting me know! Things got hectic for me this month and I was unable to contribute more than I was able to in the end. I'll see what I can do in the meantime and go from there! Ornithoptera (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are making excellent progress Ornithoptera, with your recent detailed biographies of Alexina Kublu and Joanna Ferrone. As you appear to be interested in writers and translators, you will no doubt be able to participate in this month's Women writers event. As for contributing to events which have already closed, I agree with the guidance given by Lajmmoore but we have no hard and fast rules. On joining, one of our members actually went back to our earliest events and contributed at least one biography to each in order to be able to say she had participated in them all. Then there are also cases in which new drafts created in connection with a specific focus are not promoted to mainspace until later. They certainly deserve to be included under the relevant priority.--Ipigott (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: Hey Pam, I've just created redlists for Jersey and Guernsey. Interestingly, most of the entries seem to be badminton players, which is probably just a quirk of the datasets. The lists can be filled out more by improving the data on the Wikidata side. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems to meet GNG - however the statements with "Citation needed" should either be sourced or removed before moving to the mainspace. Other than that, Well done for your hard work on it, you should be proud!:) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have Page Move access, Allthemilescombined1? Do you have a "Move" button to the right of History on the top of article pages? If yes, you click that, then in the following page, you change the "Draft" selection to "(Article)" and make sure the title on the right is the title you want the article to have. Then you can pick whatever reason you want from the menu below that, usually "Move to mainspace" and then click the "Move page" button. SilverserenC00:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have to worry too much about all that. Either a bot or another editor usually comes along to fix any problems (I always forget defaultsort and someone else always does it for me). What you should do though is add some categories to the bottom of the article and also any relevant Wikiproject templates to the talk page. SilverserenC01:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page looks good. And looks like ForsythiaJo got the categories already. You can look at what they did if you want to see how categories work. You basically want to find which ones apply to the article subject. It's a bit of a hunt with "Category:" searching to see which categories exist and would thus be relevant to add. SilverserenC02:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Techy.Sap: Thank you for this detailed biography. I looked carefully through your sources and considered several to be acceptable for notability. On that basis, I moved the article to mainspace but it was immediately tagged as AfD. Let's see how the deletion discussion evolves.--Ipigott (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Campaigns team at the Wikimedia Foundation is exploring how to expand it's work on campaigns, to support other kinds of collaboration. We are interested in learning from diverse editors that have experience joining and working on WikiProjects, Campaigns, and other kinds of on-wiki collaboration. We need your help:
Take a survey about your experience with collaborations: on Google forms
As you can see here, Rosiestep has already mentioned the effectiveness success of Women in Red. Other contributors might like to join me in adding comments. Don't forget to log in.--Ipigott (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
