Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

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


A Space of Their Own - database of women artists[edit]

From the blog of the National Museum of Women in the Arts: "Researchers at Indiana University Bloomington are creating a comprehensive online database of female artists active in the U.S. and Europe from the 15th to 19th centuries." More here from Hyperallergic.

The article also mentions the CLARA database from NMWA, no longer being updated, and the Canadian Women Artists History Initiative, of which I have heard as well. There is also the database kept by AWARE, an index of women visual artists born between 1860 and 1920. That one I'd never encountered before.

The Indiana University database has yet to come online, and it looks like it's going to be in the very early stages soon. Even so, this is a.) an exciting development, and b.) a potentially great new source, it seems. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Fabulous Ser Amantio di Nicolao. You should put the links on the Ideas page for Art + Feminism in March. SusunW (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@SusunW: Done. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I created the item Q59205772 for this database/catalog of 15th-19th century female artists, which I assume can already be used to add to the items for the works listed in that article. If anyone finds published summaries elsewhere we can use those too. The article also mentions Clara database as inspiration and I suppose we need an item/article for the French AWARE (20th-century) and also for Jane Fortune's The Florence Committee of the National Museum for Women in the Arts as well (if it is not already out there as the former name of Advancing Women Artists Foundation). Any other similar societies that are out there need items. It would probably be good to list a project page for each country covered in their scope to help get the works into Wikidata and the artists onto Wikipedia during A&F 2019. Jane (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

New journal article published[edit]

Hello folks. Just wanted to let you know that an article I wrote about the history of women in engineering on wiki has been published (open access, hurrah!) here. If you have any thoughts or comments then I'd be very glad to learn from them. Zeromonk (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Zeromonk, Great article. I was very interested to read your analysis of the "History of women in engineering" page. It points to a specific conundrum often encountered — how does one incorporate women (and minorities) into the encyclopedia. The problem is, to my mind, that most people are never taught about anything other than mainstream culture. Studying minority history only typically occurs at the university level, thus broad knowledge of marginalized people's history is unknown in general, and is taught as separate fields (Gender Studies, Latino Studies, Caribbean Studies, African Studies, Asian Studies, etc). In a way, as always, WP then mirrors academia. Women/marginalized groups' history in any given field was different. From a historical perspective, they were treated separately: Their citizenship was questionable, their participation in the job market was often curtailed, as was their participation in general society. Trying to relate these different experiences becomes lost in an article about the entire field; while simultaneously reinforcing the obscurity of their experiences. It is often challenged as violating NPOV, as well. So how do you fix it? The only way I know is to fix/write each article when you notice a gap in coverage. Simply slapping on a tag for someone else to fix the problem, to my mind, just exacerbates the problem, as it points out that there is an issue but no will to actually "do" something about it. SusunW (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
SusunW thanks so much for that really thoughtful response, I appreciate you taking the time and I agree with you on the idea of being active! Zeromonk (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Tables scrolling (so far, works only in Firefox and Safari browsers)[edit]

FYI (and ignore if you already knew this). You know those long tables we scroll through on women? Or short tables. See VP: Sticky table headers. The thread is about scrolling features on tables format. The short of it is: "Testing and development" at the bottom of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has "Make sure that headers of tables remain in view as long as the table is in view". So, check that feature on that page, and you should be able to scroll down tables, while the row you're looking at appears immediately under the header. Lord, what a time saver. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. List_of_mountains_of_the_British_Isles_by_height and so on will never be the same again! Brilliant. PamD 17:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Women who are redirects[edit]

Through clicking through the DYK section I found Małka Zdrojewicz and to me she seems notable enough to have her own article rather than being a redirect to a famous photograph of her; the photo isn't the only thing that makes her notable. She does get more than just a mention in the photograph article, but still. I made an article a few days ago when I discovered a prominent local philanthropist was a redirect to her father in law, where she was barely mentioned. It's making me wonder if there are a lot of women who aren't redlinks but instead are redirects, sometimes to articles in which they're only mentioned in passing, which dismisses them almost more clearly than a redlink does. It made me wonder if this project has anything in place to try to detect women who aren't in red, but who are redirects when they could have their own article? I see the "Redirects for Discussion" section on the main page, but I'm not suggesting that Zdrojewicz -shouldn't- redirect there for now, just that for the purposes of this project she ought to be treated as a redlink. valereee (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I do those sometimes. In case you're looking for another example, I recently started an article for Marian Irwin Osterhout, a plant biologist whose name previously only redirected to the page for the surname Osterhout, not even to her husband's or father's pages (they both already had articles). - Penny Richards (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
ugh, that sucks Penny Richards valereee (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Valereee I think we've all noticed the trend, but I'm not sure how we convince people to insert the names as redlinks rather than redirects. There are a whole lot of people who don't even like redlinks, but fortunately consensus at this time is against their POV. Not sure how a list could be made of women redirects without an article. Far too technical an issue for me to deal with. I write them as I discover them. SusunW (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
SusunW I was thinking more of keeping a list, separate from the redlinks lists because they'd of course show up there in blue. And, yes, I know some people prefer to make a redirect to some related article instead of a redlink; I get the reason, but it does make it harder to detect missing you think anyone would object to a category for 'Redirects' ? Or would that somehow break wikipedia? valereee (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Valereee. I have no idea. Wikipedia technology is not intuitive nor is policy on obscure areas easy to find. Hopefully some page watcher can answer your question. SusunW (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The subcats of Category:Redirects with possibilities would be a good place, Category:Redirects from spouses in particular mostly contains women and some may well be sufficiently notable for articles. Warofdreams talk 16:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@SusunW: Sorry, but I think creating redlinks instead of redirects is not a good idea. If there is any information on a woman it's more useful to the reader to be directed to it (even if it's a passing mention in husband's or alma mater's article), as it gives a bit of chronological and geographical context and may have information sources to lead to much more. Yes, we should be on the lookout for women who haven't got an article of their own but don't have a red link because they are a redirect - is there scope for our WikiData lists to include them, I wonder? But we mustn't forget that the purpose of the encyclopedia is to help readers find information. Short-term they are better served by a redirect, even if long-term the presence of redlinks might lead to creation of proper articles which will help the reader more. PamD 14:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
PamD the problem with redirects is that they don't show up, so you might not realize a women is a redirect unless you click on every bluelink woman's name. valereee (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Valereee:*cough* Read my reply, below, which you kinda pushed out of the way :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Tagishsimon I'm sorry, I don't understand pushed out of the way? I indented further in than you did under PamD so it would be obvious I was replying to her after you'd replied? I guess I'm doing that wrong? Guess I need to go read some guideline lol valereee (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC) ETA: lol, I see that I didn't in fact indent bigger! fixing valereee (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Valereee: But for the reader, as opposed to the editor, a redirect pointing to a little bit of information is more helpful than a redlink which just tells them "someone thinks there ought to be an article about her but there isn't one yet". The readers are the priority. PamD 17:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata does not, as a rule, have sitelinks to redirects, so wikidata redlists will list women even if their prospective article title has been made into a redirect. By-hand redlists should continue to list redirect article titles. Fwiw, I use User:Anomie/linkclassifier, which usefully colour-codes links by type; so redirects are green, DAB pages have yellow highlighting, etc - see User:Anomie/linkclassifier#Legend. Highly recommended. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, now I have zero idea what I'm screwing up valereee (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

PamD, what I frequently see is a redirect from a woman to an article that doesn't even mention her. How is that helpful? The poor reader has no idea why they ended up on John Doe's page if Jane's name isn't anywhere in the text and is left to ponder— so was she his partner, sister, mother, or his murderer? Tagishsimon, THAT is cool. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Transformational, SusunW. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
FYI, this link classifier helps you spot redirects- it shows them as green. But I agree there's too many redirects for women to articles with not much/nothing about them, so it'd be a good idea to get a proper article about them. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
If there's a redirect to a page which doesn't mention the woman, then please send it to WP:RfD - or dig around for some relevant info to add to the article if you can work out what the person who created the redirect had in mind, perhaps from the page history. PamD 16:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Valereee: (can't work out the appropriate level of indentation!), I think the idea is if you're replying to me (as at 2:48) you indent one level further than my 2:21 post, but you put it below anyone else (like Tagishsimon's 2:36) which was also a one-level-in reply to my 2:21 post. It does get confusing. PamD 16:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon and Joseph2302: That colour-coding sounds very useful, especially for this project - I already have all links to dab pages coloured orange (using a Gadget under Preferences). It looks a bit complicated so I'll need to take a bit of time to look carefully and work out how to use it. But thanks for telling us about it, it looks great. PamD 16:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Yup, I think I've now added it to my .js and it's looking good. Thanks! PamD 17:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Joseph2302 thank you, that is awesome! valereee (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

December WIR topics[edit]

Just wondering, has it been decided what the three December WIR topics are going to be? Usually the events pages has them up a few weeks in advance. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Joseph2302: This is still under discussion on our Ideas page. As soon as the focus has been clarified, I'll add the details to the Events page.--Ipigott (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Joseph2302: The priorities for December have now been decided: they are Photography, Laureates and Countries beginning with 'I'. Invitations will be sent out soon.--Ipigott (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Link problem[edit]

On the #1Day1Woman project page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018 the links to earlier months in 2018 don't work because all the months from January to October are hidden. Can someone please figure out how to fix this? Many thanks. Oronsay (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Oronsay: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I think it's OK now.--Ipigott (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ipigott. It does work OK now. Oronsay (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
The WiR December editathons provide something for everyone.

New: Photography Laureates Countries beginning with 'I'

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Rosiestep (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

assistance with previously deleted article[edit]

Dara Quigley shows as previously deleted a bit over ten months agao as 'clearly not news' and 'no lasting coverage' here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dara_Quigley. It's continued to receive coverage, including some in the past couple of months, so I'm crossing my fingers, but response to my draft would be appreciated: User:Valereee/Dara Quigley valereee (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Valereee: having given a quick glace at your draft, I would say that the article has a good chance of surviving in the mainspace. If you feel comfortable enough to submit the draft to WP:AFC, I would be willing to conduct an in-depth review and then (assuming it meets criteria, which it almost certainly does) move the article to the mainspace.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Just an observation. What is notable is the controversy surrounding this person's death, sadly not the person themselves. I rather doubt it would survive as an article in its own right, an article on the controversy probably would. IMHO that is the article you should be writing. WCMemail 08:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The earlier AfD was very poorly attended - just one editor in addition to the one who proposed deletion. I wonder whether she was tagged for attention of any WikiProjects - Ireland, Women, possibly some project concerned with data protection? We must make sure that if the new article goes into mainspace it is tagged for appropriate projects, so that interested parties are alerted to any discussions. PamD 08:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
SamHolt6 Thank you -- I'll ping you when I'm ready; I've got one more article that I just got access to (thanks to Megalibrarygirl who helped with a paywall). Wee Curry Monster thanks, I had actually wondered about that, I'll give it some thought. Are you thinking an article named Dara Quigly controversy? PamD I saw that -- only one commenter beyond the nomination for deletion. It was tagged for multiple projects, but only that one commenter came in, and I was wondering whether that was a factor of the article having been created at a point when it was expected to perhaps be no longer in the news, just another sad tale with little staying power. The fact it's being written about fairly regularly while the investigation drags maybe would be enough. valereee (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

August 18, 2020 is the 100th anniversary of Universal Women's Suffrage in the U.S.[edit]

We should probably try for one of those special DIY days in recognition, as well as prep some other stuff - an FA and an FP would be nice. I have a couple images of suffragettes I'm working on - Ida Husted Harper I finished today, and am going to try for Carrie Chapman Catt by the end of the week. Catt might be a good one for the day of. There's also a number of things like it passing Congress that could be marked. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden: Thanks for this early reminder and for your work on the photographs. In this connection, Timeline of women's suffrage gives a useful overview of key developments. It might in particular be worthwhile remembering that women's suffrage in Sweden was given parliamentary approval on 24 May 1919 and implemented in the Swedish elections in September 1921. In the Netherlands, women's right to vote was approved by Queen Wilhelmina on 18 September 1919,[1] in preparation for the subsequent Dutch elections on 5 July 1922. In New Zealand, women were allowed to be elected to the House of Representatives following the Women's Parliamentary Rights Act on 29 Ocotber 1919.[2] Women could therefore be elected during the December 1919 general election. There were also interesting developments in other countries including Luxembourg.[3] So even in 1919, we should be remembering progress on women's suffrage. Maybe we should have an initial WiR focus on women's suffrage in September 2019.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you think we could celebrate each anniversary as it comes, with a focus on each country's suffrage/suffragettes in the month of their 100th anniversary? So May 2019 Sweden, Sept Netherlands, Oct NZ? Or would that be altogether too much suffrage lol? valereee (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden: Thanks for the heads up, but the title is incorrect. August 18, 1920 is the date the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution became law. Women's suffrage in the US had been happening for more than a century by then. That date, however, is certainly reason for celebrating with new and improved articles. — Maile (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
i think it hasn't spread everywhere until the amendment, hence me saying Universal Suffrage, which I thought was correct? Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I love this idea. An on-going year-long focus on suffrage figures would go a long way to reiterating how very recently women actually gained a political voice, even if they didn't gain citizenship in their own right for another 15 years. SusunW (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Could try to keep up with ratifications to cover suffragettes in different states. Agree with Ipigott that we should cover other countries too, as much as possible. Should probably make a timeline. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Here's what I have so far:
  • When? 1919 Isle of Man[4]
  • When? 1919 Isle of Jersey[5]
  • When? 1919 British East Africa (Kenya, partial only white women) [6]
  • January 1919 Czechoslovakia (first vote 15 June 1919) [7]
  • 4 February 1919 Belarus [8]
  • 14 February 1919 Georgia (country)(1st voting participation)[9]
  • 16 February 1919 Austria (1st vote to include women[10]
  • 10 March 1919 Ukraine[11]
  • 9 May 1919 Belgium (partial)[12]
  • 15 May 1919 Luxembourg[13]
  • 24 May 1919 Sweden
  • 21 June 1919 Armenia [14]
  • 4 July 1919 Rhodesia (partial, white women only)[15]
  • 21 July 1919 Azerbaijan[16]
  • 9 August 1919 The Netherlands[17]
  • 19 August 1919 Afghanistan (coincided with independence)[18] SusunW (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • 29 October 1919 New Zealand (first stand for office)
I see the point you are making. My first thought was that American suffragette Alice Paul, who helped lobby for the US woman suffrage, first got involved with the British women at the Women's Social and Political Union. But the we see Women's suffrage was not globally successful until after the American amendment to the Constitution. — Maile (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, aye. I see your point. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of these are going to be harder to get on the main page outside of "On this day..." We should try, certainly, but, for example, finding suitable images of FP quality is definitely made easier with the Library of Congress or Bibliothéque Nationale de France models of national archives. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

[19] has some information for Armenia. It doesn't look like good-quality photos are happening, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm.. Ireland was 1918 when women got the right to vote, and the first woman elected to the parliament of the UK was the Irish woman Constance Markievicz and 1922 when all women gained the equal right with men here. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 17:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking about how to be broad vs. narrow. I think it might be interesting to try a theme like #yearofsuffrage", e.g. like "year of science" which we did for about 9 months a couple of years ago. We could have an event page like #1day1woman and continue it all year during 2019. The benefit would be a collection of articles related to this theme. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Exactly what I was thinking, Rosiestep! Antiqueight Markievicz's term began in 1919. Possibly a GA work up? SusunW (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Now that is an interesting idea. A GA work up for her- but also for the women who got her there - so to speak. Yes. The Irish Suffragettes and the UK women too ( I kindly say, as a non UK person but acknowledging that this wasn't entirely on us ;-) ). ☕ Antiqueight chatter 20:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I've requested my restoration of Alice Paul from a couple years ago run on 18 August 2020. Where would you suggest putting Ida Hasted Harper (something Indiana-significant? They ratified the amendment January 16, 1920) and Carrie Chapman Catt? Presuming they pass, of course - WP:FPC seems to have some participation issues of late leading to missed quorums. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, we've missed (by a few days!) the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918, but the first election women could vote in was 14 December 1918. How quickly can we act? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Turns out, if you have a backlog of work you did, and have wanted to promote suffragettes for some time, you can totally sort something out on short notice. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hoorah! Adam Cuerden. Glad you were able to work it out. Ipigott Between conference calls, e-mails, answering a GA being reviewed, working on a GA to meet WiG's 25th nomination for the year and trying to create articles for this month, renewing our lease, having dental work done, monitoring my brother who is hospitalized, etc. I am at present truly overwhelmed with commitments both personal and on WP. Obviously our timeline on suffrage needs work. It isn't as simple as a day, as legislation may have passed at x time but wasn't implemented until another, etc. I am willing to work on it and perhaps Megalibrarygirl can find time too. Not sure about combining a year of suffrage focus with 1day1woman, but will leave that discussion to others. All I can promise is that I will gladly focus on suffragettes and their important contributions. SusunW (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Looking around the timelines, the most immediate thing (that I could readily do something about - finding images for some countries is easier than othera) seemed to be the 150th anniversary of the founding of Girton College (16 October 2019), so I prepped an image for that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I can help work on a timeline, SusunW and Ipigott. I have a lot of excellent resources and I think I'm nearly done with Women in computing and Timeline of women in computing. Just make sure you ping me, Adam Cuerden if you need help. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Focusing on countries that still exist - which seems reasonable - if you can find any high-resolution (I believe the WP:FPC minimums are 1500px on the shortest side}} images related to suffragettes or their work in Belarus, Georgia (the country), Austria, The Ukraine, Belgium, Luxembourg, Azerbaijan, The Netherlands, or Afghanistan, it would be helpful. I know resources for New Zealand I can check. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden, SusunW, and Megalibrarygirl: Thanks for your support. I was thinking it could be a collaborative venture starting in January 2019, open to all willing WiR participants. I'm always pretty busy too but I do not have nearly as many commitments as Susun. Over the next week or two, I'll start a draft page on January 2019 (with related anniversaries, etc.) and perhaps one on February too. Let's just see how it goes. I think we need some new incentives on WiR to keep people interested and attract new members. I'm glad to see Sue is interested as she has been tremendously successful with her work on timelines.--

Ipigott (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

MegalibrarygirlSusunW: This has been AfD'd. Maybe it's the title that's the problem? See discussion. It seem's to me it deserves to be in mainspace as so little attention is given to women in related pages.--Ipigott (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott, I think the 1919 information needs to go in the Timeline of women's suffrage. Possibly if your list were to become the basis of our focus, it could be turned into the editathon pages to work on the anniversary celebrations? Fram does make a point that a page about 2019 needs to be about 2019, i.e. the celebrations that happened to commemorate suffrage. Maybe Women's suffrage commemorations, would be a working title once we have events? The problem at this point is that we haven't yet begun to gather the information on the commemoration celebrations, in one place. So maybe we ask this list to be draftified until we begin to do that? Just my thoughts. SusunW (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
SusunW: Interesting idea to include it in Timeline of women's suffrage but I was actually planning to extend it to other developments such as education, professional possibilities and last but not least people who played a key role. That's why I thought it might help to change the title. I've renamed it Women's events and developments in 1919 which seems to be far more in line with Wikipedia practice. Let's see how it develops - if it's not deleted!--Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott if we can figure out a way to keep it, we can link to the Timeline, i.e. see main article here, which fleshes out what happened in 1919. No idea what to title it to result in a keep, as clearly it was part of the global feminist movement at the time. SusunW (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
SusunW: Done!--Ipigott (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden know anything about Czech images? I uploaded the one on Františka Plamínková as fair use because I don't, but seems to me, it is a decent enough one to work with. It was taken in 1921, she died in the Holocaust in 1942. The Ateliér Langhans photography studio was open from 1888 to 1948, when it was nationalized. I got the photo from here [20] which says most of the photographs are from the National Archives in Prague. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Would 1919 in women's history be a better title? There are lots of "year in topic" pages, so it fits an existing pattern. PamD 16:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks PamD. Good idea. Let's see whether the whole thing is going to be deleted. In the meantime, I've made a redirect.--Ipigott (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Afd Rachel Parent[edit]

There is currently an Afd for Rachel Parent, comments welcome WP:Articles for deletion/Rachel Parent (2nd nomination). --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Irish revolutionary women[edit]

The Irish war of independence formed the same day as the first Irish parliament, 21 January 1919 (though in fact the events were independent of each other) and the war ran until 10 May 1921. I spent some time creating pages for the women of 1916 and many were obviously also involved in this war. I intend to try to complete the list of Irish revolutionary women (as many as I can anyway) and I hope to kick off on the appropriate date.

Obviously Constance Markievicz was there as was the brother of Louise Gavan Duffy. Another was the husband of Mabel McConnell Fitzgerald and many other brothers and husbands of prominent women were in the ensuing parliaments -As well some of those women in subsequent elections...I would have loved to get some of these articles to GA before then but I wasn't able to especially when I went and broke my arm. Typing is a royal pain. I have never done the Photo of the day idea - if anyone could suggest anything or would like to help or anything, I would be thrilled. For me, 1919-21 was about the war so I hope for 2019-21 to focus (at least some of the time) on the women who have been left out of the histories. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 00:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Antiqueight: You probably want the National Library of Ireland for this, and they do put some pretty high resolutioon copies up which I can... probably figure out how to get. Let's go through how I evaluate, it might help.
Let's start by evaluating what we need to know. commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory is a useful start, and clicking on to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_I-L#Ireland we see that we have fairly standard European copyright laws. That's slightly annoying, but nothing too bad.
So, let's check the library. [21] First of all, it gives you the option to only search for digitized images with a check box. We may as well check it; anything undigitised isn't much use to us. There's a lot of things under Markievicz].
We need to evaluate two things: Copyright, and usability. For example, if we look at [22], we can zoom in on her face by clicking the "+" button on the digitised section, and see it's... not very usable. Plus, the library claims rights on the image: "Reproduction rights owned by the National Library of Ireland." - No good!
[23] is excellent quality, and if we couldn't find anything free-licensed, we might be able to fair use it. But we have free-licenced images, so that "Reproduction rights owned by the National Library of Ireland." means we move on.
[24] is interesting, but... "Reproduction rights owned by the National Library of Ireland." WAIT, though. This is in our article, and [25] - their own upload - says that there's no known copyright restrictions.
So at this point, we flip the National Library of Ireland off and go off grumbling for a bit, wondering what the hell's going on here.
Once we've calmed down, we go to and write them an e-mail. I wrote (in part) "...What does this mean for reuse? On the one hand, they're being uploaded to a place saying to use it freely, and on the other, it's saying you own the rights, and presumably need negotiated with."
Next, we wait for a response. Tune in next time when we get to deal with all this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Copytheft is going on. [26], for instance, is an A. H. Poole Studio Photographer image, and publication+70 would seem to apply. AHP went out of business in 1954 and on the face of it any of their photos for which the photographer cannot be identified are public domain. It's a terrible shame to see museums and libraries try to enclose the commons like this; shocking and contemptible behaviour. Per National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute I think the best thing to do is act as the law, rather than the misguided library's fantasy, dictates; assess the copyright status from first principles and act accordingly. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Copyright principles are often confusing to me and I typically cave and go for the fair use option loading the image to the local rather than commons site even when I'm pretty sure that it should be public domain. Unless the site I find it on openly states the image is usable or I took it myself, I tend to play for the 'safe' option... Your greater understanding of these issues is enlightening and welcome. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 02:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I have become somewhat militant over the years; probably some sort of autistic black & white viewpoint; and not necessarily very productive nor persuasive. As I note in the link, NLI have watermarked the images, as many copythieves do, as an additional fuck-you to the society that feeds and funds them. I find their myopic sense of entitlement triggering & genuinely distressing. But as a practical way forwards, the fair-use route is pragmatic. Now if you'll forgive me, I need to go & howl at the moon. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

An odd question....[edit]

Is it worth seeking out some high-resolution anti-suffragette material? Generally speaking, it's all SO bad that it shouldn't risk people using it to attack women nowadays - for example:

...But is it useful? I can probably find some and get it featured if it's worthwhile having. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Anti-suffragism was (perhaps is, idk) a thing, as is propaganda and we should document these as fully as we can, including having well-developed and comprehensively populated commons directories of media. I guess that does not answer the implicit question: how obnoxious must material be before we refuse to deal with it; tbh the three you feature look like snapshots from my household - they're rather sweet & far from whatever the cut-off should be. They remind me of nothing so much as this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Aye. Those are ones where any malice is long gone. One could also make a case for something like [27], on the other extreme, where the crudity of the malice leave only a bad taste.
But we don't want to produce something only for it to be grabbed by the so-called "Men's Rights Activists", and used to attack women, so there's somewhere in between the mostly harmless and the so-horrible-noone-would-dare-connect-themselves-with-it that we should avoid over-promoting. The front page of Wikipedia is not a place to hurt women's rights. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
We're rather hoping to reenact the bar shown here sometime next year.. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 02:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Ooh, now, that would be a fun one to do. There a good article for it? Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Wholehearted support for Edwardian dress, cigarette holders and a generally superior bearing being the uniform of WiR from this quarter.
Yes, Adam; we'd want considerable circumspection and context for an image which we sought to promote to the front page; and ideally we'd want good metadata and context for images on commons. I'm less convinced that we want our freedom of movement affected by MRAs or by concern about the use they might make of material we handle. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
All these scandalous women smoking and gambling in public, yet granny in the back with a pint in her pocket was the only one to think they could do it without wearing a corset. GMGtalk 11:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
OMG scroll down to the bottom of the page of the link Antiqueight posted for an 1895 cartoon showing a predicted society wedding announcement for 2001. Carton is of a tall, strong woman marrying a cringing, small man. Details include his hand over her arm rather than the traditional opposite. The caption reads "In The Year 2001: A brilliant society wedding took place last night at Grace Church, the contracting parties being Miss Helen Strongmind, the well-known young stock broker of Wall Street, and Mr. Percy Lightweight, the beautiful and fascinating brunette whose come-out ball was such a society event of the early season. The bridesmen were the most beautiful that have been seen at any wedding this year. They were Clarence Tulip, Chauncey Maybud, and Willie Highfly, all of whom were chums of the groom at Madame Devere’s Seminary for Young Men. The bridegroom was attired in a handsome close-fitting silk dress, which showed to advantage the lines of his svelte form, and he held in his hands a magnificent bunch of lilies. The officiating minister was the Rev. Mary Walker." I think this one is practically perfect -- neither ugly nor simply silly, just expresses all the fear that if women get the vote, they'll treat men the way men have always treated women, horrors! Can someone put that cartoon into Commons? I can't figure out how to get to the high-res version. valereee (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
And verily it came to pass... --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
hahahahaha valereee (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Imagine though if Robbie Williams had shown up in Liv Tyler's outfit what talk there would have been!! We still have a ways to go! ☕ Antiqueight chatter 22:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Geeeeeeezus. There's a lot of these. Working on transferring everything with a verifiable date to Commons. But this may take a while. GMGtalk 13:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I think I got that one: [28] valereee (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on this archive. So, not trying to discourage anybody from helping, but if anyone wants to, please start at the bottom of the page and work up, and I'll continue from the top. Don't want to put a bunch of effort into queueing up a bunch of uploads only to have them fail as duplicates (or have them succeed only to need deletion). See also c:Category:Palczewski Suffrage Postcard Archive. GMGtalk 14:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Ha! That's a dapper look. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Good news everyone. c:Category:Palczewski Suffrage Postcard Archive now has >100 postcards for all your suffrage needs. Also we have the above with regard to the bar scene. Third option probably better for thumbnails. Second probably better if anyone is looking to repair the dividing line distortions and go for an FA on it for the main page day. GMGtalk 21:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Nah, the 2nd is not good. No 1 best for FP, imo. Great image anyway. Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I've repaired a few of these before. Trust me on this one:
This one is much less egregious, so should be pretty easy. Just note down any articles you use it in, so I can find them when the restoration's done, since it's split over three. Also, I call the one next to the fudge and almonds if we re-enact this. Because yum. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
As someone who has stumbled into my FPs the shit? That's impressive. GMGtalk 02:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I've been doing it for years, in large amounts. The secret, by the way, is perspective fixes on individual parts of the folded image, adding the space needed to stretch it out while doing so, then going through and fixing the joins. (And, actually, this seems like a good comment for the new signature I was working on earlier...) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 05:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Amazingly good work.--Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Just as a heads up...[edit]

So, here's what I've done so far: I've renominated an image of Janet Niven to WP:FPC - let's hope that one doesn't degrade into attacking a world expert scientist's personal appearance like last time. I've restored images of Carrie Chapman Catt, Ida Husted Harper, and Girton College (and likewise nominated them at WP:FPC), which should make a start on the year of the suffragette. I think the only real risk is lack of votes, there - WP:FPC is a little on the quiet side of late, probably because it's lost some big contributors. I'm open as to what I do next. Anna Shaw? Any suggestions? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

So impressive. Anna Shaw would be good. What about Aletta Jacobs, did you see my Czech question above? Nellie McClung? Soraya Tarzi? SusunW (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@SusunW: Oh, sorry, I had meant to reply. The trouble with the Czech Republic is that it hasn't existed very long, so we're basically working backwards and trying to figure out how copyright evolved and whether new copyrights were created - and it gets very, very awkward if the borders changed and we're not sure of city of origin. Czech Republic is Life+70, as is the rest of the EU, so anything that fits that should be fine, but to even start to judge that we need more information about Ateliér Langhans. If it's Jan Nepomuk Langhans, and was published, we SHOULD be fine, maybe. But then there's URAA...
Again I cannot answer, This clearly shows Jan died in 1928, and the nationalization of the firm in 1948-1949. So we are right at 70 years. The son-in-law did not take over the firm until Jan died. BUT, as I said, I know nothing about international copyrights. There is a contact button on the first link, maybe we just ask them to release if it isn't in the PD? The problem of course being, I have no idea what to ask SusunW (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@SusunW:That's a reason that doing this sort of thing is so hard. I think we can presume Jan Langhans or anonymous, either of which MAY work, but where's the source for it being Langhans? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 19:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Adam Cuerden that's where I got it. SusunW (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@SusunW: Oh, that makes it easy: They date it to 1921. We can upload it on ENGLISH Wikipedia as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} as long as there's some evidence it was published somewhere. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 03:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
...So.. Shaw. Nallie McClung is a good suggestion, but the Canadian library copy is rather small. [29] is the one to grab, but the resolution will never pass FPC. Probably worth doing, I'll get it, but we're not getting anything that'll get us on the main page on the back of it. As for Aletta Jacbs, the Dutch archives are shut up tight, and I can't imagine passes even the most cursory copyright check. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 16:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I can't find that one, but the one on the file was definitely published before 1923. The image says in 1915, but I have no access to the Chicago Daily News. I can however prove that it was published in 1919 and the uploader says it came from the LOC, though I couldn't find it. The 1919 image does have a copyright mark, so even though it was published before 1923, I checked for Aletta Jacobs and Press Illustrated Service, Press Illust Service etc. Returns: "Public Catalog Copyright Catalog (1978 to present) Your search found no results. Refer to search examples, check spelling or try another search type." SusunW (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the trouble for Aletta Jacobs is, while the image you link is undoubtably out of copyright, it's also tiny. The number of databases available for high-resolution images is often the barrier. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 19:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@SusunW: Some I can suggest as possibilities are Ada Flatman [30], Edith Wynne Matthison [31], and I think we can assume publication for Flora MacDonald Denison [32]
Trying to get a more global perspective, but I am not going to argue with any improvements for women. :) Maybe the Alexander Street Press "Women and Social Movements" has images. Let me check. SusunW (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh, dear, we have Women in Red. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 16:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Which brings me back to my question from yesterday, which went out of my head because of a GA review I was answering. Megalibrarygirl do we/can we have a separate list for suffragettes. I added one yesterday to activists, but if we are going to do a year long focus, would seem to beg its own list. SusunW (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
WD list added --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Word! Thank you so much, Tagishsimon! SusunW (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I may have started doing a restoration for Millicent Fawcett in the meantime. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 19:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC) Millicent Fawcett.jpg

Another source of redirects that could be articles[edit]

See Category:VIAF not on Wikidata. A fair number of these are redirects (because Wikidata does not allow redirects to have their own entries) and a fair number of the redirects are for potentially-notable women associated with someone or something else. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

America's Top 50 Women In Tech[edit]

Hello. Forbes has recently awarded 50 women, and I'd like to have it recorded on Wikipedia.

Based on this page the list is:

Some help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Comte0 (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting list. The red links obviously deserve consideration.--Ipigott (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I updated the list after having updated the blue links. Also, the one line stubs I have created at the beginning of the list also deserve consideration. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

2018 Africa Women Cup of Nations squads[edit]

The above competition ended today with Nigeria retaining the trophy (I saw all their games lol). I believe every player that featured in the tournament deserve to have a Wikipedia/Wikidata entry. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

WIR as the topic for the joint weekly competition in the Norwegian Bokmål, Norwegian Nynorsk, and Northern Sámi Wikipedias[edit]

Just a heads up that at last count, 307 new articles have been created in the past two weeks about women from all walks of life on the two Norwegian Wikipedias and the Northern Sámi Wikipedia. -Yupik (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Yupik. An impressive result. Many of these certainly deserve articles in English too.--Ipigott (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The BBC's at it again: 100 Voices that made the BBC: Pioneering Women[edit]

There's bound to be some useful source material at the new 100 Voices that made the BBC: Pioneering Women website, methinks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the most prominent women are included in the article on women pioneers. I haven't been able to find a separate list.--Ipigott (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Images of Japanese actresses and singers[edit]

Our new WiR member Narutolovehinata5 wonders if anyone can help finding images of Japanese voice actors, musicians, and the like. As you can see from his user page, he has been writing biographies of Japanese actresses and singers for some time. Is there any way we can help?--Ipigott (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. In particular, I've been trying to get a free image of the singer Konomi Suzuki for over a year now. The first attempt didn't end very well (the photographer actually approved but we ran into problems with licensing), and the subsequent attempts to get a picture from others ranged from no response to outright rejection. It doesn't help that photography is usually prohibited at her events, so it's not like we could actually take a picture of her if we wanted to. Similar circumstances with other Japanese personalities as well, which is part of the reason why I'm asking for help here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if we can recruit some of the 100,000+ attendees at Anime Expo or similar events to take photos of speakers and donate them to Wikimedia Commons. There are usually quite a few Japanese voice actors, artists, singers, etc., in the roster of panelists and guests. The next AX is in July, but that leaves time to get folks involved. Penny Richards (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: @Narutolovehinata5: I know it's not QUITE what you want, but if you want Meiji-era women, Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 20:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI: An article for the Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election exists[edit]

Opening two sentences: The next Conservative Party leadership election has not yet been formally launched. Speculation of a leadership election centres around the Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister Theresa May's fate. An AfD for it resulted in no consensus. WP:Articles for deletion/Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean, it's something widely speculated about in newspapers, but surely this violates WP:NOTNEWS? Not sure if this is a WiR matter, though - It'd need to be about her being female, or with a misogynist bias against her as PM being the main cause for it to be problematic from a WiR perspective, as I see it. That said, it's ridiculous we have the article. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 21:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: You're right about it not really being WiR matter but I really think that the pool of editors we have on Brexit matters desperately needs widening. I posted this at the Village pump (idea lab) but it's had no response. Of particular concern to me is the attempt to stifle any reference to the possibility of the UK holding a second referendum. Brexit is not set in stone. A whole "nobody can possibly argue that it's happening on 29th March 2018" vibe, and the tone of it is quite menacing as well. This is the sort of thing I mean:
--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Wow, those are all pretty much awful, aren't they? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 14:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Question about the WD information[edit]

I was looking at writers from the rest of the world and noticed one that I knew I had created (pure chance) which was redlinked. So I went and looked at the wikidata and as I have found a few times, I had created a new entry when I created the page from a different souce... So I merged the wikidata with the old one. But then I also noticed that the red link is created with the Q number. So although the page exists and the wikidata entries have been merged, it still shows as a red link on the list. I'll grant you the odds of this causing an issue is miniscule. But it made me curious about the creation of the lists..

Here is the detail: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Writers - Rest of world ->Stephanie Saulter ->Stephanie Saulter (Q55713799), Q data numbers Q55713799 and Q57985255.

I was wondering what causes the redlink creation to include the Q number - It clearly doesn't always. And I know that by accident once I ended up creating a page for the person which had the Q number in the title (I fixed that at the time but..It was listed in the redlinks as Patricia Roberts (Q4395107), now identified as Patricia Murphy (referee)) ☕ Antiqueight chatter 15:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Antiqueight: The lists are only updated once a day; so a merge, or an addition of a sitelink to a wikidata item, will not remove the merged Qid or the linked Qid from the page until up to 23 hours and 59 minutes, in the worst case. Your merge was done at 14:45, 3 December 2018‎. There is a link at the top right of the page "Automatically update the list now" ... if you give it a couple of minutes after doing a merge or adding a link, and then press that Auto Update, you should find that the page will regenerate at the merged or linked item disappears. Does that help? I'm going to press the said Auto update now, and I'm guessing that the Q55713799 will disappear ... and yes, I confirm it has gone. Does that help? --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: No, though thanks, I wasn't worried about the list not updating. I get that. It is that the list included the Q number in the title of the article, so that if you just clicked on the link to create a new article it would be Stephanie Saulter (Q55713799) that was created not Stephanie Saulter. I guess I did go a bit around the houses in explaining myself. Thus - even when the article existed and after the wikidata was merged the article link didn't show up as blue, which it would usually do after the article was created. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 15:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Antiqueight: I'm still trying to get the the bottom of that, then. You created the article at 04:04, 5 October 2016‎ and an IP linked it to an existing wikidata item at 04:04, 5 October 2016‎. It is the case that the wikidata item for her lists her Label as Patricia Roberts, and her Alias as Patricia Murphy, so she would have appeared in the redlist as Patricia Roberts ... but I cannot at the moment find her on the only redlist I would expect to see her on for that date, which would be the Irish Citizens list - she had no occupation statement in wikidata at that date. But if I look at [33] I don't find her. All that said, the article column in a redlist should contain the EN Label from wikidata if there is one; and if not another language's Label; and if not a Qid. It should not ever show a combination of a name and a Qid UNLESS someone has entered that as the label in wikidata - which would be human error. I'll keep digging - remember we have the full history of redlists, so we should be able to go back and see exactly what you saw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: You have the wrong link there- it should be this one- and Saulter is the same, it was there on that list this morning. At the time I assumed I had made the mistake in Roberts but all I would have done was clicked on the link and started filling in the details. And of course I had it deleted when I spotted the error and also changed the page to Murphy as I realised that was the name in the references I was finding. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 15:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Antiqueight: (EC) No, I have my stupid head on. There she is - - and although the anchor is Patricia Roberts, the link is Patricia Roberts (Q4395107). So that's very curious. More digging... --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Antiqueight: So, no, I have not a clue. I've asked Magnus Manske, who created Listeria. I'll let you know if he responds. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Tournesol.png Thank you, At least it wasn't a dumb question!! ☕ Antiqueight chatter 16:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Antiqueight: and I now have an answer for you, having changed to a more sensible head. It looks like Listeria does that when there is already a wikipedia article of the same name as the en Label in the pertinent wikidata item. So in 2016, on wikipedia, Patricia Roberts existed (even if it was just a redirect, the namespace was taken). Listeria thus cannot give you a link to create a new Patricia Roberts based on the wikidata item label, and so it does its best to give you a disambiguated link, by creating a Patricia Roberts anchor, but a Patricia Roberts (Q4395107) link. Which is a very reasonable thing to do. But a trap for the unwary - which is all of us, because we've never thought about this before. Does that make sense? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: AHHHH!! Yes- that totally makes sense- Brilliant. Thank you. Also, because I HADN'T previously merged the Saulter wikidata it saw the article I created as a different person thus needing one but needing a new link name too. Thank you for hanging in there and figuring it out. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 16:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

New article on author Riley Redgate 'may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies'[edit]

I created an article for WiR's Asian Month about a young author of Chinese decent, Riley Redgate. It received a note that it 'may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies'. I've since tried to add more info with references to additional (hopefully reliable) sources. Do you think it's met the notability criteria yet? --Woofboy (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It already has four published reviews for three books, enough I think for WP:AUTHOR (enough that I would say to keep in any AfD, for instance) but still a bit borderline. More published reviews would make the case clearer. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Chicago Tribune, and Winston-Salem Journal are notable. However, isn't Kirkus Review a pay-to-play writer's review site? It seems so from their website - if so, it might be wise to remove those. The Kenyon College graduation announcement, The Onion and the WriteOnCon team member references might have also raised a flag with the editor who placed the tag. Netherzone (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
From what I can tell, none of the three Kirkus reviews were part of the "Kirkus Indie" program, and the latter two are starred. XOR'easter (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I just removed some unsourced content, but now the article is pretty dry. It could use at least some expansion on what her books were about, and (if we can properly source it and its relevance for her books) the return of some of the material on her ethnicity and gender identity. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Always a bit hesitant to use this category of source, but her guest post [34] on the Diversity in YA tumblr covers the points about ethnicity and gender identity. Bakazaka (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Secondary sources would be better, but I think that's good enough to restore the material — thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Outstanding Women of Scotland[edit]

Some potential subjects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for posting! Jane (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Just checking for redlinks, copying the listing from that link:

Maureen Beattie – prominent stage and screen actor and President of Equity.

Jenny Brown – leading literary agent, former Head of Literature at the Scottish Arts Council, founder Director of the Edinburgh International Book Festival and Chair of Bloody Scotland crime writing festival. (Nothing at Jennifer Brown either; past AfD for "Jenny Brown" doesn't appear to be same person)

Mhairi Black – Member of Parliament for Paisley & Renfrewshire South and the youngest member in the House of Commons.

Karyn McCluskey – Chief Executive of Community Justice Scotland, notably championed a public health approach to violence reduction and is a world-leading expert in this field.

Isabel McCue MBE – mental health campaigner and founder of Theatre Nemo.

Beth Morrison (campaigner) – award-winning campaigner for the care, wellbeing and rights of children with special and complex needs.

Janice Parker (dance) – award-winning independent choreographer and dance-maker.

Professor Sarah Wanless – highly regarded scientist with international recognition whose work has been essential to the conservation of marine ecosystems, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and Honorary professor at the University of Aberdeen.

Rosemary Ward – Director of Programmes at the Scottish Book Trust, former Director of the Gaelic Book Council and notable figure in the fields of Gaelic education, literature and culture.

Talat Yaqoob – Director of Equate Scotland and campaigner for gender, race and religious equality in Scotland.

Plenty to go at there! Does this designation as "Outstanding woman of Scotland" equate to a laureateship for this month's editathon? I think so, it's a "hall of fame" kind of thing! PamD 10:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed there's a BUNCH of women featured at the National Museum of Scotland when I was there the other day. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 00:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

On the FP front...[edit]

Now, before I do this, let me point out: Canvassing is not permitted, so while you're obviously all welcome to vote at WP:FPC, please don't just vote because I'm talking about them here, because the point of mentioning them here is to plan how we want to use the pictures after they pass, because that and having them available for use by people who want to use them to teach are the two big reasons for doing such restorations. This is why I'm not linking the nominations.

So, Ida Husted Harper (File:Ida Husted Harper photograph by Aime Dupont.jpg) is passing. It's due to pass on the 8th, and I'd be surprised if anything stopped it. It's also passing over on Commons:FPC. What day would be best to suggest for her? Also, should I request a day on Commons for her?

Girton College (File:Girton College, Cambridge, England, 1890s.jpg) is one vote short of a quorum, but still has a few days.Passing. It has a 150th anniversary of founding coming up next year, so I intend to request then, presuming it passes. I haven't nominated it at Commons yet.

Carrie Chapman Catt (File:Carrie Chapman Catt - National Woman's Party Records.jpg) seems to have fallen into that trap where a bunch of nominations went above it in the list, so it only has 3 of the 5 votes. It should pass eventually, but it might not with this nomination. It's a thing that happens at FPC sometimes. She can always be renominated later.

Millicent Fawcett (File:Millicent Fawcett.jpg) will probably pass. It's at four votes out of five less than a day in. Now passing. I'm not sure what day we shoudl request for her.

There are quite a lot of dates to chose from for Fawcett. 11 June is her birthday. 24 April is the date the statue in Parliament Square was unveiled last year. July 1901 is when her commission went to South Africa to investigate Emily Hobhouse's reports on conditions in the British concentration camps (I'd need to seek an exact date). I don't see a date for when she took over presidency of the NUWSS in but that would also be a good one. Moira Paul (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Moira Paul: Let's see... One year anniversary of her statue feels more of a "We missed this" sort of thing. How about 5 August 2019, the 90th anniversary of her death? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 13:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Template:Ping:Adam Cuerden That makes sense - and gives a good strong round figure (90) to make it meaningful. Moira Paul (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

There's also a Mary Cassat mainting up.

Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 00:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and there IS one image of an Armenian suffragist out there. But I can't find any information about "Lady Anne Azgapetian, wife of General Azgapetian, of Armenia" beyond the description of the image. It may be that it's using a non-standard transliteration of Armenian? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 00:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Lady Anne -a letter from the lady, news article, maybe some one here knows more??, back story here too, a reference here but my log in isn't working, NY times note - what's obvious from the results is that she did a tour of the US - or at least her press release did a tour of the newspapers - the dates vary from 1920-1923 suggesting more than 1 speech...But I dont' know enough about the areas history...AHAHA - loads of detail - poor source ☕ Antiqueight chatter 01:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Ann/Anne/Anna Azgapetian/Azgepetian (seen all these spellings) has been on my maybe-to-do lists for a while. Here's an article featuring a very different image of her (from 1921, in a US publication, so free to use). She was definitely on a lecture tour that year; the article mentions her speaking in Indianapolis.Penny Richards (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I see that the loc description notes that it was published in The Suffragist, no. 1 (Jan-Feb 1921). 343. Perhaps there's more info there if anyone has access. There are also some interesting details here. And I see that here her husband is referred to as "Major General Azgapetian". And here his full name "General Mesrop Newton Azgapetian" is given. From this, we see that "Ann Azgapetian" served in the Russian Red Cross. There's also quite a bit here. However, the most extensive commentary I have found is this. So there seems to be quite a lot of material around if anyone is interested. Perhaps SusunW?--Ipigott (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I am somewhat buried at the moment but if Penny doesn't get to it before I circle back ... SusunW (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy to get something started. Penny Richards (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Got something started: Anne Azgapetian. Still needs some details, like her maiden name and date of death. NB: She wasn't Armenian; looks like she was born in Russia, raised in Indiana, married an Armenian-American. And I can't find any evidence of suffrage activity, except that she spoke to a meeting of American suffragists; but she spoke to a lot of groups. Penny Richards (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC))

Water is dripping into my flat from the one above. I won't be doing much for a couple days. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 17:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Commiserations. I've been both perp & victim of same, more than once. Always fun. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The article seems to be coming on very well. If she married in New York in 1915, records should be available. There might also be records of her birth in Grodno. Not surprising she thought of herself as Lithuanian. Grodno is on the Lithuanian border. How about her title of "lady". Is this a result of her having married a general or is it self-styled?--Ipigott (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Looks like the title comes from marriage, and her husband's title and military rank aren't always given consistently in reports (maybe a translation issue, maybe a publicity issue, maybe both). So I hope someone can find harder details like her original name, or a marriage record, or a death date. Penny Richards (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Penny Richards I am pretty positive this is her [35] died in Sept 1973, probably in Lake Placid, Essex County, New York, though I have yet to find an obit. Maybe the New York free press links? This is a gem [36], note it says her name is Aya? SusunW (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
SusunW Oh cool! I can't see the FamilySearch link but I'll add the 1973 date, knowing it's confirmable. The Aya Heald persona, though--you're right, a goldmine, I'll follow up those leads. Aya/Anne/Azgapetian/Heald seems to be someone who easily recreated herself. :) Penny Richards (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Penny Richards weird, because it is a US link, from the SS death master files there. (I get why in Mexico I am often blocked, but ...)
Citing this Record: "United States Social Security Death Index," database, FamilySearch ( 19 May 2014), U.S. Social Security Administration, Death Master File, database (Alexandria, Virginia: National Technical Information Service). Anne Heald dob 26 May 1888 dod Sept 1973; last residence zip 12946, Essex County, New York SusunW (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Penny Richards, SusunW, and Ipigott: I'll start on her ASAP. She's at least noteable. Thank you so much! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 13:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Meta commentary on NYTimes "Overlooked" obit series[edit]

Apologies in advance, but I wanted to briefly rant about this somewhere it would be appreciated.

Have you noticed that when some editors rush to add a link to an obituary in the NYTimes "Overlooked" series to our corresponding article on the person, they more often than not forget to include a byline for the woman who wrote the obit, thereby subtly overlooking yet another person? Sigh.

(And don't even get me started on how most editors just lazily throw it into "External links" instead of properly threading it in as a source, in what are sometimes source-starved articles). Again, sorry, I just fixed two of these and wanted to rant. --Krelnik (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I love this rant, it mirrors my own frustration with drive-by editors. SusunW (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, now, this is ridiculous.... (Susan B. Anthony issue)[edit]

...Would you believe that there isn't a single image in the article on Susan B. Anthony of any real quality? The lead image is a mediocre reproduction of an engraving. There's an awkwardly composed shot of her and Elizabeth Cady Stanton (which would be fine if this didn't exist). It uses a rather good, but nonetheless drawn image of Stanton, and the other two images are mediocre, even if I'd keep one. The best thing in the article is a coin.

So, let's fix this, shall we? Here's some proposals, tell me what you think:

...For such a prominent leader in American suffrage, I think this will greatly help. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 21:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Would you believe that AdamC posted a whole thread about the Susan B. Anthony article without posting a single link to it :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds like a thing that idiot would do. Someone Who Is Not Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs, totally is Adam. 21:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I prefer the 3/4 view (image 02005) to the profile (02036). It's less detached, impersonal, and formal that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm with David, prefer the 3/4 image to the profile. SusunW (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Reportedly Susan B. Anthony was vegetarian. MaynardClark (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I've started this. Hester C. Jeffrey now has a rather nice image. It's going to take a bit. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 13:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Project grant proposal: #VisibleWikiWomen 2019[edit]

Hello all, I wanted to let you all know that a Project Grant was submitted for the 2019 #VisibleWikiWomen challenge, a 'Whose Knowledge?' campaign to add more images of women to Commons and Wikipedia. In the 2018 pilot campaign, participants added over 800 images to Commons, and by May, over 500 of them were being used across Wikipedia. Next year, we have this goals: 1) add more diverse and quality images; 2) grow the network of non-Wikimedian partners; 3) incorporate images into more edit-a-thons. As an outcome, we expect that at least 1600 images of different women will be uploaded. We welcome your feedback on the proposal! Thank you in advance! --Señoritaleona (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Señoritaleona, I like this and support it. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Rosiestep and all! Looking forward to partnering with Women in Red again this year, if you're up for it! Siko (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Christine Mitchell[edit]

I would like some help (at least a review of the draft) with Draft:Christine Mitchell, concerning a Harvard Medical School bioethicist who (arguably) has led in the development of nursing ethics or the ethics of care.

Further, I believe that the growing field of bioethics education is young, and I believe that Christine Mitchell is one leader / person / bioethicist who is shaping bioethics education in North America. She is not unique, but to my observation she seems to be one of a select view. Perhaps both ABPD (the Association of Bioethics Program Directors) and the topic of 'bioethics education' deserve individual articles (though current interest in these specialty articles would at present be limited), but at present I am trying to develop a biographical article.

Might this article be ready for resubmission. How could this draft be improved? MaynardClark (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Marie McCormick[edit]

I would like some help with the Marie McCormick article. MaynardClark (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The basic article structure looks good, I'd say the biggest issue is that there's probably not quite enough sources to show independent notability yet, which could be a problem if someone nominated it for deletion. You have a lot of high-quality sources for the science, but open up a bit to include newspapers and such to talk about her personal life and such. Ideally, you want either things that focus on her, or book reviews. Something to show that either she's being treated as notable and worthy of discussion by groups she isn't connected with, or that her works are being treated that way. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 07:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
If it came to an AfD, the article could easily be defended on WP:PROF#C1 and #C5 grounds (look at the citation counts for author:mc-mccormick on Google Scholar, and the first sentence of the article describes a named professorship at Harvard). So I wouldn't worry about that too much. But I don't like the way the "Publications" section is formatted. We shouldn't be making external links all over each entry like that, it is not clear why those three specific publications were selected, and links to search result pages are forbidden. Also, the claim of "12 books" seems dubious to me — I can't find them, unless you count edited volumes rather than books she actually wrote, or books authored by large committees that she belonged to. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Ida Husted Harper has passed FP[edit]

So, what day shall I grab for it? There's a few possibilities - 19th Amendment passes the House, 19th Amendment passes Senate, day Indiana passed the 19th Amendment, her birthday - what do people like? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 04:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about putting the focus on her, how about her birthday, February 18th? And thanks again, @Adam, for the magic you did on this pic (and all the others). Which photo are you thinking about improving next, and can we nominate some suffragists for consideration? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Louise Chandler Moulton, specifically [37]. Happy Birthday, sorry my kitchen flooded during it! As for suggestions, feel free! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 17:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden, yes that one from LoC would be awesome! And thanks for the birthday cheer! --Rosiestep (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Also, could you look over Template:POTD/2019-02-18? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 18:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden, that POTD looks great. I made a very minor word fix. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! It's basically the lead, trimmed down a bit for length. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 18:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Weel done, Adam, lang may yer lum reek! On a more pragmatic level, we're hoping to bring Sophia Getzowa up to GA one of these days. You'll see that the lead image seems to be suffering from some light penetration on the left of the image. I'm not suggesting you should take it all the way to FP but maybe you could spend a minute or two on basic improvements? I really envy your expertise.--Ipigott (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: I'm afraid resolution will be enough to block that one from FP, but that sort of thing's usually not too hard to fix with the dodge/burn tool if you're careful. I'll have a go. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 17:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott:  Done Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 17:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden:: That's very kind of you. For some reason, my internet signal is almost zero. I'll shut down and try to start again.--Ipigott (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
No worries. I hope you like it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 18:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I certainly like it ã lot. I'm sure SusunW will too. It's a great improvement on the one and only photo we have. Hope you stick around for a while. There might be more...--Ipigott (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Wow! So much better, Adam Cuerden! And thank you Ipigott for working on the research part. She's been a challenge to do, but as we say down here poco a poco it is moving forward. SusunW (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Not a problem. I'm always happy to find time for this kind of thing, just... got distracted for a while while writing a one-act opera. Well, two one-act operas. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 21:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I lied a little bit[edit]

Got annoyed at League of Women Voters only having ONE of the co-founders, and, um... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 21:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

And then I realised that, for some reason Emma Smith DeVoe isn't considered a co-founder. Oh, well, she's still very important. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 22:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some thoughts on this one. I don't normally edit out photographers' stamps, but I do wonder here, when the signature is so badly placed that it hurts composition. If I removed it, I could crop on the right and improve the layout. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 22:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is a distraction, adds nothing. I did wonder, idly, if you had lost an embossing mark in editing File:Ida Husted Harper photograph by Aime Dupont.jpg, between about 5 and 6 o'clock --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Did I? It wasn't a very obvious one if so. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 22:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, next two after Louise are Jeanette Rankin and Liliuokalani. Did I ever mention my plan to do one progressive from every state as a protest against Trump? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 00:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I really am NOT good at sticking to a planned order AT ALL. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 13:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Timeline on women in photography[edit]

As we are focusing on photography this month, I thought it might be a good opportunity to create a Timeline on women in photography. I could probably make a start in the next day or two but from 11 December I'll be going to Denmark for Christmas and probably won't have too much time for the rest of the month. A few years ago, I created lots of lists of women photographers but now I have identified serious gaps with at least one major omission, Franziska Möllinger. There are no doubt many others. I'll try to make a start tomorrow but would appreciate the established expertise of Megalibrarygirl (and of course of all others).--Ipigott (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Oooh. I love timelines. Have you started a draft yet, Ipigott? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Been working my way through the leadership of the Women's Federation of the Photographers Association of America this month--no entry for the organization (yet), but I can at least add their founding date to a timeline.Penny Richards (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl: I may be able to make a start tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Year-long campaign(s) in 2019[edit]

I suggested previously (don't remember exactly where) the idea of Women in Red making 2019, the "year of suffrage", just like a couple of years ago, we did a "year of science" campaign. But after looking over other posts on this talkpage, including Ipigott's suggestion directly above regarding "Timeline on women in photography", plus all the work that Adam Cuerden is doing for us, and the section about the project grant proposal, #VisibleWikiWomen 2019, I'm wondering if photos would be a good annual project for us? I could see us having an event page used all year where we add images instead of articles. OR, maybe we do both, make a campaign in 2019 for "year of suffrage" and another one for "year of photos" (two year-long campaigns)? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Rosiestep: About 15 years ago, I can remember the concept of "multimedia" became the order of the day, not only for on-line services but also for generalized access. I think you have hit on an extremely interesting idea of combining text with images and other media across all of Wikimedias applications. It's early days yet, but how about a WiR multilingual initiative addressing women in historical development, addressing unlimited extensions from traditional biographies to images, videos, sources, and quotations, in all the language versions of Wikipedia. As far as I can see, this could start today at no extra cost. WP Education and all other interests in the gender gap could be encouraged to participate. Over the next three to six months we might like to initiate the WiR multiwikipedian thrust.--Ipigott (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This multi-pronged approach sounds intriguing, Ipigott. How do you envision it would be set up, e.g. separate WiR event pages for each part, or one massive one with lots of subsections or something altogether different? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ipigott and Rosiestep: I like the idea of working with multimedia. The great part is that nearly all of the materials we would use are in the public domain now. There's a lot of great photos and many of the articles about suffrage also need to be linked together and fleshed out more. There's a lot of opportunities to work across Wikis that way, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • We might want to bring Commons in on the Photography side. I'd also be happy to do a workshop on what I do, though if you wan it somewhere other than Edinburgh or Indiana (visiting my fiancé in April-May), I'll need travel funds. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 20:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Calling 2019 the Year of Suffrage might seem very US-centric. In the UK we've been busy celebrating suffrage throughout 2018. PamD 21:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we SHOULD have done something for the UK, but we missed it (Well, mostly). I think we need to be pragmatic, and not miss another one. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 22:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Rosiestep:: Perhaps the easiest way to go about it would be to set up the English approach first and then invite all the other language versions to try to do the same. As things are going to pretty busy between now and the beginning of January, we could perhaps aim to start in February.--Ipigott (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
To PamD's point, maybe we just call the campaign "Focus on Suffrage"? I think that also gives us wiggle room if the response is good to move beyond a single year. SusunW (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Brilliant! "Focus on Suffrage" it is! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I've just looked at my lists of 'on this day' achievements by women for 1919, and we've multiple anniversaries coming up. Perhaps we could some of them as triggers for monthly campaigns? For example, 1 December 2019 is the centenary of Nancy Astor taking her seat in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom so a focus in that month could be on female parliamentarians? That also ties with the "Focus on Suffrage" theme. On 5 Feb 1919, Mary Pickford co-founded United Artists, so a February theme could be "Cinema's female pioneers"? I'm thinking that if we hook the themes to centenaries, we can get more press coverage. Please feel free to move this whole comment to another spot if I've missed where I should suggest it, by the way.Moira Paul (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Some notes on Suffrage articles[edit]

The individual suffragettes, if they have articles, tend to be pretty good, but we're severely lacking a lot of structure to tie everything together. Take Women's_suffrage_movement_in_Washington which looks like someone started on the early history, then stopped. Consider Women's suffrage in states of the United States, which leaves out half the states, does NOT link subarticles for states, and is rather confusingly laid out.

The individual articles are important, but we need to get the finding aids together, or no-one will find the articles. I'd suggest robust articles by state (or territory, as appropriate), are important. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 03:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

If you like adapting biographies from German language sources[edit]

This might be a useful place to look. At least, based on a couple of minutes of random clicking it looked encouraging. Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Girton's up[edit]

Template:POTD/2019-10-16 Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 22:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Writing women into science history[edit]

Hello. I found an article about how women were written out of science history and how we should write them back in. Here's the article if you're interested in reading it. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks, MrLinkinPark333, interesting article. Unfortunately, it not just women scientists who suffer from male dominance. The same is true for most other professions with the possible exception of actresses and models. I'm currently in the process of trying to "write them into the history of photography" by developing a Timeline of women in photography.--Ipigott (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Learning about Mendel when you deal with recessive and dominant genes, but then being taught chromosomes and meiosis and mitosis and crossing over - pretty much all based on Barbara McClintock's incredibly groundbreaking work in detail without a mention of her name is a good example of a woman being left out. Any decent biology textbook will spend a few days on Mendel's discovery - as heavily modified by later research, and then weeks on McClintock - as discovered by her - but which name do people know? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 02:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Projects Grant Proposal: Smithsonian Wikimedian-in-Residence for Gender Representation[edit]

I wanted to give you a heads-up about a proposal I submitted to establish a Wikimedian-in-Residence for the Smithsonian American Women's History Initiative to catalyze the cultural heritage sector to increase the representation of women on Wikimedia projects while also developing evidence for Smithsonian senior leadership to make an Open Knowledge Coordinator role permanent. The Smithsonian is investing heavily in increasing the resources about women across its 19 museums and 9 research centers and we would like to develop, test, and share models for making these resources more widely available online. I welcome your feedback and hope to work with many of you! --Digitaleffie (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Digitaleffie. I am supportive of this effort as it aligns with Women in Red's focus. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Argentine women composers[edit]

While doing a little research on Susana Antón last week, I turned up this blog: Not quite sure what it's about, as I don't speak Spanish, but it appears to at least contain a useful list of Argentine women composers that could be used to generate redlinks. Not sure how comprehensive a list it is,'s behind a firewall for me most of the time. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Here's the list. Also, doing a quick scan, it didn't seem that any of the 6 redlinks have an article on another language Wikipedia. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Neat! Did I ever mention I'm trying to get an opera by Louise Bertin staged? Women composers, especially historical ones, are so neglected. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 19:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Thanks. Not sure quite how notable they are, but I suspect there's enough out there to at least justify a stub for each. Another on the list of things for me to look into in the new year... :-)
@Adam Cuerden: Which Bertin opera? La Esmeralda? I've long harbored a desire to resurrect Mary Carr Moore's Narcissa. As to your other point...I don't know how much you follow the American music press, but there have been some interesting developments this side of the Atlantic in recent years. This season, for instance, a number of major orchestras have begun to look at the gender-based deficits in their programming and to react accordingly. And at least one - Philadelphia, I think - has awarded a series of fellowships to young women composers, and will be workshopping their new work.
For me, incidentally, 2018 marks the first time, if memory serves, that I have attended a performance of an opera by a woman - I attended the world premiere of Missy Mazzoli's Proving Up at Washington National Opera. (And in the process illustrated her article, and that of her librettist. :-)) (We will not speak of that misbegotten attempt at a production of Pauline Viardot's Cendrillon that I had the misfortune to see a couple of years ago...) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Le loup-garou, actually. It's a lot simpler to put on. Thinking of moving it to Quebec, though: Scribe's script for it just makes more sense in a land of hunters, trappers, and widely-spaced-out population. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 23:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: Since when do you want your operas to make sense? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

19th century women architectural sculptors in the UK[edit]

Well, I bet you never thought of that one. Thank you, Victoria Leonard, for today's (12 Dec 2018) article in the Guardian: "Female scholars are marginalised on Wikipedia because it's written by men." You may be interested to know that I've recently moved my article on Catherine Mawer to mainspace; it's been some years in the making. This isn't about being a woman, though; it's about her being a seriously good sculptor. Most of her contemporaries went in for the contemporary Romantic idea of beauty; she did warts and all portraits, full of life and lots of movement, even though most of the time she was limited to just doing heads. It was she who completed the sculpture on Leeds Town Hall after her husband died. The local newspapers credited her for it, but she's so forgotten by us that the Henry Moore Institute next door to the Town Hall didn't even know that they were passing a woman's carvings on the way to work every day. She did the cherubs way up high on the clock tower - and had to carve it in situ - that's how they did it in those days. She pranked as well. She worked alongside her husband in the early days, and this gargoyle of one of their apprentices vomiting down a drainpipe is in her unique style. Somebody (probably the apprentice) responded by doing a stone snake with her head on it on top of one of the buttresses on the same building. Enjoy. I should also add that I am a woman but don't list myself as such, and I wonder whether there might be a few more women on here than there are on the official count? Storye book (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Rather excellent Mawer article, Storye book. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comment. Storye book (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Storye book: That article is a thing of beauty. Nicely done. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Storye book (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Storye book, a very interesting and beautifully illustrated article. Maybe it could be promoted to GA?--Ipigott (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Ipigott, for your kind comment. Much appreciated. However I am still researching, revising and adding to this article - I keep finding more sources out there. This is why, even though I have already contributed a lot of DYKs, I have carefully avoided DYK and GA for this set of seven articles on the Mawer group.Storye book (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Women museum directors[edit]

In honor of the nomination of Kaywin Feldman to be the next director of the National Gallery of Art, I have created Category:Women museum directors. Feel free to go forth and populate. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Ser Amantio di Nicolao:. Just added new category to eight women via a Wikidata search and took number from 114 to 122. :-) Oronsay (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Oronsay: Excellent. :-) Glad to see it's been of some use. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Another 16 added. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Yay. I should let you all know about my new categories more often. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
You should, yes. The category posting prompted another 400 or so edits in wikidata to straighten out its representation of museum directors, and to synchronise wikidata & wikipedia understanding. So, very valuable cue, thank you, SAdN. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
While we do have a crowd-sourced redlist, we could really use a Wikidata-list of "museum people". In addition to Category:Museum directors, it would include Category:Museum designers, Category:Museum founders, Category:Museologists, Category:Trustees of museums. Plus some of the other occupations in Category:Museum people? Anyone up for creating this?

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Julie Auger[edit]

The short article on Julie Auger has been AfD-ed. She is listed in the December articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018. The WiR banner is on her talk page, but I guess that as she's not part of WikiProject Women, she wasn't picked up by Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts. How can we protect our articles from deletion? Or how should we best alert other WiR members to the existence of an AfD notice? Oronsay (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The AfD was picked up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts, so that kinda answers the WiR end of your concern. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm sorry, I was obviously looking in the wrong place! Oronsay (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The bot should pick up anything that has a WiR banner on the talk page. But the bot only updates periodically, so I'd say wait a day or so, and if it's not there still, then we should look into whether there is a technical problem. GMGtalk 23:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

WiR Pinterest boards[edit]

Just a heads up, the WiR Pinterest boards are on hiatus right now. For some reason, Pinterest suddenly won't let me pin images from Wikipedia, or let the images link back to Wikipedia. It's a spam-blocking glitch, I think, but there's no point in pinning images that won't bring readers to the articles. I'll keep you posted if I hear anything new. Penny Richards (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Penny Richards, this really is a big glitch. You've done a spectacular job keeping up the monthly Pinterest boards. They are not only beautiful but they document our work, our history. Pinging @Melanie: on WMF Comms team for guidance. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep, looks like it's working again. Might have been the fundraising box at the top of the pages triggered something? Anyway, I'll resume pinning. Penny Richards (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Penny Richards, hooray! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Female scholars are marginalised on Wikipedia because it's written by men[edit]

Victuallers, I'm wondering if you or any of our other UK-based editors are involved with this effort: "Female scholars are marginalised on Wikipedia because it's written by men", by Victoria Leonard, 12 December 2018, The Guardian. Perhaps we could coordinate a WiR classicist event in 2019 with Victoria's team? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I tend to think female scholars are marginalized because academia marginalizes them; we just mirror the greater cultural biases. Their page says "By 'classics' we understand the study of the ancient Mediterranean world and its reception, including but not limited to scholarship by students and post-holders in academic departments of Classics, Ancient History and Archaeology." I'd support an event, if we balance it out with an event that doesn't focus on Western culture, as well. Doesn't have to be simultaneously, just another event with a more global perspective. SusunW (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Worth talking with, for instance, Srsval and Claire 75 who are mainstays of Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee; I hope they'll pop up here by the magic of being mentioned, to discuss. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I certainly favour a direct approach to the Guardian, it was obviously a slow news day. To be positive they went to the trouble to print it- and that to my mind was a request from them to get involved. Do contact:John Lubbock WMUK.
It was a pity they didn't check the facts with WMUK and notice that our CEO is called Lucy, and chairman is called Josie. We would love them to join us at the next London Wiki-meetup where Women in Red is always a topic of discussion. If the Guardian can provide us with a Central London venue we can provide the trainers, to help any group start on their Wikipedia careers. If these became regular it would be a massive PR boost for Guardian newspapers.
If the Guardian wants to provide the print space we can collaborate in producing a series of articles on the nuts and bolts of using Wikipedia, or the philosophy and ethics of the wiki-world- I am sure there are great similarities between our discussions and their boardroom conversations.
It would be really positive if the Guardian could be more precise about the copyright status of some of their text and images- the authors of a lot of the features would be perfectly happy to have them published under cc-0 or even cc-by-sa 4.0, which would remove a hurdle for our editors- it just need that to be stated in the text. (I am writing this on the assumption that the Guardian will be reading this too). The Guardian needs to know that we do have a large photo-library, which is cheaper to use than an agency! They have a nice regional photolibrary that they could open to us on a CC-BY_SA basis- this would be appreciated by Wikidata. Finally they need to know about the possibility of employing a Wikipedian in resident in the same way that the Wellcome foundation does- they could talk directly to ZeroMonk (Alice). ClemRutter (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Honestly Clem, I'm not seeing any factual inaccuracies in the Guardian piece and while I have temporarily laid aside my WMUK hat if I was wearing it I'm not sure what issue I'm meant to be seeing. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Rosiestep, yes we'd love to! That would be great. Srsval (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the tag Tagishsimon Srsval (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Women scholars are absolutely marginalised in academia, but they are also marginalised on Wikipedia in interlinked but discrete ways. Srsval (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry what? 'It was obviously a slow news day'. That's pretty offensive. Srsval (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, the irony obviously didn't work (vote of no confidence in PM, Brexit vote pulled et c). Yes, it is a good article; I would have expected the Guardian to have approached WMUK for further comment.ClemRutter (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Rosiestep: Given the huge list of names on our Wikidata clacissists list, it looks as if we really need to treat this as a priority in the near future. Given SusunW's concerns, perhaps we could extend it to cover ancient history.--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A big WCC event took place in January 2017 and there has been regular monthly activity ever since. This has been quite productive: as the article says, about 200 articles have been created. For example, I myself started the Dorothy Tarrant article which is mentioned, taking it to our main page as a DYK. So, the WCC has a good record and should be seen as a model of how to organise and sustain a special interest group. In my experience, many editathons don't get much done because there's not enough follow-up to build on the initial enthusiasm and training. The WCC has maintained good momentum and the Guardian article is just the latest example of its energetic outreach. Andrew D. (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Dropping by quickly to say thank you Rosiestep (talk) for the suggestion of a co-ordinated WiR event with you, and to Tagishsimon (talk) for tagging me into the post about our project (I'd probably have missed this otherwise). In haste as pre-Xmas rush but basically hurrah and yes. Claire 75 (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delighted we'll be focusing on this area in early 2019. The Women in Red calendar for January-February-March 2019 events is filling up quickly, so sorting out a month is a priority. And, of course, we also need to delineate the focus area per additional comments in this section. It would be ideal if someone takes point on pulling this event together. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
How about a geofocus on The Ancient World in February? I think we need to move forward fairly quickly.--Ipigott (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott, I agree. Would you please add it to the calendar? Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Done.--Ipigott (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Rosiestep:, missed all this - I was busy giving a wiki talk and my comms got more ignored than usual. The classicists are in regular contact via our Twitter stream and we did retweet the story. It does unfortunately follow the narrative that its a male conspiracy to keep women out of Wikipedia.... and that its blokes who don't write about women and blokes who delete articles. Its a nice story but it doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny. My worry is that it makes women editors responsible for fixing the problem. Luckily our editors of all genders realise that this is our problem and we are fixing it. Victuallers (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for mansplaining that for us, Victuallers. This thread is a complete and utter disaster, exemplifying exactly the sort of hostile environment which disincentives involvement in wikipedia. VL manages to float a perfectly valid and very helpful article in a UK national newspaper. It is met with 'must have been a slow news day' and 'nice story but'. There is no, not even a scintilla of, assertion of conspiracy in VL's article. The nearest she comes is "counteract the stranglehold men exert", which given the ratio seems to be an observation of the de facto state of things. Meanwhile what should have been a collegiate and friendly discussion about cooperation between two wikiprojects has descended into an exercise in kicking a (female) wikipedian who took the initiative to use her skills and experience to get the perfectly valid and helpful article in said paper. I am, honestly, appalled that this is happening, and especially that this is happening on the talk page of this project. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I find this vitriol upsetting and counterproductive. There are two issues I have been pondering: The first is with the Guardian, a potential partner, and I can neither prove or demonstrate what I about to say, but at around 3.00am I saw an interesting article on-line. As I said, a fantastic opportunity to cement our relationship with the G. I copied the url, and hit the sack. Two days later I commented here- using that url. It drew comment from one notable Wikipedian. I looked again at the article, I agreed with that editor as the article was not as I remembered. It now had a dateline of 7.00 am and was maybe three paragraphs shorter- but memory is no longer my strong suit, it may just be a false memory. I conclude that a sub-ed had reduced the editorial comment and by 7.00 am the url referred to a very differnt piece. The second issue is how anyone had not understood the irony of my quip: (to explain to editors not based in the UK- with the government about to fall, and take with it the Union established in 1701 between Scotland and England, with the worlds press camped outside Parliament waiting for a meaning vote, with the executive challenging constitutional supremacy of representatives of the people- this is what we call a slow newsday) If the Guardian posted an article before it had been finally proof read on a day like that, I understand. If it touches a raw nerve due to an editors previous experience I can understand that too but we don't personalise it to the point where other POVs are ignored. We certainly need to take a step back and question the contributions the editors have given here in the past before pressing the publish button.
I suspect that the anger, really has nothing to do with the topic. I suspect it is about structure. I suspect it is about a frustration that initiatives have collapsed because of lack of follow up. ClemRutter (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I mean, don't attribute to malice what you can attribute to demographics. If we had four times as many dentists as we had veterinarians editing Wikipedia, it would make sense to expect our articles on dentistry to be more numerous, higher quality, and better maintained, even if there were a core group of orthodontists working to improve our coverage of animal medicine. <perennial rant>That's also why we should be collecting data on wider measures of diversity than we currently are.</perennial rant> And IMO there are actually very few problems on Wikimedia projects where the obvious answer isn't "increase the quantity and quality of our user base", even if other measures are useful stop-gaps for the obvious solution, because getting to the obvious solution is harder than it seems.
And any way, all press is good press. The more people are reading about and thinking about Wikipedia, the more we're going to find that 0.01% who take the plunge and click edit. GMGtalk 15:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Briefly back and very disappointed by much of the reaction here to Victoria's article. It also seems to be mixed in with people's views about the Guardian, which is clearly a separate issue that some people here feel strongly about and that part of the discussion perhaps might take place somewhere separate.
We do have and welcome editors on the project of different genders; the underlying issue of women being underrepresented on Wikipedia both as subjects and as editors is clearly and consequentially linked. It's the run up to Xmas, that time of year when most UK women have a lot on and a lot of editors are busy with their offline lives and hard to speak to/for but am sure we'd be very happy to take part in something that takes a wider view of women and antiquity globally - thanks for the question @SusunW: our focus comes from the fact that classics is our academic discipline/main interest and hence expertise, rather than any view that work isn't needed across the board.
@Rosiestep: On February for a focus on The Ancient World what sort of things do you propose? Is this the idea of running events in physical spaces, or more of a push online? Claire 75 (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Claire 75:: Women in Red will facilitate an online event; we've penciled it in for February, but can shift it to another month if you prefer, as space permits. Anyone can take the lead in developing a Women in Red online event. It would be lovely if you/your team would do so as classics is your academic discipline/main interest/expertise. Women in Red doesn't coordinate in-person events. But our members might participate in an in-person event if we lived in an area where one was occurring. Regarding what would the focus be for The Ancient World, it would be up to our community to decide. We have a Librarian in Residence, Megalibrarygirl who is very helpful with developing the redlists for our events. She might have some thoughts on this, and/or SusunW who suggested broadening the scope, and/or Ipigott who added the event to the calendar. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Women in Aviation[edit]

Hello. I have two books currently borrowed from my local library about Canadian women in aviation. They are No place for a lady : the story of Canadian women pilots, 1928-1992 and Canadian women in the sky: 100 years of flight. I'm wondering if anyone is interested in this topic. I would consider extracting the names from these books but I can't confirm if they are all notable. I'm currently using these books to make articles for two of the women redlinks at Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame. :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333: These books look interesting. Perhaps you could check out any interesting names with our List_of_women_aviators and add the missing ones to our Aviation redlist. As you probably know, we also have an evolving Timeline of women in aviation. I am interested in working on both aviation and women from Canada -- so you could let me know if you find any important gaps.--Ipigott (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: You are interested? Awesome! Canadian women in the sky would be easier for me to go through. As for the bush pilots one, I don't know if most would pass notability but there are a few apendixs that would be useful: first women pilots, women employed by major airlines, canadian armed forces and transport canada inspectors. Those appendixs I believe would be the most needed. The rest of the bush pilots book would be a thorough examination. Alternativelly, there is three women missing from Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame: Lorna deBlicquy, Vera Dowling and Kathleen Carol Fox. I'm working on deBlicquy and I highly recommend for you to make one on Dowling (if you wish) as there are lots of sources for her :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Dictionary of Artists' Models[edit]

Another interesting source which I found on Google Books today: Dictionary of Artists' Models. Not all entries are available, but the list of entries is, and would be useful to generate a list of redlinks, I think. Looks like a fascinating book, both in its scope and in its focus. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Good resource. Many of the model's were more than muses and also artists in their own right. The Glasgow Girls were just as inspired IMO as the Glasgow Boys but it took decades for them to get comparable attention. Victuallers (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Emmeline Pankhurst[edit]

And she's on our main page (unless you're on mobile)! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.2% of all FPs 11:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The sculptor of her statue does'nt have a wiki article. The @wikiwomeninred twitter stream is trying to get pictures and someone has volunteered to write an article. Helen Pankhurst was at the unveiling and I had the pleasure of teaching her to edit Wikipedia at a WMUK/WIR/BBC event. (and yes there is a picture of that on commons!) Victuallers (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata queries that identifies knowledge gap[edit]

I wrote some Wikidata queries to measure impact of cinema-related Africa specific editathon to the overall cinema-related articles on Wikipedia. While the query that counts every AfroCine article on Wikipedia works well, the one intended to count the overall cinema related (actors, film producers, theatre houses, cinematographers, screenwriters, films, etc.) article on Wikipedia was experiencing a timeout. I have seen a couple of times when editors on this page gets the percentage of male to female bios on Wikipedia. If I can lay my hands on the logic for the query that works for gender (male to female) I believe I will be able to tweak mine to work for Afrocine to non-AfroCine. In short, can I kindly get a link to the query used to monitor improvement in female representation on Wikipedia?HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@HandsomeBoy: here's a good discussion of by gender reports, for actors as it happens. If you need a hand, post your work in progress on Wikidata:Request a query and I can lend a hand. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)