Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
What is WikiProject Women in Red (WiR)?
WikiProject Women in Red is a community-led project launched in 2015. We're interested in reducing the gender gap in content coverage across all languages, especially concerning women-related biographies, but also women-related topics (broadly construed), such as artwork, books, sports events, and scientific theories. This concerns both works/topics by and works/topics about women. Specifically, we collaborate on
  • the creation of new articles
  • the improvement of existing articles (featured articles, good articles, DYK articles, stubs...)
  • events such as edithatons and hackatons
  • developing gender-gap related metrics
  • the identification of missing content Wikipedia ought to have
  • scholarly publications
We're not, however, trying to solve editor gender gap, meaning that we think both men and women are equally able to create articles about notable women.
How is WikiProject Women in Red related to other WikiProjects?
WiR is intended to be a parent project and a resource hub for other projects (in all languages) whose scope covers women and their works, such as

And related projects

What specific efforts is WikiProject Women in Red making to reduce/improve the content gender gap?
  • We maintain lists of blogs, conferences, contests, discussions (Wikipedia; Wikimedia), editathons, Inspire grantees' projects, mailing-lists, meet-ups, newspaper articles, scholarly articles, social media campaigns, workshops, etc. We use Wikidata to manage several aspects of the project because of its size and scope.
  • We hope to collaborate with international festival organizers (example: Litquake).
  • In addition to needing editors to write the articles, several key volunteer positions have been identified: Data Coordinator; Promotions/Events Coordinator; Lead Coordinators for each language.
  • We hope to establish a teaming arrangement with the Wiki Education Foundation as we believe university students are important to this endeavor. We would like to build on the education outreach efforts described by User:Kruusamägi (Wikimania submission: Possibilities for university cooperation: Estonian example) "Every academic year more than 500 articles on Estonian Wikipedia are created as part of local cooperation with universities."
  • Work together with the Wikimedia Chapters
  • Build on Wikimedia's "Address the gender gap/FAQ"
How can I help? Who can join?
Anyone can join! You do not need to have edited Wikipedia before, nor is the project restricted to women. Any help you can give, big or small, is greatly appreciated! To get started read our primer.

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

To do Women in conflict zones[edit]


While discussing on women related topics on a talk page I realized that following topics deserve attention for as articles. Wartime sexual violence article is available but it does not cover many other aspects related to Women in conflict zones

Women in conflict zones, Civil life in conflict zones,
Expand : Collateral damage
Civilian casualties need to have summarized section of Women in conflict zones.
Please contribute to the topics if those interest you.

Bookku (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Bookku for bringing this gap in coverage to our attention. The List of ongoing armed conflicts should provide a basis for articles along these lines. Many of the related articles (e.g. Afghanistan conflict (1978–present), Women in Afghanistan, Women in Yemen, Syrian civil war, Women in Syria) contain pertinent passages. There are also useful external sources such as Women in Conflict Zones - Oxfam Digital Repository and Women, War and Peace - UNIFEM report. It's not exactly my field of interest but I certainly agree it would be useful for Wikipedia to cover the topic in more detail. Perhaps we could address "Women in conflict zones" in one of our upcoming monthy priorities.--Ipigott (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there are a whole load of redlinks in this area. Dsp13 (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, The link given by User:Dsp13 brought a small query in my mind, Whether Women in conflict zones title would be able to cover role and participation of women in conflicts and wars or for that we would need some change in proposed title some thing like Women and conflict zones or whether an entirely separate article with some other heading will be needed where women spearhead or participate in a War. Bookku (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC) May be I will start with Draft:Women, conflicts and conflict zones as a preliminary mix baggage coat rack in Draft namespace and fork out every independent article as they develop. I know Wikipedians get immediately over-concerned about coat racks but I am not proposing it for main name space. In main namespace we will have articles whichever develop first in Draft:Women, conflicts and conflict zones.

Bookku (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Bookku: You'll be pleased to hear that in September we'll be focusing on Women in conflict zones. We look forward to your contributions.--Ipigott (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, While my space is too slow -since busy in some RfC discussions-but draft page is at Draft:Women, conflict and conflict zones Thanks again for proactive support Bookku (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback Requested: Activist Preload Draft Template[edit]

Hello WikiProject Women in Red!

I thought it might be useful and fun to make a preload draft template for activists. I'm currently an intern at Smith College Special Collections, where the institution holds the papers of so many activists, but I think this could be useful elsewhere as well.

Further, I had the idea to include ample hidden notes within the draft, in an attempt to assist those who are new to editing Wikipedia, and I worked to tailor it to what would be good to know about the lives of activists, in particular. From what I can tell, the use of hidden notes is not a common practice within Wikipedia, but I think there's a real possibility for hidden notes to lower the barriers to editing for those new to the process (or, that's my thought process, anyway.)

I would love some feedback on this preload template draft, the notes, the content, anything. Also, what might next steps be into making my Sandbox draft into a real workable thing? (I had the idea that I could simply make the page with the URL as "Template:Preloaddraft/Activist" and just hit publish.) I'm not sure that that would make it quite useable yet. If anyone has any insight on what to do to take it to the next level (i.e. published and useable) that would be much appreciated.

Thank you to any feedback or assistance you may be able to provide! - Fernmother (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Well, I can't say I like the over-nannying but I guess it's fine, except where it says hidden text is green and in brackets? Since when? At least correct that so the first thing in there isn't just wrong. Kingsif (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Fernmother:I have just seen this template for an activist. It is something that would have helped me a lot as I stumbled to work out what could/should be on a page. It is more general that just an activist; headings and suggestions work for many people. One thing that would still help me is including suggestions about notability (ie sourcing and including evidence that the activist is notable).--MerielGJones (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Margaret F. Winner[edit]

Could I please have some help with this entry on an artist and illustrator? FloridaArmy (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Just had a look at this one. I don't suppose she's the Margaret Winner mentioned in the Sevenoaks Chronicle and Kentish Advertiser on 16 May 1919 is she? It's a paid-for resource but basically the article is a review of the Royal Academy show and mentions local people with work in the show: "In the sculpture gallery the only local exhibitor is Miss Margaret Winner, of Tenterden, who has a finely conceived memorial group". Wouldn't help with notability if it is her, but might suggest some more lines of enquiry. Tacyarg (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Ellen S. Stewart[edit]

Another APS Fellow who poses some challenges!

The APS archive lists her as "Ellen S. Stewart", which is not the easiest of names to search for. However, one of her publications included the middle name "Swomley" in the byline, which led to an obituary that said she remarried and went by Ellen Kuhns. I'm reluctant to use the obituary itself as a source — it looks to have been sent in by the family and not necessarily vetted — but it does give particulars that could be followed up on. Supposing that we can gather the documentation to write an article, we'd have to decide what to title it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@XOR'easter:, draft is looking good! (missing categories). Would be a shame to leave it in draft space.. SportsOlympic (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
SportsOlympic, thanks. It's probably close to ready; I wanted to find better documentation on when she remarried and started going by Kuhns instead of Stewart, and I haven't really had the opportunity to go back and do that. XOR'easter (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I moved the article (already) to the main space. Sorry that I was bold ;) The article is good enough; and otherwise the image would be deleted. If you find more sources; it can still be added ;) SportsOlympic (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Any more suggestions, and an update[edit]

Have a couple left to do, mainly Leach, Fanny Fern, and an extremely difficult-looking Mary Louise Booth restoration, but I'm running low again. Last time was.... super-productive, so I'm open to new suggestions. Of the last batch (Not counting Booth. who should be featurable, but isn't done yet), Kee Mar College and Nelly Martyl ended up being high enough resolution for Featured picture candidates (and I snuck in the decidedly NOT red-linked Constance Baker Motley as well) - but I'm now open to a new set of suggestions. Oh, and as of Sunday, I should be over 500 featured pictures, which is nice, with 120 of those being woman-related, which is... well, it's way better than it would have been if I hadn't joined Women in Red - I think only about 20 of those predate me joining WiR - but it certainly could be better. One of the reasons I'm so strict with the 50% minimum rule, nowadays, I suppose. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 05:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden: Your contributions and the assistance you have given to our members have done much to enhance Women in Red. We look forward to your continued support.--Ipigott (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, I do my best. All I can do. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 06:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this, but as a media historian (and since last I posted, an actual award-winning media historian...which turns out to be a thing), I wanted to suggest something related to women in broadcasting. I do a lot of research on women in early broadcasting in the US, Canada, and England, but wondered if (a) we have a category for that, and (b) some contributors could add women broadcasters from other countries. DonnaHalper (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@DonnaHalper: D'ye mean for October's drive, or for images? The big problem I've found with broadcasters is that there's a fairly small category of images that are actually out of copyright, pretty much American images that failed to follow the requirements for copyright protection back when that was a thing, and.... well, most of the rest are pretty locked down copyright-wise, or are taken by Wikipedians so there's no need for me to step in.
That said, congratulations on the award! Which award is it, and d'we reckon ye now count as notable per Wikipedia's rules? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 19:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I do have some rare photos in my personal collection, having written a book about women in American broadcasting. And yes, I'm referring to either articles about pioneering women broadcasters and/or photos of them. As for whether I'm noteworthy or not, I'm not exactly famous, but some folks do know my work (6 books, many articles, 4 decades in broadcasting etc.). I actually have a Wikipedia page that someone did for me a while back (imagine my surprise) but I'm not allowed to update my own page. If I could, I would mention several of the awards I've won, and the organizations that gave them to me. I was also included in a rock video recently, "Spirit of Radio," commemorating the rock band I'm credited with discovering (Rush): [1] And several weeks ago, in honor of a century of women voting, the Quincy Patriot-Ledger named me one of the notable South Shore women of the Century (the South Shore refers to the part of MA that is south of Boston). [2] DonnaHalper (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic image gallery? Maybe.[edit]

Maternity clothing probably has way too many images without context or necessity, I hope its not prego-fetish, for WP:NOTGALLERY. Most doesn't try to be contextual, and some doesn't even have captions. Can someone clean it up a bit, and help to reduce unwarranted voyeurism on the Wikipedia? Aditya(talkcontribs) 14:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: File:Ergoloc von schwangerer Frau getragen.jpg looks suspicious as "own work". Beyond that, I think it's just a case of cleaning up the article, which I have now done - there is now a reasonable lead and pictures are restricted to an appropriate opening picture and historical and military dresses. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
That image looks like COI from a German company. de:Beckenringorthese is pretty spammy looking. But I don't speak German and I would venture it needs an actual deletion discussion. It's also from 2013 and it's damned near impossible to prove the source of an image from seven years ago on the internets.
Otherwise, noting that the article is still pretty daggum Western, and could probably use some broadening in general. GMGtalk 15:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The description translates as "The Ergo-Lock sits below the waistline". Sounds like corporate spam. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
While the article is okay, the images and their intentions may not be. Too many images to illustrate the same thing can't be the result of an encyclopedic intention, I believe.
The poster originally wanted me to include it in another article, and when I raised the issue of WP:NOTGALLERY, she/he just came over and posted it here (see discussion: Talk:Cleavage (breasts)#Maternity dress). Her/his stated interest was to gratuitiously including a "sexy maternity fashion". Highly suspiscious? I guess so.
In fact his declaration "never mind--I will post it at the maternity clothing article" led me to the Maternity article. Since I am involved in this discussion, I feel obliged to ask for opinions and some action at arrporpriate forums, if necessary. I hope it isn't WP:FORUMSHOP. Aditya(talkcontribs) 15:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Uhh... Maybe this was meant to be a sex-positive thing and it was badly presented...and I mean...I'm all for sex positivity...But uh...@Gandydancer: maybe you should consider where the line between sex positivity and objectification lies going forward. It's a bit hard to find the level of AGF that renders a comment like that not-cringy. GMGtalk 15:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
What on earth??? After years of working on woman-related articles I have become "suspicious" and need to have "someone [help to clean up my work] and help to reduce unwarranted voyeurism on the Wikipedia" ??? Holy cow...I'm the leading editor of the breastfeeding article. Is it surprising that I work on the maternity fashions article? Is it voyeurism to show a modern woman showing her "baby bump" fashion or a pregnant woman wearing an evening outfit that shows her cleavage? Sorry, but this is just nuts. I will ask fellow female editor @Atsme: to have an opinion here. Gandydancer (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Gandydancer, I am aghast at the replies by my trusted (male?) colleagues. I don't think they quite grasp the concept of a woman's sense of self-esteem, much less fashion or what women consider beautiful in a broad sense (no pun intended) - which is typically in the eyes of the beholder. To my colleagues - what I do know is that Gandydancer is a highly respected and competent editor on WP, and I have absolutely no doubt about her judgment - even in situations where I might disagree with her. Her information either comes from her own expert knowledge or from an honest opinion. This discussion needs to end here so we can move forward and actually create an article that appeals to humans who are seeking an encyclopedic perspective. Atsme Talk 📧 19:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, I can't see anything wrong with the images in the article. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong versions, but I don't see anything I would call sex positive or objectifying, including in this version. If it's David's image we're discussing (File:Vera Farmiga pregnant Met Opera 2010 Shankbone.jpg) and the cleavage, it's very mild, it's a pretty dress, and it's not in any way (to my eyes) sexual. SarahSV (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I assume some of the photos in this article have been replaced or removed since the discussion began. As of now, I think they are just fine to illustrate it & wonder if there is any more to add to this Talk. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
SV, it's also about this image which Gandy suggested for Cleavage (breasts). Atsme Talk 📧 21:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Atsme, I'll take a look there too. SarahSV (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gandydancer: As I said, it may have just been a sex-positive thing that was misinterpreted. I don't know that we're familiar and it wasn't my intention to give offense. GMGtalk 22:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@BeenAroundAWhile, no photos have been changed. The Victorian and baby bump photos were removed and I returned them. Gandydancer (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Please see MOS:SANDWICHING. We cannot include inordinate amounts of images as they create formatting problems, especially as it concerns extra wide monitors and mobile users. It is a limitation of the medium we are using that the number of images must grow with the length of the article. GMGtalk 01:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@Gandydancer: I am sorry that I have offended you (would not probably have happened if you did not snap at me). For one I didn't check your background, and jumped at what I saw. Not always a good idea. For another, I come from an article on the cleavage, a magnet for voyeuristic intentions, which keeps me highly suspiscious of any image without an encyclopedic context (and many even with context). I have been getting second opinions on every single image used on the article, whcih I will continue to get.
I hope you can forgive my somewhat over-reaction looking at the context. I also hope that we can come out of this slight dispute as friends and better editors.
TeacupY Here, let me pour you a cup of hot Darjeeling. I know it may not be enough to make up for any hurt I caused. But... I have only my aplogies and virtual tea to offer. By the way, I did look for some RS supported context to go with that image (and failed as miserably as my interactions). Aditya(talkcontribs) 12:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
This entire episode has been very distasteful for me. It all started when you had such a strong reaction to my suggestion to use a maternity fashion that showed cleavage. Then you followed the photo to the maternity clothing article and called its inclusion a prego-fetish. Sorry but I find this idea rather bizarre. Presently the maternity fashions page now lacks any photo at all demonstrating modern fashion in which there is no attempt to hide a woman's "baby bump", as was shown in the woman wearing a tight fitting knit outfit that closely outlined her pregnant shape. I don't much care that the modern evening gown was removed but I do care that we now have nothing any later than more than a hundred years ago. However, since this place is run by the consensus way of deciding disagreements and I have had no support what so ever, I have not re-added the modern photo. Gandydancer (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I am very new to Wikipedia and, admittedly, I lack the knowledge of professional "wiki-isms" that many know here but after reading this entire dialogue I would like to point out some inconsistencies. In my opinion, by trying to combat what was perceived as possible objectification of women the exact opposite was done. The article is about maternity clothing and how it has changed and evolved yet only shows a very limited margin of clothing styles. Since when does being pregnant mean that a woman can't feel sexy or confident in her appearance? Pregnancy is an amazing expression of the creative power of a woman. Women can be shown in articles here in Wikipedia in a far more objectifying way than any pictures I have seen connected to this article. I get that we must temper our display out of the abundance of respect for other viewpoints but we shouldn't feel ashamed to show off our bodies or hide them while being pregnant any more than when we aren't. I have lived in several places around the world and this thinking pervades throughout the "western" nations. By limiting the article further we are making it more "western" and less inclusive of other ideas that may be more international but also more free in expression. Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to tell the whole story as much as possible, free of bias toward a specific and narrowed vision of a topic? Being new to Wikipedia does make me ignorant of somethings but being new also allows me to see things from a different perspective. Most of the rules at Wikipedia aren't meant to suppress freedom of inclusion but to protect all points of view from a neutral position. From what I have seen I lean my support towards Gandydancer. Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I see that my profuse apologies and virtual tea wasn't enough to show how sad I am about making a fellow editor so upset. It's okay if you continue to scream at me because some picture couldn't be used. I understand that short of reinstating that picture somewhere this bad feeling wouldn't go away. I also understand that in a community, congeniality matters almost as much as consensus. Let me see how I can ammend the situation. That's the third thing I can offer, after apologies and virtual tea – voluntary hardwork. Please, don't be offended if I come back once again to apologise, after I get your preferred image included. Aditya(talkcontribs) 13:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Update:  Done I hope the edit works and is agreeable to the good people here. Aditya(talkcontribs) 13:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Aditya Kabir: I am certainly not screaming at you and if anyone does scream at you let me know. We can disagree and even debate topics without demeaning eachother or personal attacks. We each have those things we are passionate about and everyone here that contributes in a constructive way to articles, debates and conversations is an asset.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
It never occured to me that a comment clearly intended for Gandydancer would be recieved, and duely offended, by someone else. My bad. It was not meant for you, so absolutely no need to take offence.
My communication skills may have a lot of area of improvement, but I am a bit mystified by the readiness to be offended I see in this discussion. Do you really need to trash someone who is admiting their mistakes, explaining what led them to it, apologising profusely, and making ammends for any damage done?
I really wonder about what would happen to poor Christ if he came here offering the other cheek. Face-smile.svg I hope I am not being offensive again. Cheers (No hard feelings at all. I recieved too much help and learned a lot from this awesome project already). Aditya(talkcontribs) 14:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I really hope this isn't some attempt to make me feel guilty for speaking up or to silence me by your religious references. There is a reason why these talk pages are public access. We all come from different walks of life. If you can find one shred of anything I said that isn't factual I will acknowledge and recant. I have feelings but I don't write articles based on them solely. Neither do I respond or voice my opinions based solely on feelings. I definitely do not and have not "trashed" anyone. You claim I am offended yet I never once used the word to characterize anything I've said or felt. To the contrary, I gave my objective opinion and sided with Gandydancer after seeing their plea that no one who could see it from their perspective spoke up. So I did. That is all. And now we have wasted far more time on this particular issue than was needed. Have a nice day or night. :-)Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
For the record, my issues with the article when I looked at it were the suspicion that the Ergoloc image was actually a copyright violation, the lead was too short and the article wasn't as well-presented as it could be. The selection of images showing the evolution of maternity wear now looks better. The main concern with images should be that they help the reader to understand the topic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Aditya Kabir Perhaps Tsistunagiskayou was confused because you referred to an editor screaming at you, since it certainly was not anything I have written (though she/he said nothing uncivil either). As for "what would Jesus say", I'm pretty sure that I know but we need not get into that here on this talk page about women's fashions. Face-smile.svg Gandydancer (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I am sure the son of immaculate conception wouldn't bother about this earthly matters. That religious reference was as pious as Ricky Geravis. No worries.
@Gandydancer: I guess we are good now, and I have been finally able to establish my innocence (though not firmly). Provided that I don't mess things up, hopefully some we can be friends too. I can definitely drink to that. What would you prefer – a virtual cup of hot tea free from the template gallery, or a virtual mug of chilled beer from the same outlet? Aditya(talkcontribs) 18:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

September Women in Red edithons[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177

Online events:

Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

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

Social media: Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

@Megalibrarygirl:, @Ipigott: It just occurred to me - does the Writers event include Women's works as well? There are some redlists that are pretty hefty and could also use some love: Books, Poems, Novels, Plays. - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Whisperjanes, oh yes, indeed! Glad you brought it up, and that should be clarified on the event page. Do you feeling like doing so? Also, we should add redlists. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Sure! I'll go ahead and add it, and let you know when I'm done (so you can tell me if it looks alright) :) - Whisperjanes (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Finished! Feel free to adjust, if you'd like. - Whisperjanes (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@Whisperjanes: thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Edith C. Halbert[edit]

Another APS Fellow, active in the 1950s–1970s:

I've been having a bit of trouble finding out whether or not Halbert is still alive. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Her DOB, via the unreliable source, is 1931; the same site says she lives in Oak Ridge TN. That might be helpful in a search for sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! That at least sounds plausible (she would then have gotten a bachelor's degree at age ~20, and she did work at ORNL). Also on the list for being elected APS Fellow in '72 is Elizabeth Baranger. Someone who looks to be a relative wrote what would basically be an article if it were here; presuming that his references check out, writing an article for her shouldn't be terribly difficult. XOR'easter (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Elena Castedo[edit]

Please see User talk:Elranchito. This shows up at Category:Wikipedians looking for help She is referring to Elena Castedo about herself, and she wants help in updating it. — Maile (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed this article was created for a 2017 WIR drive. — Maile (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Can I get second opinions on two articles?[edit]

I wrote two bios this week and I could use a second opinion on each.

1. Mary Schenck Woolman got drive-by-tagged just hours after I posted it. It is only a vague comment about writing style. I kinda think I know what the tagger meant, and I've rewritten those parts and deleted a few things. Have I fixed it?

2. Marion Coats Graves is still in my sandbox. My gut says this woman is notable, and I'm ready to post, but the sourcing is thinner than I usually like to do. Do you think I need more sources here? Any suggestions on where to find them?

Ooops, nevermind on Marion Coats, once my coffee kicked in I found two additional books that mention her, and one filled in the open question of when she retired. I think I'm good now, I've moved that sandbox to article space. Still need an opinion Woolman though. --Krelnik (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Umm...@DGG: I'm not entirely sure that rii much like an admiring obituary is necessary helpful. And I'm not sure I see any glaring errors in tone that differ substantially from tone I myself have used in a number of GA bios. GMGtalk 15:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, I have revised the article since that tag was applied, but it did leave me scratching my head a bit. --Krelnik (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the article now, I agree and think you're safe to remove the tag. - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, I've removed the tag. --Krelnik (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I. just rechecked the article, and removed a few sentences near the edn, the ones that most strongly gave me that impression. I don't conside hwat I do as drive-by taggng: I try to review interesting articles, especially interesting articles in fields where we need coverage, as soon as possible after submission---in this case before the article might get challlenged by someone who thinks her field of professional work unimportant --such challenges used to happen a good deal more--people here have finally been learning, & I like to think that my arguments 10 to 12 years ago had something to do with it. . When I check, I look for only the most prominent problems--drive by tagging usually refers to automatically tagging every possible deficiency, and that is decidedly not how I work. I remain convinced it needed tagging, and it needed the improvement I made. A good case could however have been made that I should have just removed it myself, but when itswork by an established editor, I like to give them the chance, Naturally, if you really do think those sentences encyclopedic, , we can discuss it on the article talk p. If so, please let me know. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I understand. Well I believe every sentence in the original version was cited to a source. Admittedly some of those sentences were not "by the numbers" encyclopedic (she did this in this year, then did this in that year). But frankly I think some of our biographies are dreadfully boring, and I'm always looking for some personal color or an interesting story that I can pull from the sources. For instance, that this woman and her husband were from two very notable families, but then health problems devastated her and led her to New York where her career got started. Or the details you just removed at the end as "fluff" about her having a sense of humor and doing carpentry on a cottage during the summer. That helps make this person more of a person to the reader, and I don't consider them fluff. And again, they are in the sources. --Krelnik (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@Krelnik: Minor suggestions on Woolman, Could you elaborate the Career section start, "This led to Woolman…" so "This" is clear and independent of the prior section? Thank you for creating these articles. StrayBolt (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the suggestion! --Krelnik (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


I'm planning on writing an article for Alex Anderson, but Alex Anderson redirects to the disambiguation page Alexander Anderson. How would I go about choosing an article title? SL93 (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

SL93: Call it Alex Anderson (quilter) or Alex Anderson (quilt artist). Then add a link on Alexander Anderson.--Ipigott (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Ipigott I guess I will do that. Although the idea of linking it to that disambiguation page when her name isn’t Alexander is annoying. SL93 (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Take over the redirect, make it into your article, put a hatnote on it pointing to the Alexander Anderson DAB page. Or start it with your own title then ask an admin to move it over the redirect (so you get an article creation statistic). As you note, Alex != Alexander. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Or else turn Alex Anderson into a DAB page which points at your page and at the Alexander Anderson page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Tagishsimon I used your first suggestion. Now I'm trying to at least figure out what year she was born in. I didn't think it would be so difficult. SL93 (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Don't sweat it too much. Very many living people, for obviously good reasons, don't promulgate their DoBs. We shouldn't, either, as a WP:BLPPRIVACY issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure she has a claim to be the Primary Topic for Alex A. The cartoonist, who was originally at the basic title but was moved, has quite a steady set of page views. I think there should be an Alex A. disambiguation page, and this woman should be at ".. (quilter)". PamD 23:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. The cartoonist’s actual name is Alexander. SL93 (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
That isn't relevant ( and do you really know that the quilter wasn't baptised as Alexandra or Alexis?) Even if his full name is Alexander he can still be the Primary topic for "Alex", or a reason for the quilter not being the primary topic. PamD 05:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
PamD I still disagree. I don’t even know why the cartoonist’s article is titled Alex when even his obituary refer to him as Alexander. All reliable sources that are accessible for Alex Anderson refers to her as just Alex. Alex is an actual valid common name. I suggest renaming the cartoonist to Alexander, per many of the sources I found. SL93 (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I renamed the cartoonist to Alexander Anderson (cartoonist). Also, searching Google for Alex Anderson only reveals the quilter on the first page. I'm not going to change that article title because of someone's earlier bad naming of an article. SL93 (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
The cartoonist is clearly more commonly known as Alex (obituaries are often more formal than real life descriptions: try a google search on "rocky squirrel anderson"). I have reverted the move and will make a formal move request later but need to do some real stuff right now before the shops shut for early-closing day. PamD 10:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Alex Anderson the quilter is only known as Alex. I undid your edit. SL93 (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
PamD I renamed the article that I started. My issue was linking someone whose name clearly isn't Alexander to a disambiguation page named that. It's no use arguing my point, when I feel that Alex Anderson (cartoonist) redirecting to Alexander Anderson (cartoonist) is equally valid due to the name still getting people to the desired article, it's his given name, and there are sources that actually use it including in the media. Some sources even tack on Jr at the end. SL93 (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Alex Anderson is now a dab page. SL93 (talk)
@SL93: Thanks, that's what I was planning to create when I got back, and was then planning to do a formal Request Move, so I'm delighted to see that we've got there now. I'm certainly not biased towards the cartoonist, who I'd never heard of before (and not biased towards men, if that was what you were implying - see my WiR record), but I'm wary when someone creates an article on the assumption that the person they are interested in is the WP:Primary Topic. I'm sure most readers are best served with what we've got now. Thanks again. PamD 11:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
PamD I wasn’t implying that. Although, I do feel that whoever added women articles to Alexander Anderson might be. SL93 (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • All this goes to show that discussion leads to a sensible solution. A new dab page was obviously called for. Thanks to all concerned.--Ipigott (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I found an interesting woman in red[edit]

Columbia Soralgi, right, with John Hamilton-Gordon at a high-society fête in Aberdeen in 1924.

Columbia Soralgi, First Indian woman to practise at the bar in India. There's a fantastic photo of her, as well. What think ye? I was looking for interesting Scots. But I'll no look a giftie horse in the mooth. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 04:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: yes that photo is terrific. I wonder if the spelling of her name is correct, as I can only find this mention of her ("Miss Columbia Soralgi is the first Indian woman to practise at the Bar in India") in the social pages. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, I think Columbia can be chalked up to an OCR error: Cornelia Sorabji.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I've made a redirect, to save anyone else going round this loop. PamD 06:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, drat. Still, good we have an article. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 06:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Should we not include the image into the article (the whole of it)? Aditya(talkcontribs) 11:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
We not only have an article on Cornelia Sorabji, we have articles on two of her sisters, educator Susie Sorabji and medical doctor Alice Maude Sorabji Pennell, and her mother Francina Sorabji, and her nephew Richard Sorabji. Quite a family! Penny Richards (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
But until a few minutes ago they weren't all linked from each others' articles. PamD 15:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

GA Review for Kaʻiulani[edit]

Anybody interested in reviewing the article expansion on Kaʻiulani for GA status? It would be nice to post this on the main page as a DYK on the 145th anniversary of her birth on October 16. KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Rae Foley[edit]

This is a question about wikidata and writer's pseudonyms. I see that Rae Foley is a pseudonym for Elinor Denniston. There is a redirect in Wikipedia from Rae to Elinor, but there is wikidata for both Rae Foley (Q3928916) and Elinor Denniston (Q64148484) . I think the two should be merged in wikidata under Elinor Denniston, but do not know the protocol for pseudonyms. Any suggestions? Can authority control be added to a redirect page? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Like you, I'm not v.familiar with how wikidata handles pseudonyms; probably both as discrete items and as a single item, is my guess. There is a pseudonym property - - and that being the case I cannot see any objection to merging the two items. We'll give that a go, shall we? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, elegant solution. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)  Done

Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon[edit]

Oh dear, another quandary in writers and wikidata. There is an article on Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, both deceased. There are redirects for both Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon to the shared article. There are wikidata entries for Del Martin (Q445893) and Phyllis Lyon (Q15056022) and Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon (Q15056017). May I add the shared article to the individual (populated) wikidata entries? Any suggestions? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No. This is where it all breaks down into a little heap of bent springs and dislocated cogs. The so-called 'Bonnie & Clyde" problem. I think the best way forward, sadly, is to do manual {{Authority control}} for the joint article - i.e. specifying values in the wikipedia template rather than relying on Wikidata populating them. So Template:Authority_control#Usage. Can you put two {{Authority control}} on the same article? Probably, but I've never tried. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
This template and the Bonnie & Clyde problem on the template talk page, fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I was able to add two formatted authority control templates on the article. Looks messy, but may have to do. I guess there was a reason these women were not noteworthy enough to have their own pages with a see main article Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon? Whoops, I see this was debated on the talk page back in 2010 culminating in no consensus. BTW, I tried to add the existing article to the two discreet wikidata items and was prevented by the springs and cogs.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikidata allows only a single sitelink to a language wikipedia article. It's possible to kludge a redirect into the wikidata item, but for other reasons, it somewhat degrades the database. Bottom line is that Bonnie & Clyde articles create issues which wikidata and templates deal with poorly, and there's little if any prospect of that situation improving. So, we improvise, as you've done to good effect here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


Not to toot my own horn, but this new article might be a good one to tweet, she's a biracial lesbian rapper who's become TikTok famous for her sex-positive songs, so possibly high interest. No image unfortunately. —valereee (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Sharbat Gula aka 'Afghan Girl'[edit]

Hi friends, I wondered if anyone could help me out with checking and tidying a page I made for Sharbat Gula who is the woman photographed in the National Geographic image Afghan Girl? I had not noticed there was a re-direct page there already, so made a Draft:Sharbat Gula page. I've copied and pasted the content, and added a merge request for histories, but is there anything else I should do? It ended up being more complicated than I imagined, so I feel like I have missed things out. Also, what do I do about the (now empty) Draft:Sharbat Gula. Help and advice gratefully received! (Lajmmoore (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC))

List of books for women writers month[edit]

As a focus for September is women writers & their works, I'd like to call your attention to a good resource for red-linked books by women. An article creation drive sponsored by the Women's Environmental History Network and Environmental History Now identified these books to address systemic bias in our coverage of environmental topics. Most of the books are by authors who are women, trans, or non-binary. You can see the full list here. gobonobo + c 06:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I've put the redlinked environmental writers here, feel free to move them if there is somewhere more useful. Dsp13 (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
And here's Susan Schrepfer. Dsp13 (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Peer review request[edit]

Requesting peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Women in Islam/archive1,

Bookku (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Help with COI editing[edit]

A number of editors have been trying to stop unreferenced and/or COI editing, both by registered Users and IP addresses, of the bio of Aida Tomescu. Despite discussion on the Talk page, the COI editing has continued. Today's edit summaries confirm the COI: "Citations & edits made in line with artist's wishes" and "Edits made, additional information added and corrections as specified by the artist". Can someone here help with this? Oronsay (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Oronsay:, hopefully the rollbacks by Tagishsimon and yourself will deter some of this type editing on that particular article. I think if a few of us watch these hot spots closely we can revert most of them quickly. Thank you for bringing it up here. I've added it to my watchlist.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Tagishsimon and Tsistunagiska thank you. Ongoing oversight and action by more editors may eventually halt IP editors and others from making unreferenced additions and providing deliberately misleading edit summaries, at least that's my hope. Oronsay (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Portraits of American Women[edit]

Some interesting content on this page from the Library Company of Philadelphia; I'm not sure of the original sources, but they appear likely to be public domain. They are broken up into three sets:

Cursory investigation revealed that we do not have articles for at least two of them, so there's likely some fodder here for work. Especially as the focus this month is on women writers. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Occupational tag for President of Canadian Space Agency?[edit]

Hi all -- looking for some quick advice. I'm drafting a new page for Lisa Campbell, a Canadian lawyer who has just been appointed the first female President of the Canadian Space Agency, but she's not the first Lisa Campbell on Wikipedia (an Australian badminton player got there first). I'm not sure what occupational tag to include in my article's title. Suggestions? She's not really notable for her law work, and her other positions have been mainly government-appointed (assistant deputy minister, associate deputy minister, etc). Would "civil servant" or "executive" be reasonable here? Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave: I would go with "civil servant" per precedent at Margaret Kelly (civil servant) an assistant director of the United States Mint, which I think is broadly comparable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Richie -- I'll go with that! Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Sofia Levkovskaya[edit]

This just popped into the slush pile. It's apparently a translation from the Russian Wikipedia, but I can't find the original article. Can anyone help clean it up? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333: It's Левковская, София Сергеевна. I've linked it via Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Meetup page categorisation[edit]

The /Meetup subpages clutter Category:WikiProject Women in Red quite a bit; at the same time, a lot of them are only categorised in the year subcategories Category:Women in Red edit-a-thons. I suggest all these pages are moved to the year categories to clean the main category up. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It is very easy to turn an aquarium into bouillabaisse, it is impossible to reverse the process. I think it is valuable to have the categories and don't know what would be lost by moving them. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@WomenArtistUpdates: It would be helpful if we were consistent. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/136 has Category:WikiProject Women in Red and Category:Women in Red 2019, while Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/135 only has the latter. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
1234qwer1234qwer4 So the recommendation, specifically, is to check each numbered Meetup page to ensure that is has both the category with year, like Category:Women in Red 2019, and the overarching maintenance tag Category:WikiProject Women in Red? If others agree, I can go through and do that. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm supportive as better categorization helps with findability. Plus, if someone has time+inclination, I think it would be okay to create additional ones, e.g. for all the "geofocus" events or some such, if you think that would be helpful. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
WomenArtistUpdates, Well, I suggested to remove the main Category:WikiProject Women in Red category, but if others share your opinion that overcategorisation is okay here, I'd go with that. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I sympathize with 1234qwer1234qwer4's interest in cleaning up the WiR categories but if we embark on this enterprise, we will need to be very careful. If you take Category:Women in Red edit-a-thons, for example, you will see that it contains subcategories by year such as Category:Women in Red 2015,, etc, which contain not only our WiR meetups but also pages relating to metrics, templates and article titles. Here the first step might be to remove the "year" categories from pages which should not have been included. I see that under Category:WikiProject Women in Red there are indeed one or two pages which could be decategorized (e.g. User:Andrew Davidson and User:Rosiestep). It might well be useful to change the categories of all our meetup pages to the appropriate year under Women in Red edit-a-thons and also create a new subcat for Category:Women in Red/Metrics under which year categories such as Category:Women in Red/Metrics/2015, etc., could be created. All the metrics pages under our main category could then be categorized accordingly.
By and large, however, it looks to me as if our categories have been maintained pretty well over the years and to the best of my knowledge, until now nobody has questioned them. Furthermore, if we create more subcategories, we will all need to apply them correctly, which might be easier said than done. I therefore suggest, that apart from minor cleanups, we continue to apply our categories as we have in the past.--Ipigott (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ipigott: "apply our categories as we have in the past" means categorising the meetup pages as inconsistently as now? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
1234qwer1234qwer4: I'm not sure the inconsistencies you point to cause any serious problems. But it may be useful to seek further opinions, for example from Ser Amantio di Nicolao or Headbomb. As for suggesting the meetup pages should be categorized by the years, one of the problems for me seems to be that the year categories are not sufficiently explicit and have therefore attracted other items. If they were to be changed to Category:Women in Red editathons 2015, etc., there might be less of a problem. We could also perhaps have Category:Women in Red metrics 2015 and so on. But all this will entail quite a lot of work and there is no guarantee editors will apply all the categories correctly.--Ipigott (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi all and Ipigott, Rosiestep, My offer still stands to check each numbered Meetup page to ensure that is has both the category with year, like Category:Women in Red 2019, and the overarching maintenance tag Category:WikiProject Women in Red. If someone could ping me with a "go ahead" I will proceed. This task will not involve removing or moving any categories, just adding a consistency to all the meetup pages. I don't know much about adding and deleting categories (and it is not on my list of things I want to learn about) but from what I have witnessed from monitoring the pages on my watch list it seems to me that removing categories or moving categories to sub-categories is problematic. I think we may have implied it, but it is worth mentioning to 1234qwer1234qwer4 that Women in Red is an active organization and that we are frequently asked, by a variety of academics and journalists for statistics about our work. The granular categorization is helpful for providing information about our project and the issue of addressing gender bias on Wikipedia. That is one of the reason the group is concern about changing things. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Difficulty finding source[edit]

I'm trying to verify the June 1945 Coronet magazine article that was written by Nan Wood Graham, but I can only find an auction site and The Unz Review. The print source I have only states that there is such an article, but not the date. I will remove the sentence if I can't verify it. SL93 (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if the auction website will work. SL93 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
SL93 The only library that seems to have that magazine is in the UK and it doesn't give a range of years. On the other hand, this article relays what the Coronet article says.[3],[4] SusunW (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
SusunW Thank you for the find. I added that as two references in the article and removed the date. SL93 (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
SL93 You're very welcome. SusunW (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Eugènie Jeanne Devolle[edit]

Anyone want to take a try at Draft:Eugènie Jeanne Devolle, Coco Chanel's mother? I originally found it sitting in draftspace without reliable sources (but there are a good chunk of book sources on the internet that have info about her). I brushed it up and added just a little so far. - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Sophie Wachner - sources?[edit]

What are some good sources for researching early Hollywood? I am working on a draft of Sophie Wachner, a costume designer who was MGM's director of costume design and designed for a ton of movies between 1924 and 1936. Most of the sources on my draft only have small sections about her, but she had an accomplished career and even designed for celebrities like Mary Pickford.

Also, I think it would be good to include images in the article, but I'm not super familiar with fair use, copyright violations, etc. Some of her films are nearly 100 years old, is it possible to include a still or two from those?

Thank you in advance for any help! Emflazie (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I sometimes have luck with the California Digital Newspaper Collection, for California stories, including Hollywood lives. It's free to use, no sign-in or anything required, and (spoiler alert) there are definitely articles about Sophie Wachner in the papers it includes... so, good luck, and have fun! Penny Richards (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Interner archive? - ... Hathi Trust -;q1=%22Sophie%20Wachner%22;a=srchls;lmt=all --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Penny Richards, this looks like a great resource. The issue I've had so far at and Google Books is most text searches just turn up her film credits - I already know she's a costume designer! I was hoping some old Hollywood newspapers would help, and I think this is it. Emflazie (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
You'll need to set up an account to borrow IA books, but I venture to suggest that you'll find what you're looking for in "Film costume, an annotated bibliography", or "Hollywood costume design", or "Dressed : a century of Hollywood costume design" - those three from the first 15 hits on the above IA search. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
My research shows she's included in Costume Design in the Movies: An Illustrated Guide to the Work of 157 Great Designers by Elizabeth Leese, 1991, isbn 978-0486265483. It should be available as an ebook from ProQuest Ebook Central, but I don't know whether anyone can get free access. Oronsay (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The 1976 version of the same: --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red Featured pictures update[edit]

I'm not sure I ever mentioned Hazel MacKaye's lead image is now a featured picture, but it is. Think I can get Kee Mar College to FP, but I need to go back to the 1850s one, not the 1860s image which has some awkward camera distortion. Nelly Martyl and Beulah Ream Allen are both passing. In non-WiR women, Jeanne Granier in Orphée aux enfers and Constance Baker Motley both have passing images.

I have a couple suggestions left to do, but given it's literally two left, I certainly have room for a few more. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 20:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Tilly Koenen, concert artist (SAYRE 4376)

This one might not be good-quality enough for your purposes, but Tilly Koenen just got an English-language article this week, and the best image of her on the Commons has an unfortunate blemish right on her face. I also thought of you when I started an article for Sylvia Storey this week--the image is pretty poor quality, but there are six nice portraits of her in the NPG that are all before 1925. Penny Richards (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


Hi everybody, as a follow-up study to my team's previous research on women’s participation on Wikipedia and user incentives more generally, we are interested in examining how gender and status (adminship) of users shape their contributions to advancing gender equity on Wikipedia. I am reaching out to seek your guidance and feedback on how best to categorize articles related to advancing gender equity. We would like to establish a list of articles such that a contribution to one (or more) of them can be seen as a contribution to advancing gender equity. Ideally, this would be unequivocal such that a user's contribution can be seen as a clear intent to advance gender equity (e.g., contributing to the discussion of "Gender Equality" rather than contributing to a discussion about, say, "Lipstick", which might fall into a larger category of women's issues). We would greatly appreciate any feedback, suggestions, and comments. Here are the main steps of our approach so far: Step 1. We had two assistants help make an overview of WikiProjects related to gender equity and bias. Step 2. From those entries, WikiProject Women in Red appeared to be the largest and most comprehensive. Step 3. We plan to use the Metrics page to compile a list of the pages falling under the umbrella of Women in Red. Engaging in a discussion about any of those articles would be considered a contribution to gender equity. Please let us know if this approach seems reasonable, and/or if you have other ideas for establishing a list of relevant articles. Our analytical focus will be on the articles' Talk pages. We are eager to see your thoughts and thank you in advance for your help.--Nennes (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This sounds difficult. Women in Red focuses on making articles, so that's going to lead to a certain bias, e.g. to women's articles wherein the woman (college, play written by a woman, etc) isn't so famous that she already had an article when the project was founded, and will have been almost entirely written by WiR contributors in the first instance. This means our most productive members will likely dominate talk pages - especially for tasks like, say, adding {{WIR 2020}} or related templates to the talk page.
Let's see. Sample size might be an issue for some things. The bias towards more obscure women's subjects may limit number of talk page posts. Also, specific topics could have specific issues. For example, I think there's... maybe six of us on this project who are active with WP:FP, and that might mean that image discussions might get dominated by us a bit, especially as, for example, SusunW is excellent at researching images, but tends to pass them to me for restoration, which honestly vastly undercredits her if you don't know where to look.
There are a certain number of generic messages that should be disregarded: WP:DYK and WP:POTD templates, say, are semi-botlike edits I believe. I'd also be inclined to take any transclusions of the format Talk:Foo/GA1 (Talk:Foo/GA2, etc) as special cases - These are good article reviews, and I'd expect them to attract from different pools than other edits.
Good luck! I'd love for this research to succeed, but it's not easy research. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 00:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Kind of per Adam, "Engaging in a discussion about any of those articles would be considered a contribution to gender equity" seems a very poor proxy. "Engaging in the creation or improvement of any of those articles would be considered a contribution to gender equity" might work a little better. I think you'll find that discussion of articles - especially biogs arising from WiR - is an exceptional and very uncommon event, outside of Good Article and Featured Article reviews. Example: 4,659 talk pages in Category:WikiProject Women in Red 2020 articles, of which 387 have talk pages greater than 1k in size. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
If I understand this correctly, the analysis will be on the talk page of various articles? If that is correct, I agree with Tagishsimon, that there will be little discussion on the article talk page. Typically what happens is discussion on this talk page, or a member's talk page. As Adam Cuerden said, I like research and my user page is full of discussion about articles that never appears on the talk page of an article. Often when trying to evaluate if an article can be developed there is discussion between project members here or on their talk pages. Can you help me find sources, can you review a draft, does there appear to be enough info, is this a reliable source, etc.? The conversation might also carry over to multiple users talk pages, for example User A asks a question of User B. User C has B's talk page on watch and answers the question. User A then asks a follow-up question on User C's page. These types of discussions rarely happen on an article talk, because an article doesn't yet exist, or because more people will see it if posted here. SusunW (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, Nennes, and thanks for taking such a serious interest in our project. It's really good to hear you are interested in conducting further research on gender equity in connection with Wikipedia. I hope you will keep us informed of your results as they evolve. We may be able to help you along. In addition to the constructive comments already made, I think you might find it useful to look at some of the user pages of the editors who have been most active in creating articles about women. They often provide explanations of why they find it important to try to give more prominence to women and help to correct some of the historical discrepancies between men and women. In addition to Women in Red, you could also look at wp:Women in Green which aims at improving the quality of articles about women to Good Article status or higher. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. And good luck with your research initiative.--Ipigott (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all so much for your quick and extremely helpful feedback! I greatly appreciate it and learned a lot from it. Based on your advice, we will not go with our initial approach of establishing a list of articles and then studying their talk pages. Those are great points you have raised for why this is not suitable. I wonder if an alternative design might be to go from the list of article talk pages that are included in our dataset, and see which ones have a template 'tag' similar to {{WIR 2020}}, which Adam Cuerden mentioned. Is there a list of templates that could serve to categorize articles as being related to gender equity? Might the WIR meta-template even be comprehensive (or as close to comprehensive as it gets)?
Ipigott, I would be intrigued to study the motivations of users who have been especially involved in creating articles about women! And to research how best to support those motivations. Thank you so much for offering your continued support for this research program.--Nennes (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if looking at talk pages of a wikiproject that is exclusively about bias would be a better proxy for this study. Something like this: If you look at the pages there, there are all about bias (some related to gender and some not). You wouldn't have the same concern as you do for the Women in Red group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDI90069 (talkcontribs) 03:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Sunbonnet babies / Bertha Corbett Melcher[edit]

I stumbled across this declined draft: Draft:Sunbonnet babies. It needs some work, but from what I can tell, it is a notable topic in women's folk art. I added a few sources as further reading and I hope to do some work on the draft in the future, but this isn't a topic I know anything about, so I thought I would bring it to the project's attention in case anyone here is interested. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This is such an interesting page! I've had a go with adding a few citations. Will try and do more at a later point! KerstingFan (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@Spicy: This is funny you mention this - I was just thinking about starting an article for Bertha Corbett Melcher yesterday. Her work is great and I think she is notable enough, since I'm pretty sure her books got attention and reviews in newspapers, enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. I'll dig up some of the sources I was looking at. - Whisperjanes (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Awesome work everyone. I moved it to mainspace. :) Spicy (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Margaret Alison Stones[edit]

Hello folks! Please if anyone has the time, could you take a glance over Draft:Margaret Alison Stones? The editor working on it (Gottaleaf) is new to wikipedia and has run out of ideas for how to improve. I've tidied the article so that the achievements are not bullet points but are prose, as suggested by a previous reviewer. Thanks so much for any tips! KerstingFan (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

KerstingFan It seems logical to me that she meets WP:Prof #3 based on membership in Society of Antiquaries of London and Société des Antiquaires de France alone. "Reads like a resume" is not a reason for decline, rather simply a measure for improvement. I've said it before and will again, never submit articles to AfC. Ask here and just have it moved to mainspace. SusunW (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Promoted as Margaret Alison Stones. @MurielMary: FYI. You've yet to explain why you promote rubbish articles like Kuiljeit Uppaal but decline articles that obviously meet notability requirements. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for so quickly reviewing and for your comments, SusunW and Tagishsimon! FWIW, I do think the article reads much better with the prose rather than bullet points, so I was not criticising the feedback from MurielMary, but I was a bit stuck on what to do next! All your advice is super appreciated! KerstingFan (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

International Childfree Day[edit]

Could I have some more eyes on User talk:LLC88 (who self-identifies as Laura Carroll)? After four edits to International Childfree Day, none of which look to be egregious when looked at on their own merits, they have been indefinitely blocked and yelled at. I feel like pointing out that the Conflict of Interest policy is not designed to stop subject experts from correcting factual errors on Wikipedia, but I feel like I'd be wasting my time. Can anybody else deliver a more compassionate response? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether locking the article instead of blocking user could have been a easier option then user will automatically will go to talk page?
Many times I find logic behind Wikipedia rules and implementation strange. I went on to create RfC about Wikipedia talk:Five pillars#Fifth pillar be deleted or rewritten since Wikipedians seem regularly seriously miss on spirit behind Wikipedia has no firm rules: "...The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes:...." the last of fifth pillar.
Spirit is so much missing no one has bothered and opposed deletion RfC yet! :(
Bookku (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bookku: Locking the article would have been a very bad idea. No one person owns an article, any editor has the right to edit any article constructively (unless they personally have been forbidden to do so under some sanction). It certainly looks as if there has been a string of misunderstanding here, with the editor not understanding that she was being told to use the talk page to edit the article, and other editors seeming keener to block than to explain. I've tweaked the target article a little - added the website, expanded the list of winners - but have also trimmed back the self-promoting tone of this addition to National Alliance for Optional Parenthood done under the IP address she uses. PamD 08:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Ritchie333, for bringing this draconian treatment of a newly-registered female Wikipedian to our attention. I am pretty sure that if LLC88 had been treated more courteously from the beginning, everything could have been resolved on an amicable basis. While she was openly supportive of Wikipedia when she started out, she has now been driven into a such a corner that she tells us she will never edit on Wikipedia again. It looks to me as if this is a case which should be brought to the attention of Wikimedia's Trust and Safety initiative.--Ipigott (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I have no way of contacting Laura Carroll other than on her talk page here, and given her previous responses, I'd be surprised if she came back. I'm unsure what Trust and Safety could do - nobody purposefully harassed her, they acted in good faith, but seemingly without thinking about the nuances of what they're doing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
She doesn't seem to have shown any interest in improving the encyclopedia except in connection with the day/award she organises, and as her previous IP persona added some self-promotional stuff to National Alliance for Optional Parenthood.
Her Welcome message on 11 July was the version which talks about COI - but, looking at it, it's a bit of a "wall of text" and although it discusses article creation, shared/corporate usernames, and paid editing it doesn't seem to include anything helpful on the lines of "If you want to suggest a correction or other improvement to an article where you have a Conflict of Interest, please use the article's Talk Page to explain what you think needs to be changed, providing detailed references to reliable independent published sources which support your proposed change. Another editor will then consider these changes and make them if appropriate, but this may not happen immediately.", which seems to be the message she never understood. Perhaps a new variation of the welcome message is needed, without the paragraphs "To reduce..." (about article creation) and "One rule" (about shared/corporate usernames), but including the advice about using talk pages? PamD 13:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I am thinking of starting a Request For Comment to have policy of extensive and exhaustive structure of Examination about Wikipedia rules before one is permitted to edit Wikipedia. And also a bureau of Edit-Visa which will exmine Rehearsing Wikipedia book of Commands should be mandatory in person for every editor.
The most funny part is if one would comment in any comment saying Wikipedians can come up with some Anti-Sarcasm Rule No. So and so, then Wikipedians really come up with one.-Sarcasm is intended. Bookku (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Metrics kaput again[edit]

Let's hope it's temporary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

fixed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto[edit]

Hi, everyone. Me and a few other new editors recently completed a draft for an essay written by Sandy Stone. We would really appreciate generalized feedback, specifically relating to making it ready to survive the review process. We have one issue currently posted to the article's talk page - attention to that would be appreciated as well. Thank you! Rizzolioli (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Rizzolioli, what review process are you concerned about? That the article will be accepted at WP:AfC or new page patrol WP:NPP? It will likely be both. AfC should be (but isn't always) really simple. The question is "would this article survive at WP:AfD". If you have independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject (you do) and the article is not promotional, or a copyright violation, it should pass AfC. NPP has its own way of looking at things, but it's not that different; as long as the sources check out, it should be fine. Vexations (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Vexations, This is very useful information, thank you! After looking at the pages for AfC, AfD, and NPP, I have a much better understanding of the process. Thank you also for taking the time to look over the article and provide encouraging feedback. Rizzolioli (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Rizzolioli: This draft is very well written and referenced. The Analysis and Reception sections establish the essay's notability. I (and am sure any other reasonable editor) would be happy to accept it at AfC. - MapleSoy (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
MapleSoy, Thank you for the encouragement. We will be publishing shortly. Rizzolioli (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Rizzolioli, I've replied on the talk page. Were it me, I would add a note, make sure that the issues here (which all appear to be properly noted by quotation marks or are titles) have been quoted, and then move it to mainspace. There is no need to send it to AfC as that venue is neither required nor an article improvement venue. If you don't know how to move it, just post back here and someone can help. SusunW (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
SusunW, thank you for showing me this tool. I will be sure to look it over! The consensus seems to be that the article appears solid enough to survive NPP, so we will likely move it over to mainspace shortly. I really appreciate your thoughtful and thorough attention to the issue on the talk page. Thanks! Rizzolioli (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Prunella Fraser[edit]

Hello everyone! I've been helping folks to edit Draft:Prunella Fraser, and it's been rejected twice. I wanted to ask the hive mind of more experienced Wikipedians whether you think it's worth resubmitting or if it's just unlikely to ever pass? Thank you! KerstingFan (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

It passes WP:NACADEMIC criteria 3, and should not have been rejected. I have promoted it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this one, Tagishsimon! Much appreciated! KerstingFan (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Fire On Her Tongue: An Anthology of Contemporary Women's Poetry[edit]

Found a reference to this book in an article about the current Poet Laureate of Virginia, Luisa Igloria; it seems to have a number of writers included for whom we don't have articles, currently. Here's a list, if anyone's interested in tackling any:

(Please note, I haven't cleaned it up.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Dillian Gordon[edit]

Hello! I'd be grateful for support with this draft on a very notable art historian and curator who worked for many years at the National Gallery in London. I've listed many publications, including several articles in scholarly journals (Burlington and Apollo), to reflect her activities over many years. The nature of art history is that an individual, newly discovered Italian renaissance altarpiece panel might not merit a whole book to itself, but it will be covered in an article, and that article carries academic weight (it's not just a trivial bit of journalism). Hoping for assistance in getting this article approved - many thanks in advance! CourtauldGill (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you must by now have enough edits (I think only 20 are needed?) to a) move drafts into mainspace yourself, or b) to start articles in mainspace. AfC is a useful but flawed channel, best always avoided. Having confidence in e.g. WP:NBIO and WP:NACADEMIC and being able to cite the grounds for notability in an edit summary (and to check that notability is asserted in the article in a way which maps to either of those) is helpful. Bottom line, be bold. I've promoted this one - Dillian Gordon. (Equally, alternatively, continue to bring these issues here - we will always promote notable bios on the spot.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Tagishsimon: The royal "we"? I think it's fantastic you are so quick on the move with all these AfC drafts. Greatly appreciated.--Ipigott (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you (belatedly) for your help and support. Really appreciate your encouragement to publish articles without going through AfC, which I've now started doing. Still finding my way around as a 3-month novice, but slowly gaining confidence! Thank you again :-) CourtauldGill (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Naomi Ishisaka[edit]

There's been quite a bit of news coverage of this journalist over the past few days in connection with an article which has apparently been deleted without trace. See [5]], [6], etc. Maybe she deserves an article anyway? I see "in 2020, she was awarded first place in the Best in the West competition for Special Topics Column Writing for her work in The Seattle Times" and that she has received quite a number of awards. She seems to have been involved with Black Lives Matter for quite some time. Not sure whether all this makes her notable enough for Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Maybe Another Believer would be interested in looking into this?--Ipigott (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The article was deleted as an attack page, making claims about Ishisaka which the article you link states are false and for which there was little evidence connecting to Ishisaka beyond a similarity of common first names. The attacker who wrote it was indefinitely blocked a month ago. I have no opinion on whether she actually is notable, but the past actions did not involve notability. So if a new article can be written that demonstrates notability as a journalist and does not repeat the previous attacks, the fact that a previous article was deleted should not raise any issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Bluestockings (bookstore)[edit]

There's currently an AFD for Bluestockings (bookstore), a radical feminist bookstore in NYC. Thought the discussion may be of interest here. Marquardtika (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Jayne MacDonald and wider women's issues[edit]

I recently began writing a profile on Jayne MacDonald. Sadly Jane (aged 16) was the fifth victim of the British serial killer known as The Yorkshire Ripper (Peter Sutcliffe). I noticed that none of his 13 known victims had anything written about them - they were just line items on his profile.

Jayne was particularly notable for two reasons: 1. Her death marked a significant change in the investigation because she was regarded as an 'innocent' victim. The previous 4 murders (and possibly more that have never been established) were seen as not as important because the women were dismissed as prostitutes or of low morality. This is an old theme in police investigations of murdered women, but was particularly notable in this case (this issue has been extensively covered). Had the police not seen the investigation as less important, less urgent (the investigation was bungled) more women might not have died. The press only became interested and resources thrown at the case after Jayne was killed. The case is also significant because of the widespread fear it engendered in the North of England amongst women, which altered their behaviour - they were told by authorities not to go out at night or alone. Feminists actually protested this and it was the start of the reclaim the night movement (see Reclaim_the_Night) The impact of these murders on women in the North of England was huge. 2. Jane is also significant because her mother took an unusual step. She sued her murderer and won (the first time this was ever done). This was therefore a landmark case in British law.

Jane's murder was covered internationally, as well as her mother's victory in court. However, having put together the basic article which I was going to add more details to and link to these issues, an editor immediately came along and delinked my profile of Jane from the Yorkshire Ripper's profile and then proposed by article for deletion, citing an essay 'murder of'. This says that everyday murders are not worthy of an article about the victims (fair enough). But he misapplied the criteria laid out in this article to attempt to delete the article about Jayne.

What this brings up is a much bigger issue. While I agree that most murders are local matters (we can't have an article for every DV murder, for example), the victims of notorious cases are often female. This article (murder of) is being used to create a situation where victims are only line items on a murderer's article - effectively revictimising the woman by removing any information about her, the impact of her death etc. It creates a situation where men become notable by murdering women but their victims are deemed unnotable, unimportant and just a means to and end (the fame of the murderer). I have a real problem with that.

I have found a lot of murdered women - extensively covered in the press - that are not noted on wikipedia. Effectively what is happening is deletion of the impact of these crimes against women so that the crime is only recorded/told from the male perspective. So while there is much detail about what the murderer did to the women and what happened to him when he was caught, there is no detailing of who the woman was, and often little detail on the impact on her family and wider society. You will note that women have tried to 'take back' this case and retell the story from women's point of view (see You will note that the profile about the murderer (Peter Sutcliffe) almost celebrates him. Sections include 'legacy' and 'media'. It focuses a lot on what he did, his mental state etc but not on the horrendous impact he had on women or women's reactions to what he did.

For me this opened up an entire issue about how murders are recorded on wikipedia so that they do not tell everything from the male perspective. eg his first recorded attack was against a woman he said was a prostitute. But what evidence do we have for that? Police saying she was a prostitute doesn't count unless substantiated because we know that police have a track record of saying women were prostitutes just because they were out at night or liked a good time. So women are by default labelled as such because in the historic press they are recorded as such, whether accurate or not.

I apologise for the length of this talk item but I wanted to lay out my concerns and get opinion on this. I find it perverse that a woman victim has to be a subsection of her murderer's article and be framed solely within his crime. I also find it strange that so many male editors are so defensive of their serial killer profiles (often badly written) and women's perspectives on these crimes (what we see as important eg their impact) are deleted to focus on what men think is important (eg the investigation, punishment and notoriety).SandrinaHatman (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Very long essay. See WP:BLP1E. Murders are sad things. Victims are rarely notable, except for their being murdered - the 1E. The murder is sometimes notable. The murderer is sometimes notable. You have made the case that Jayne MacDonald's murder is notable, for the 1 & 2 reasons you cite. You have not made the case that she is notable, if we accept the long-standing rule that 1E does not notability make; your point 2 relates to the action of her mother contingent primarily on the murder, and not on the victim. As to your other points; doubtless articles on murders and murderers can be improved by the addition of well-referenced information which views the victim, murderer, murder, effects of the murder, &c, from new frames which have perhaps not occurred to the "many male editors ... so defensive of their serial killer profiles". --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The same editor has now proposed to delete this article too: Mamie Stuart. This was an international mystery, received extensive coverage worldwide and was in the news just this year. The only thing it has in common with the above is that it is also a female victim and was written by me. I do not understand your rule 1E please can you explain in non-wiki speak.SandrinaHatman (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Again, if someone was not notable before becoming a crime victim, it is very unusual for them to become notable for becoming a crime victim, even though the crime itself may be notable. Stuart looks headed for a keep but in this case it is probably because the article is focused on the crime (and possibly mistitled) rather than on the past life of its victim. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
As is so often true, the murderer overshadows the murdered, especially when it comes to men killing women. This is a wrong that should be righted. The women murdered should be made notable as his victims just as he is made notable as their murderer. There is nothing notable about this man outside of his murders. He is a blight on humanity whose only claim to fame is the vicious taking of another human life and a male dominant culture ready to acknowledge his claim to fame while subduing, diminishing and outright denying the worth of the women's lives he took. It's disgraceful and sikening, the claim this man is notable, while his victims, the ones who made him "famous", are mere afterthoughts.Tsistunagiska (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
You are mistaken in claiming that this situation is asymmetric in this way. It is equally true that if a person was not notable before committing a crime, then it is very unusual for them to become notable for becoming a criminal, even though the crime itself may be notable. Also, we are not here to right great wrongs, but to make an encyclopedia; it may seem unfair that someone who could potentially have become notable has had that chance stolen from them, but that doesn't make them notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The same treatment should be given to the murderer then. If we do not need to know about the victims prior to the crime then we do not need to know the early life of the murderer. It is irrelevant as it pertains to the crime itself. Otherwise if we are to be subjected to the entire life of the murderer then his victims deserve no less.Tsistunagiska (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
If it is the crime that is notable then the "characters" surrounding the notable crime should receive equal representation if one is to claim a neutral POV. However we are left with an article detailing the murderer's entire life like a biography while his victims warrant only being listed, black letters while their murderer is blue. And when an article is written it is immediately put up for deletion.Tsistunagiska (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@SandrinaHatman: Thank you for a very-well argued case, highlighting one of Wikipedia's systemic biases. Please don't apologise for its length. Tagishsimon may be correct that Jayne does not meet our current notability standard (though I thin you show that she is notable for more than one thing; I urge you to summaris your points on the deletion discussion page) - the question is how can we improve that standard, to redress our project's systemic bias? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
SandrinaHatman I find this entire discussion illuminating as well as disturbing. First, I point out that Wikipedia:"Murder of" articles is an essay, not a guideline or policy. 2nd, BLP1 is not applicable as she is not living. Per WP:Crime the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies...The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. Styling an article the "murder of" is objectifying, basically saying that the only notability is from being a victim. But that isn't the case. Jayne MacDonald was different from the other victims. As an "innocent", she made people take notice that anyone could be a victim of her perpetrator and pointed out sexism in the police investigation. Much like we don't have an article titled The murder of Anne Frank, but rather one titled Anne Frank, MacDonald's notability was posthumously created because "she" (not all the victims, not just the crime) became a symbol of "everywoman" and the subject of a landmark legal decision. SusunW (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Although I don’t like the titling convention, at least we can keep the story by arguing the EVENT was notable, and we have many articles about victims under the heading, “murder of”. Murder of Natalee Holloway, for example.). That’s one way to make victims’ voices heard, and a longstanding consensus to keep such articles. I hate the objectification too, particularly when Lawnchair Larry gets an article under his own name, but that’s a different battle. Montanabw(talk) 16:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree it may be a different battle {I wouldn't call it a battle but a war at this point), but every action needs a catalyst. When we can point out the obvious bias against an "important" character in a well documented event such as this, it can then be surmised that "less important" characters are being marginalized even more so while the ones who brought about their demise are immortalized with a lengthy article detailing their entire life. How are the victims any less, or for that matter any more, notable than the murderer?Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I've always felt this way - about how disturbing that murderer's names get remembered and their lives get detailed, while victims are often left unnamed and a small fact in history. If a murderer is "notable" for killing people and being noticed widely (to put WP:CRIME in simple terms), then those "people" who have been killed have an equally large, significant role. It feels morbid to say it in that way, but it's true. Victims are the other half of murders, and in that sense, they seem equally significant. I know that Wikipedia isn't here to "right great wrongs", but I think everyone knows that news sources are often skewed towards tragic or disturbing events, because that is what gets more views. But Wikipedia is not news. It's an encyclopedia, here to provide information. Killers take up news cycles and get a spotlight, and I feel like that proportion affects how Wikipedia editors view notability, even if victims do receive significant coverage, and biographical coverage at that.
Also, naming conventions and manual of style conventions are an additional battle, but I do find them problematic and disturbing in this way. The word "Legacy" is horrifyingly disturbing when applied to murderers and those who are known/"notable" for hurting others. I know that's a common word we use on Wikipedia, but I do not see how it is neutral, especially when applied to killers. And in reality, I don't see how this word is based in a logical argument, other than that this is just a Wiki term we use. Other encyclopedias do not use this word in the way we do, as far as I can tell. For example, the online Encyclopædia Britannica names the final section on their Hitler article, "Hitler’s place in history", while we name a similar section "Legacy". In a search for neutrality, we are choosing how we immortalize and regard these people in history, and we'll often apply similar words we use on regular biographies, as if they apply in the same way as articles of people who have hurt hundreds or millions. This is not neutral - just as equality is not the same as equity, we can't apply the same standards to different types of articles and call that "neutral". - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Whisperjanes: Much love, sister. That was beautifully written. I'm not sure how "Legacy" is a more neutral word than the phrase "place in history". Seems nearly synonymous. If anything, "Legacy" has a more positive connotation attached to it. Can one always remain neutral when telling the truth? How can one stay neutral on the topic of "Adolf Hitler" and "Nazi Germany"? The answer, to me, is that one can in the sense of neutrality being the truth as it has been documented and not allowing ourselves to be pulled into the many conspiracies and theories surrounding the truth in such a way as to diminish or negate the realities.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Everyone chatting here should post at the AfD, as one way of the other, there is not yet a clear consensus. Montanabw(talk) 17:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Closed as "keep". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Katherine Shonfield[edit]

This was declined at AFC, and then G13 deleted. I found it in the trash heap and restored/approved it. Anyone want to give the article some love? Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring that to mainspace, Calliopejen1. I've done a little work on the article but there's plenty of scope for developing it further.14GTR (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
And another example of the dread hand of AfC declining a new editor's well-sourced article (3 obits in major newspapers, plus link to the notable muf of which she was a founder collaborator) as "not enough to establish notability". New editor made six edits while creating this, and has not been seen since. Sad. I wonder how many potentially useful editors we lose through bad experiences like this. PamD 14:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I've made an incoming redirect, created surname page Shonfield (just the three: herself and her two parents!), and tweaked around a bit making links... (got distracted onto sourcing her dad's middle name and knighthood... the way things go). PamD 14:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Ida F. Butler[edit]

We have a couple lovely pictures of her in the Women in Conflict event, but they're unused. Is anyone working on her article? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 19:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: here is a short draft that I started: Draft:Ida F. Butler. I am not sure I will finish it as the notability seems a bit cloudy, but anyone is of course free to dive in.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
when/if it moves out of draft space - WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd say it passes Notability easily. National Nursing Director for the American Red Cross, and numerous independent sources. (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Easily passes GNG. 15th US recipient of the Florence Nightingale Medal, the highest international recognition for the nursing profession. SusunW (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@SusunW: that was a nice find. I pushed it to article space.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Sohn Won-pyung[edit]

Anyone want to take this under their wing? I've discovered a treasure trove of drafts about Korean literature written presumably as a class or GLAM project, a shocking number of which (even for jaded me) were declined and/or G13 deleted. This one needs some NPOV work but I think is likely to qualify for an article, especially in light of the overall quality of the articles that seem to have been part of this project. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Same with Draft:Ku Kyung-mi, Draft:Kim Yeonkyung (this one may be questionable), Draft:Kim Sa-i (Poet), Draft:Kim Kyoungin, Draft:Kim Eui-kyung, Draft:Kim Eon Hee, and Draft:Jo Eun. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree with you, Calliopejen1, that these articles deserve to be added to ãrticle space. I am really surprised to see how many different editors refused to accept them, frequently on inappropriate grounds. Most of them seem to be pretty well sourced and contain significant details. I'm not sure how best to revive them. Any offers?--Ipigott (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Sad: if you look at the contributions list and talk page of the creator of Draft:Sohn Won-pyung you find a whole lot of careful work in October and December 2019 which has gone to waste or is languishing at AfC, declined with comments like "encyclopedia's are not always considered to be reliable." The editor hasn't been back. PamD 09:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
And not one of the editors who were declining the drafts at AfC bothered to leave a Welcome message on the editor's talk page. (Done it now, just in case they come back). PamD 10:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
This is such an ongoing problem, personally I would never advise a new editor to use either the Draft space or AFC at all. Both seem like recipes for a disappointing encounter with another editor. Ask for forgiveness, not permission is my rule of thumb. --Krelnik (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, Krelnik. The process is quite disappointing and discouraging to new editors. It's not so much the denial but the reasons for denial and the way people pile on without doing proper research. Add on top of that the sometimes attacking nature of a lot of comments. That is the case with all processes here though. You can't even get something moved or re-titled without a lot of opinions and responses consistent with someone only reading the small, limited character wording attached to the request without doing any practical background research themselves.Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I know this is kind of a radical idea, but what about an RfC to abolish AfC? Montanabw(talk) 17:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Tempting idea, but we need some way to filter out the paid editing, the total rubbish, etc. We just need to somehow make sure that good-faith non-paid editors don't get trapped by it. Non-trivial! PamD 17:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a TON of garbage that goes through AfC. A TON. The big garbage generators for AfC are companies/organizations, products, and living people. I volunteer there with the goal of quickly approving articles that seem plausible and don't have a profit motive for existing. E.g. almost all articles about dead people should be approved so that any deletion processes are transparent to the community. I don't know that eliminating AfC makes sense, but I wish it were easier to find those articles. There is now ORES sorting for AfC articles, but it does not do a good job of separating the wheat from the chaff. There is a new, very valuable bot report User:SDZeroBot/G13 Watch that I try to review on a daily basis to find good articles that have been deleted. (I'm an administrator which makes that a lot easier, because I can read the deleted articles.) I recommend that others have a look at the report and pursue at WP:REFUND anything that looks good. The problem with relying on the report is that there is at least a six-month lag time where the new editors have been discouraged and lost. But with the report at least we can save most of the good work. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I know there’s a lot of junk—pornstars, middle management, etc., I am just so tired of fighting to preserve articles on historic people who “don’t google.“ Montanabw(talk) 03:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@Montanabw: yeah I get it. BTW you may be interested in the discussion I started at WT:AFC about this batch of articles and the issues they raise more generally. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

AfC can be such a mess. I approved the woman academic Florence Banku Obi who is notable, but it was originally denied with the reasoning that it isn't written in a formal tone (it is) and "The parts in bullet points need to be re-written as paragraphs/text" (not even a reason to not accept a draft, but it is a reason for a cleanup tag). I will try to keep a closer eye out at unapproved drafts. SL93 (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@PamD and Ipigott: FYI, I started a discussion about this topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Major_AFC_fail_re:_Korean_literature. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Moving user space articles to draft space[edit]

While most new users create their first articles in their user space, I have recently noticed several cases in which AfC reviewers move the articles to draft space, explaining that this is a more appropriate starting point. Once there, they are listed as drafts by tools such as AlexNewBot and can be picked up and sometimes even deleted before the user has finished working on them. They are also deleted if they are in draft space for too long. If users do submit them to AfC, there is a pretty good chance they will be rejected. I always recommend that new users should develop their articles in their user space, especially as they can work on more than one article at a time and are under no time constraints. I wonder if there is any way this process can be stopped.--Ipigott (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI, if an article has an AfC template, it can be deleted after 6 months whether or not it's in userspace. So the moves don't actually change anything with respect to deletion processes. If someone is moving non-AfC tagged drafts to draftspace, that would be an issue, but I don't think that is happening in any systematic way. The way people notice the drafts to move them is because they have AfC templates on them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any examples? As Calliopejen1 says, userspace drafts shouldn't be being moved unless they have {{AfC submission}} on them. – Joe (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Raissa Calza[edit]

I just approved this article from draft, but it's not completely clear to me that she is notable. Can someone shore up the article? Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I found enough reviews of her books on JSTOR to convince me that she's notable, at least. Will work on adding them to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok, done. While filling out review details, I found that we don't have an article on one of the reviewers, Helga von Heintze [de], so if you're looking for another article to create in this same general area, that looks like a possibility. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I think it should be directed at Wingedserif.--Ipigott (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Sorry, my mistake, I see Wingedserif translates from Italian, not German.--Ipigott (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Help for copyright issue pls - Barbara Zecchi[edit]

Hi everyone, I'm stuck as to how to help with the article on Zecchi. It was blanked for a suspected copyright violation but the creator has given an explanation on the article's talk page of why he/she thinks it's not a copyright violation. It's been sitting there for about 6 or 7 days now with nothing happening. I've posted on the copyright problems page here but no response. Any thoughts? TIA! MurielMary (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

OMFG I've never before seen that blank-the-page-with-a-warning template, what a ridiculous piece of overkill that is. And if you go look at the COPYVIO report, the matches are all things like titles of articles she's written and other names of things that you cannot reword. At least as far as I could see. Further, the author of the article explained on the talk page that both the sources cited are open access on September 4th, and nobody has revisited. I'd immediately pull that thing off there personally, but it says it requires an admin or other muckity-muck to do it. Hey Maile66 or Megalibrarygirl can you take a look? --Krelnik (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Nathan2055 I've un-blanked this so the issue can be corrected. There is no way it can be corrected by the editor, if the whole page was blanked out. Let's give this editor time to correct the issues, whatever those may be. Looking at the copyvio detector after reverting this, it looks like the majority of what it flaged as copyviois diffs are names of institutions and other issues that are not genuine copyvios. This looks to me like it was an erroneous blanking. The individual issues can be dealt with, but it's not the entire text of the article. — Maile (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Maile66: I absolutely agree with you. Thanks for hopping on this so fast! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the quick response, much appreciated! MurielMary (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I have also just removed the copyvio tag at the top of the article. Here's what it flagged: diff If we are to avoid job titles, fields of study, academic departments, etc. as copyvios in every article, Wikipedia as a whole cannot survive. This was an extreme case of overreaction, and should never have happened. — Maile (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I had this happen to me years ago when I did an article with too much close paraphrasing. It's scary, but it was also a learning experience. The better approach is to stubify the article, leaving content in history for a couple weeks, but then they DO have to revdel the copyright violations. One has to be very careful with open source content, as it is still plagiarism if not properly cited. Also, the content may have been copied from some other source. I am pinging a respected editor, @Diannaa:, who routinely reviews copyvio issues to look at the article and comment. Montanabw(talk) 17:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Long and ago and far away in Wikiland, I also had some content sections completely reverted deleted, by a really zealous editor who didn't waste time explaining, except for a curt word or two in the edit summary. And for while, they stalked me through a few articles doing that. They never encouraged dialogue ... just wholesale deletions from article to article. They could have resolved the whole issue by giving me one of those welcome templates that explained sourcing. Or just leaving me a note of explanation. But their style was otherwise. Dialogue goes a long way to helping new editors do it correctly. — Maile (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Barbara Gilewska[edit]

Up for deletion. Anyone interested in looking for Polish press reports, etc.? In general, I think our reviewers are all to happy to delete articles on people of historical interest if they cannot find immediate coverage by searching on the English Google. We are developing a tendency to sift out non-English speakers and women not immediately supported in English-language sources.--Ipigott (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Michelle Sagara help?[edit]

Can anyone lend a hand at Michelle Sagara? She's an author, with an article that seems to be heavily edited by someone with a COI. I've removed the most obvious promotional content, but it basically reads like a fanpage or a bookstore page - and I'm not sure if all the book prose should be scrapped or not (since it currently makes up most of the article). - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I will try to do a library search for references this weekend. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I did not find anything that helps. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Joanne Pransky[edit]

A new user posted at the teahouse saying that this person is non-notable. Anyone here able to improve the article to establish notability, or alternately to confirm the user's beliefs and prod/etc.? Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

She's been around long enough to qualify under GNG, but difficult to warm to anyone who seeks to trademark their job title - "World's First Robotic Psychiatrist®" - not least given the likes of William Grey Walter or Valentino Braitenberg, both of whose work predates Ms. Pransky's antics. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Women's contest[edit]

Did you arrange for a contest afterwards? Would one in October or November be ideal?† Encyclopædius 18:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopædius: There seems to be quite a lot of support for a series of three-month "virtual" contests (i.e. no physical prizes) covering the various continents, starting with Africa from October to December. I suppose we'll be announcing it in a week or so together with our priorities for October. Maybe you would like to help us along. See our ideas page.--Ipigott (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Problems with our membership list[edit]

As some of you probably know, I look at the updates to our membership list each day, welcome those who have just joined the project and add their names to our mass messaging lists. When I first looked at it today, I noticed two new names for 15 September, Agillianchu and JoGDelta. I had just welcomed Agillianchu and was ready to welcome the second person I had seen but JoGDelta was no longer there and in the meantime I had forgotten the name. I thought it might be a cache problem - but it wasn't. I then looked at the revision history and found that between 01:38 and 11:08 on 17 September, there had been no less than 16 updates, most of them adding and deleting these two names. As of now, they have both been deleted with an editing comment "Tag: Manual revert". I see from the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Members/Inactive that they have in fact been added to and deleted from the "inactive" list but it is no longer possible to view the list. Harej is listed as being responsible for Reports bot but I understand he is no longer active. Can anyone advise on what's going on and find out if we can stop all these adjustments. It's important that the names of new members should be properly maintained, especially over the first few days of their membership.(cc: Rosiestep, Victuallers, MarioGom).--Ipigott (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem seems to have been sorted out. Thanks to anyone who acted on this.--Ipigott (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Women artists at the Smithsonian American Art Museum[edit]

I had not noticed this before - it's been a while since I've been on the SAAM website - but the Smithsonian American Art Museum currently breaks women artists out of its comprehensive collection database and makes it easier to browse them. Lots of fodder for expansion there, especially in some of the craft/decorative arts. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sonia Raman[edit]

New bio started with Sonia_Raman - first Indian-American woman to be named a coach in the National Basketball Association. Help appreciated! -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I tried but couldn't find her YOB, so I added categories, Authority control, Default sort, replaced stub with better option and added Grizzlies roster template. Oronsay (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Oronsay: Lovely thanks so much. Even after 18 years of editing Wikipedia I keep forgetting to add navboxes! -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Fuzheado: This is just the sort of editing I enjoy. BTW, when I clicked "What links here" to check she wasn't an orphan, I discovered a pile of names and, clicking through to one of them, found the navbox. Oronsay (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Unreferenced women BLPs[edit]

There are still over 320 unreferenced women BLPs documented here. Some like Tara Newley, who is genuinely notable (just not with citations to anything), should be easy if we accepted the Daily Mail and Daily Express as suitable sources for a BLP ... but we don't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I added two sources there, will see if I can find any more. I'll look into the others as well. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
It's 419 actually :( See User:SDZeroBot/Unreferenced BLPs/Women for an annotated list. – SD0001 (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, the annotations are very helpful in finding articles to clean up on topics that I am comfortable working in. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
SD0001, David Eppstein Yes, great resource! Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dictionary of Welsh Biography looking for writers[edit]

The Dictionary of Welsh Biography is looking for writers: Gamaliel (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Help: A woman subject wants the article updated about herself - and she's written the articles about her husband and her business[edit]

Hi everyone. This refers to User_talk:Missvain#Prerna_Gupta.

I don't have the capacity to assist her right now, so I'm reaching out to my friends here to see if anyone can help. I also tagged it with a help tag for kicks. The subject is Prerna Gupta. Turns out I wrote the Wikipedia article about her in 2012 (I didn't even remember, ha!). She wants the article about herself updated and she also drafted articles about her husband and the app she has created. I did tell her about the COI policy and that she'll have to recuse herself and that I'd look for help. Is anyone able to help? I'm sorry I can't right now, but, if someone is able to help her out, I'd be super grateful. Thank you! Missvain (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I added sentence about 2015 startup Hooked. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I've just seen Prernagupta1 has joined Women in Red and intends to write articles about South Asian women. All the more reason to help her along.--Ipigott (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Childbirth in Uzbekistan[edit]

Not a woman bio, but thought I'd call your attention to this in case anyone is interested. This ended up being draftified as a result of a not-well-attended deletion discussion, and it is 3 mos away from G13 deletion. In case anyone is interested in editing it... Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Participate in user research to design data diversity tools - humaniki [Registration Open][edit]

Merger of Denelezh and WHGI projects into 'humaniki'

What do Wikipedians need to make more diverse content? Better redlink listmaking? Highlighting more translation opportunities? Building editathon and campaign tracking software? Something else?

‘Humaniki’ is the merging of two previous Wikimedia data tools for diversity-focused editors - Wikidata Human Gender Indicators (WHGI) and Denelezh. Both of these previous projects enabled statistics about the biography gender gap in Wikimedia projects, but now need extra work to make those insights actionable for editors. This new WMF-grant-funded project seeks to do that work by participatory co-designing features with the editor community. The results of this study will help provide design recommendations to help develop useful features for the community -Sejal Khatri (talk)

Call for participation:

We are looking for people interested in participating in this research! Are you a diversity-focused editor? or Do you have feature suggestions? We would like to get your inputs. Research participants will receive a $10 gift card, to compensate editors for their time.

Fill the form in this link: LINK

Interested in learning more about us? - read our first blogpost

Thanks for this, Sejal. Hope you receive some useful responses. You can in fact use user:Sek2016 here without invoking Meta. It works fine on the EN wiki where I see you have already made a number of contributions. But maybe your Meta talk page is a better place for you to receive reactions, especially if you are expecting responses from other language versions of Wikipedia too.--Ipigott (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)