Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

For Elizabeth II / Royal fans[edit]

This article (from the "suspicious articles" list) looks like it has potential for expansion and improvement: Mary Russell (maid of honour) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Minnie T. Wright[edit]

Could anyone help with Mrs. Minnie T. Wright? She seems to have been a somewhat influential African American (mixed heritage as best I can ascertain) club woman and musician who performed on piano and composed some popular songs in the early 20th century. Thanks!!! FloridaArmy (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata question regarding Missing articles by education/Australia/University of Sydney[edit]

I just created this redlist, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by education/Australia/University of Sydney, using this item, University of Sydney (d:Q487556). If someone is employed at or an alumni of University of Sydney Business School (d:Q7896374), The Women's College, University of Sydney (d:Q7775585), St John's College, University of Sydney (d:Q7593580), University of Sydney School of Chemistry (d:Q7896390), Wesley College, University of Sydney (d:Q7983886), St Paul's College, University of Sydney (d:Q7595160), University of Sydney School of Public Health (d:Q101006588), University of Sydney Cumberland campus (d:Q63091662), University of Sydney School of Physics (d:Q7896394), etc., will they automatically be included on this redlist or does each item number have to be added to the redlist? Also, what needs to be added to the redlist so that there is a "sum total" at the bottom of the page? Thanks. Rosiestep (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list does not include Judy M Simpson (d:Q39961484), who is linked to University of Sydney School of Public Health (d:Q101006588), so it seems to be confined to females linked to University of Sydney (d:Q487556). TSventon (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed. The query now asks for people who were educated at or employed by the university, or any thing which is part of (P361) the university. A summary=itemnumber parameter for the wikidata list template provides the summary. (diff) (I also changed ?wfr to ?wen, b/c that's a more appropriate variable name for the question "is there a wikipedia EN article".) --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone must have spent quite a time adding details of all these women on Wikidata. Difficult to see which ones deserve Wikipedia articles.--Ipigott (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should there be a column for number of site links? For example Ida Holst (d:Q20772533) has an article on da Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who is to say? But I've added that column. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ipigott, I checked a couple of women listed as researchers and they were added by QuickStatementsBot, a bot with the same owner as Listeriabot, so probably little human time was spent.
Tagishsimon, thank you, that identifies 47 women where more information is available and hopefully won't crash Listeriabot. TSventon (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A number of these women would've been developed by me and others in preparation for edit-a-thons in Sydney, my home town. After Rosiestep created this redlist for USYD, I made one for my alma mater, the Australian National University. I'll check tomorrow if it needs tweaking to include ANU research schools, etc.--Oronsay (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to hear it, Oronsay. I think there are many other schools in Australia (and elsewhere) deserving of these educational redlists. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Tagishsimon. I used other schools on the WiR Redlist Index with "Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by education/" as my guide when I created this school's redlist, and I think all/many could use the extra column and/or have the same issue of being limited to just the school's item number and aren't inclusive of all the parts of the school. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, I handled the naming differrently "Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by education/(country)/(school)" instead of "Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by education/(country) - (school)". I'm not sure if others how others feels about the naming. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, as one of our offerings this month is "Women in education", I thought improving/creating WiR university redlists (Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index#Educational institution) would be useful. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
fwiw, I suggest we bring the current set into line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by education/US - Indiana and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by education/Australia/University of Sydney, which both now 1) have all the columns 2) take care of the P361 'part of' subsidiary organisations business 3) get the country of citizenship label manually, avoiding one of Listeria's failure modes. If so, it is necessary to grab the whole of the contents of {{Wikidata list}}, not just the SPARQL query, and amend the parent institutions QId on the second line of the SPARQL. I'll probably make this so for all of the existing lists sometime soon.
On naming, we're a little all over the place, not just within this set, but across the whole redlist index. The politician / painter / poets by country lists have a /(painters) - (country) name format. Within Educational institutions, Australia seems to be the only example of /(country) / (university) naming, most others being /(country) - (university), or just /(university). --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup; on naming, that needs work. We would need a professional (librarian? data scientist?) to review all the WiR subpages and devise a naming scheme. The Redlist Index alone has >1,000 pages. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While I welcome the work by Oronsay and collaborators on Sydney in connection with the recent meetings there, I'm not sure how useful it would be for Women in Red to continue targeting individual universities around the world on the same basis. If our redlists are intended to help us create biographies, then I would suggest more attention should be given to compiling or extending "crowd-sourced" redlists, possibly by country rather than by individual institutions, complete with links to good independent sources. And to return to the Sydney list, it would be good to see a few new biographies added to this month's focus on education. I'll try to add one or two myself.--Ipigott (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Lauranett Lee[edit]

I would be happy to have some help on this rejected draft. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surprised to see this was rejected. I can't access all the sources from Europe but the first two appear to offer substantial independent coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article in The Progress-Index is or is close to significant coverage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More in this WVTF piece. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lengthy profile in The Chesterfield Observer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI. This was rejected by a new editor of less than six months, who has rejected numerous AFD candidates. Most likely, they are learning the ropes at Wikipedia. One alternative would be to create a subpage of your user space and work all you want on this. Then move it to main space when you think it's ready. — Maile (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first reference is clearly not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm, one book, in 2008 with this non-academic publisher Morgan James Publishing, possibly a pay-as-you go one. Not sure this makes it. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree she doesn't meet the prof or author standards, but she soars past the general notability guideline for having very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Her work exposing the history of African Americans in Virginia has been widely reported on and featured. Her book and her teaching are just one part of her work. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does this source count to be reliable one?[edit]

Does this source count to be as reliable one?

  • Sewell, Jessica Ellen. Women and the Everyday City: Public Space in San Francisco, 1890-1915. United Kingdom, University of Minnesota Press, 2011. ISBN: 9780816669738 Partial preview available on google books

Bookku (talk) 11:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bookku: I view books from academic presses as being generally reliable. Obviously it depends on what you're using it for, but odds are good. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That matches my opinion as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFD for articles related to the Mahsa Amini protests[edit]

There are a few articles related to the Mahsa Amini protests are up for AFD (indirectly related to the event, "Geofocus Central & Southern Asia"). The articles could also use help with expansion, copy editing, and clean up. If anyone can help, it would be appreciated. The articles are Killing of Kian Pirfalak and Killing of Khodanur Lojei. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tracking our event logos[edit]

Do we have a WiR subpage where we keep track of all the logo images we've used by numbered/named event? If not, I think it would be good to start it, perhaps using this name though open to a more suitable option: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Logos. On that page, putting the logos into a table which included columns for (a) year, (b) type (e.g., Education, Climate), (c) whether it was a monthly/annual/contest/ongoing, year-long etc. type of event, would be useful for sorting. It would be nice to have future conversations such as, "Every year, for our 'Women who died in 202x' event, we include a candle, so which candle should we add this year?"; "We use this element (e.g. 4 point orange border) to symbolize that the event is our Year-Long-Event, so let's remember to include it this time."; "I'm tired of seeing a pencil every time we have a Writers event, so maybe switch it up going forward and go with a pen or quill instead." --Rosiestep (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most, if not all the logos are on the commons under Category:Women in Red logos. I'll try to make sure they are all in that category. It looks pretty complete. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also you can see the archive of our invitations (with logos), at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/2022. There you can also go back through the years by clicking the year buttons at the top of the page. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tanya O'Carroll, suing Facebook over data collection[edit]

I just made a draft for Tanya O'Carroll. She is suing Facebook for ignoring her demand to not have her personal data collected. Any help gathering sources would be appreciated. I think she should meet GNG. Thriley (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ratio of FA bios about women[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles § Gender breakdown?. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

tl;dr - ~16% which is lower than ~19.3% --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've suggested we could restore some of the 20 former FAs listed on WikiProject Women writers. Maybe it would be possible to draw up a list of all the former FAs about women but I can see from WP:Former featured articles that many under Media, Music and Politics are also relevant. This is really a matter for WP:Women in Green rather than for Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Actresses - US[edit]

Hi all. I just was wondering how our missing article lists were created as I am finding discrepancies and errors in some of the content as I am going through this particular list on US actresses. For example, the first entry on the American born Argentine actress Mary Lewis said she was alive in the 19th century, but then I located es:Mary Lewis (actriz), which had her clearly as a 20th century entertainer (and more of a dancer/singer in tango, who acted in a secondary way to those other art forms) I also located this reference entry on Elizabeth Ford Johnson which makes it pretty clear she was born in England and began her stage career there before coming to America; and then went back and forth between the United States and England. She was certainly an important actress in the United Stated, but it appears her career was just as much in England and I don't think she ever became an American citizen, although she did die in New York. Describing her as American doesn't really seem accurate. All of this to say, where did these lists come from and how should I address errors as I find them?4meter4 (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listeria, the code which produces redlists from wikidata, has a bug or issue dealing with dates which are stored in WD with century precision. Mary Lewis's WD item has her death as "20th century". Sadly, Listeria renders this as "19th century". There's little prospect of the issue being fixed. According to the Spanish wikipedia article, both WD and Listeria are wrong, and she died in the 21st century, in 2006; I've made amendments in the wikidata item. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As to where the lists come from, how to fix: They come from wikidata items for the subjects, and generally a link is provided in the redlist to the wikidata item - the Qxxxxx number. Contents of wikidata items come from editors, and as with WP may be more or less accurate, better or worse referenced, &c. The Elizabeth Ford Johnson USA thing is unreferenced, and so IMO can & probably should be thrown away; it does seem unlikely she became a US citizen. However where a WD statement is inaccurate, but sourced to a reliable source, the data is deprecated by amending its rank, rather than deleted. Address errors as you find them, by editing the wikidata item. Lists (apart from the many broken lists - another story entirely) should update themselves periodicaly, or you can cause them to be updated by hitting an 'update this list' hyperlink found top-right of the redlist table. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mary Gannon and Mary Stevenson (actress) tangle[edit]

Hi all. I just created an article on the actress Mary Gannon the other day who was on the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Actresses - US. There was a redirect at that page to Gannon and Hands originally and zero disambiguation; so I missed an article on the same woman that already existed at Mary Stevenson (actress). However, none of the sources, including her obituaries, actually call her by her married name of Stevenson and she never performed under that name. So the article should never have been titled Mary Stevenson. Regardless, we now have two articles on the same person in main space, and I am not sure what the proper remedy is for a situation like this. Merge prop? Request deletion of the newer article, and move the old one to Mary Gannon? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A merge one way or the other is required. You maybe now have the domain knowledge? Decide which title you like, move any content from the one you don't like which is not already on the one you do like, turn the one you don't like into a redirect to the one you do like. Not really any need for discussion. If, on the othet hand, you don't want to do the merge yourself, leave a {{merge}} on both articles. Finally, if you do redirect one to the other, there'll probably be a wikidata merge to be done, which you can do or I will, if that's unfamiliar territory. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I merged as you suggested.4meter4 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I created an article first, surely the second article should be merged into my article (and then possibly renamed, if there is consensus to do so) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ficaia: The order in which articles are created does not inform the decision on which article is retained, which redirected. You're welcome to open a discussion on the article's talk page about the appropriate title for the article if you feel such a discussion is needed; and to make any amendments to the current article given your knowledge of the subject. See also WP:BRD --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no need to patronise me by linking one of our most basic policies when I'm already engaged on the article talk page. There's also no reason not to retain the first article created, which just seems like basic courtesy to the creator to me. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We worked out a way to make it possible for both of us to get what we want and follow policy. It really doesn't matter to me which article history is more directly accessible at the article's page; just that the two pages get merged and that the article title reflects the currently published scholarship (aka Mary Gannon).4meter4 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Update. The issue has been happily resolved. Thanks Ficaia, Tagishimon, and other project members who helped solve the issue.4meter4 (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red December 2022[edit]

WiR Women who died in 2022
Women in Red December 2022, Vol 8, Issue 12, Nos 214, 217, 248, 249, 250

Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name,
    like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects.

Other ways to participate:

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

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]

Catherine Mary Winslow naming[edit]

I would appreciate input from project members at Talk:Catherine Mary Winslow#Requested move 26 November 2022. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Query about renaming a page[edit]

Ethel Kirkpatrick has a Wikipedia page of her own which is just a stub at present . I would like to expand it. Among other things, I would like to mention Ethel's older sister, Ida, with whom she lived and travelled and who was also an artist and printmaker. Is it allowable for me to rename the page? If so, should it be 'The Kirkpatrick Sisters' or 'Ida and Ethel Kirkpatrick'. Or something else? I could have asked this question on the talk page but thought it might be a while before I got an answer that way. All suggestions gratefully received by this relative newcomer. Balance person (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Ida not independently notable? Or was their notability explicitly involving things they did together and were covered in sources only together? SilverserenC 21:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is rare for us to have a single article on two people, and typically only happens when their notability is inseparable. In this case, Ethel has a very clear claim to WP:ARTIST notability in having works in the collections of multiple major museums (NGC, V&A, BM). But this does not make a case for Ida, whose notability is much less clear. So I think it would be a mistake to change the article to focus on both of them, but also a mistake to try to spin off a separate article for Ida without a clearer claim to notability. Instead, I think mentioning Ida in the article on Ethel, but keeping the article focused on Ethel, may be the way to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree about Ida, but Ethel's notability is not beyond challenge. All the museum works are prints, two each in the NGC & V&A, which mean a good deal less in terms of notability. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't access it, but is the entry over here about her? SilverserenC 00:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but the full content is British, 19th century, female. Active in Harrow. Painter. Seascapes, flowers, landscapes. Ethel Kirkpatrick exhibited at the Royal Academy starting in 1891. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As David Eppstein suggests, add citable information about Ida on Ethel's page and create a redirect page for Ida to Ethel's page. One article named for two people creates problems down the road. In future more may be written about Ida and then the redirect can be turned into an article. (Very frustrating that Oxford Art Online is STILL unavailable on wiki library). Birth and death dates for Ida are problematic. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea. Thanks very much. Balance person (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Research proposal on Gender and Wikidata[edit]

We are working on a research proposal for the Wikimedia Research Grants' call, now open. Our proposal aims to make a research contribution by reducing the gender gap in Wikipedia by visualizing gender diversities collected in Wikidata. Therefore, we seek to provide a search engine and a navigational system using the ontologies of Wikidata in order to provide access and more visualization of the diversity of gender identities in Wikipedia.

We would love to count with wikiwomen that work on reducing the gender gap in Wikipedia. We already have Wikimujeres, Wikidonne, Viquidones... We would like to work with Women in Red too. Could this be possible?

Please tell something before the 16th of December that is when we have to submit the proposal. Nferranf (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nferranf: It's always interesting to hear of initiatives designed to reduce the gender gap. As you are already a member of Women in Red, you can of course count on our collaboration. Can you enlarge on your proposal or provide a link to a draft? Perhaps you can give examples of the gender identities you have in mind and let us know how you think we can help you along. I should point out that Women in Red is not restricted to women but is open to all.--Ipigott (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, thanks @Ipigott for your interest!
Apart from the clear and persistent gender gap, in terms of content about or written by women, in some Wikipedias such as the Italian or the Catalan, there is specifically a bias in terms of access and visualization of content on the diversity of gender identities. In these cases, categories like “women” or “non-binary person” are banned for information retrieval.  This decision, which rejects gender categorization, develops some dysfunctions.
Besides, Wikipedia in all languages uses a navigational system based on categories, which in Information Science will be called folksonomies (social tagging) based on natural language terms. This collaborative knowledge classification has many advantages such as the simplicity of tagging or the proximity to the user's vocabulary, but it can also bring disadvantages such as inequality, it can reflect cultural, social or political bias and includes all the problems of non-controlled vocabularies.
Wikidata is the ontology that could bring organization and a better representation of what is known in Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia already generates categories that emerge from Wikidata, like “living people". Wikidata has the particular challenge of modelling gender as structured data. This proposal is built upon the research of sister projects such as WiGeDi that are improving the Wikidata ontology, but making it even more inclusive of gender identities.
Our proposal aims to make a research contribution by reducing the gender gap in Wikipedia through visualizing gender diversities collected in Wikidata. Therefore, we seek to provide a search engine and a navigational system using the ontologies of Wikidata in order to provide access and more visualization of the diversity of gender identities in Wikipedia. Nferranf (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nferranf. Thanks for these explanations. However, at the moment, according to WDCM, only a minute proportion of Wikidata entries are not coded straight male or female, namely 2,101 out of 8,270,677. Will you be able to provide more extensive data, for example on analysing entries containing more than one aspect of gender information (if such information can be accessed or developed)? In any case, as the available information on non-CIS is so limited, how could your Wikidata-based research significantly impact the gender gap?--Ipigott (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The model of discrete properties has shown that distinguishing male and female genders is far effective that the pre-coordinated categories in Wikipedia. Definetely, characterization of non-CIS people is a challenge, but once again Wikidata spectrum of ontologies is in a better position. And this gap is not only linked to the ontologies, but to a previous commitment in introducing non-CIS biographies in Wikidata, or in Wikipedia... Nferranf (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to chime in @Nferranf, there's two points from edits I've made that might be useful to consider:
1) I'm not sure the women-led projects you mention are the best to lead on this kind of work - surely this should be led a group like "Queering Wikipedia" for example?
2) I'm concerned about the potential for "outing" people who do not want their gender to be public knowledge. You don't need to provide evidence for gender on Wikidata, which might mean that some people who weren't open about their gender identity might be forced to be.
3) Many of the gender diversities that might be measured are outside western understandings of the binary - some Pasifika genders outright reject the idea of "trans-ness" as its not part of their culture, and I think there really needs to be some consultation made with people outside Europe, perhaps through ESEAP, and other regions, to check whether this kind of measurement would be suitable and even be welcomed?
4) Pressingly, not all gender diversities are recognised in WikiData categories for sex or gender (see Kalisito Biaukula who is vakasalewalewa as an exmaple), so it seems there's more work to be done on Wikidata about this.
5) I went to WP:WikiProject LGBT to see what discussion on this was like there, but there's no post. I think there, and WP:WikiProject Gender Studies would be good places to consult on this.
6) Likewise I looked for a similar discussion on Wikidata, and couldn't see one. I really think you need to discuss this project there too.
7) Wikidata Gender Diversity (WiGeDi) that you mention finishes in May, so I'm wondering how you can build on the project when it's not complete?
I'm very passionate about representation and the role Wikimedia can play, which is why I have so many questions. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a million Lajmmoore for all these constructive comments and suggestions. It all looks to me as if far more emphasis should be given to gender coverage not only on Wikidata but on the basis of biographies in the various language versions of Wikipedia. I fully agree that in many countries it is simply not acceptable to assign or discuss non-CIS gender but it may be possible to work on the basis of partnerships. There's certainly considerable food for thought on these matters, maybe as a topic for a well-sourced academic research paper. I've always been surprised that today's interest in LGBT+ has not been adequately reflected on Wikipedia or related projects.--Ipigott (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Dr. Adeline M. Willis Weed[edit]

Hello, Women in Red,

I just postponed the deletion of this draft. I was thinking that if it doesn't warrant a stand-alone article, maybe some of the content could be used in an article about women in the American West or women in medicine. I'm unsure of the sources, I just read the article and it seemed like an interesting story about a potential trailblazing couple. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

She seems to be better known as Ada M. Weed. I have added a few sources to the draft; I think she will be notable given the sources I have found so far. DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Page is now at Adaline Weed - I would welcome any additions or comments. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DOD of first female Spanish librarian[edit]

I've just been writing about Ángela García Rives, the first woman to become a librarian in Spain. It seems strange to me that as she came from a well-established family, it has not been possible to find her date of death. Maybe SusunW or others who know where to search can help.--Ipigott (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll see what I can do Ipigott but I am handicapped at the moment. Working in a construction zone and my computer is in the shop. Having to work on borrowed devices, which means all of my passwords, etc are ... SusunW (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No rush, SusunW. Take your time. It just seemed very strange to me that those at the BNE where she worked could not find out when she died.--Ipigott (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this blog page, written by the librarian Julian Marquina, he says that she retired in 1962 and died in 1968: "En 1962, tras un año de su jubilación, se le concedió la Encomienda de la Orden Civil de Alfonso X el Sabio. Su muerte llegó en 1968, año en el que había sido propuesta como candidata a la Medalla del Trabajo." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nferranf (talkcontribs) 16:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, thanks Nferranf, I also saw that but it would be good to have firm confirmation of the exact date of death from a more authoritative source such as an obituary in the press, registration of deaths or in connection with her burial.--Ipigott (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"In The News" nominations[edit]

Just wondering if the project has a space for entries that feature on the "In The News" section on the main page? I've done some cleanup on Christine McVie to get it through WP:ITNC and I thought a successful placing on the main page following some editing would be the sort of thing we'd be interested in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ritchie333: We certainly encourage improvement of articles for submission to ITN. One of this month's priorities is Women who died in 2022. McVie could certainly be added to the list of new or improved articles. If the article appears on ITN, then ITN should be added after her name. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image of Virginia O'Hanlon[edit]

Hi all, is anyone able to track down publication information for File:Virginia O'Hanlon (ca. 1895).jpg that would establish it as being definitively in the public domain? Eddie891 Talk Work 14:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stubs potentially in danger from deletionists[edit]

With the news of recent passing of Julia Reichert they should receive attention before some quality king over notability editor decides we do not need these articles.

—¿philoserf? (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahem, quality king or quality queen. Please be more gender-equitable with your disdain, thank you. JoelleJay (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for aiding me in seeing my own blindness. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, Im a new editor for this project and Ive never edited a Wikipedia article before. So I look forward to this experience and I came over here from your twitterverse! EuthCrit (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's great, EuthCrit. Welcome to Wikipedia and to Women in Red. In addition to clicking into some of the interesting links on your talk page, you might like to look through our Essays. When you feel ready to create your first biography, you should read through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EuthCrit *waves hello* - everything @Ipigott said! I saw you make some edits on the Mary Bateman page as its one I watch - they look great! Lajmmoore (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lajmmoore: Can't see that EuthCrit has edited any pages yet.--Ipigott (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
my bad (struck through) Lajmmoore (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi everyone,

Voting in the Wikimedia sound logo contest has started. From December 6 to 19, 2022, please play a part and help chose the sound that will identify Wikimedia content on audio devices. Learn more on Diff.

We received 3,235 submissions from 2,094 participants in 135 countries. We are incredibly grateful to the team of volunteer screeners and the selection committee who, among others, helped bring us to where we are today.

It is now up to Wikimedia to choose the Sound Of All Human Knowledge.

Thank you. -- MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carmen J. Walters[edit]

Carmen J. Walters, the president of Tougaloo College in Mississippi would be a welcome addition to Wikipedia. Sources include here, here, and here. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carolyn Grace[edit]

I saw a friend (and airshow enthusiast) mention this display pilot, who has sadly recently died. I've made a start on Draft:Carolyn Grace, but I'm short of source material - I was hoping there would be more sourcing available, but I can't see any obituaries in The Guardian or BBC News, which is a bit of a shame, as without them, I can't in good conscience put it mainspace without expecting it to be sent to AfD. Can anyone help? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's quite a lot available through The Wikipedia Library, Ritchie333. Here's just some of what I found:
No idea on whether the links will work to The Wikipedia Library, especially since the template doesn't like the pipes that are in the URLs. SilverserenC 00:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've tried a few of the links and they just come back as "not found". I know I can access The Times archive through Gale, and that's been helpful, but I haven't tried the Independent, for example. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just go to The Wikipedia Library and use the search bar on the top to search "Carolyn Grace" spitfire as your search string. Then it will look across all of the available databases. That's how I found the above sources. SilverserenC 00:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rosalind Creasy external links issue[edit]

Is it normal to have the full text of someone’s website in external links? An IP editor on Rosalind Creasy believes so. I am not very sure of that. Thriley (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's fairly normal, I would say. We do it for authors, for example. And there's a parameter to include personal websites in the infobox, if you'd prefer it to be there instead. SilverserenC 06:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The actual dispute appears to be: do we make the link to the web site use some descriptive text for the site (I think we should; I generally use "Home page") or should we make it say the domain name of the site? The relevant guideline would seem to be MOS:URL, which says "you should add a descriptive title when an external link is offered in the References, Further reading, or External links sections ... Generally, URLs and domain names are ugly and uninformative". So I think it is pretty unambiguous that Thriley has the correct side of this dispute and the IP is wrong. That guideline also says that it should be a bulleted list, so I made that change as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I do agree there. I usually use "Official Website". Though in this case, "Personal Website" would work too. SilverserenC 06:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an interesting question. In cases where there is already an infobox, if it's simply the site of the subject's personal website it should probably best be included there, simply as the URL. As most of my own articles do not initially include boxes, I usually list the subject's website under External links. I prefer something along the lines of "Jane Doe's website" rather than "Official website". In cases where the site is a page from the site of an educational institution or an organization, I might say "Jane Doe's page from X University's Department of Religious Studies". It seems to me that "official" often falsely enhances the status of sites which are blatantly trying to promote sales or providing information on a performing artist's coming appearances. Unfortunately "official" appears to be widely used whatever kind of site it points to but it may be useful to consider whether it is always appropriate.--Ipigott (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. "Official website" obscures what the link actually is. In a world where we teach children not to click on links indiscriminately because it might be phishing, or where Twitter charges money for blue ticks, or individuals change where they are hosting their personal websites, does it even make sense? Cielquiparle (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, our current standard practice is to use the {{official website}} template (which I think has implications in terms of linkages with Wikidata too) in "External links" and to show the URL in the infobox if there is one. Looking for an example of a FA for a living person who has a website, the first I've found is J._K._Rowling which indeed uses the template under "External links" but shows the URL in the infobox using {{URL}}, and Roberta Williams has the "official website" in EL and no less than 4 visible websites in the infobox. (Found by skimming through Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/recent_TFAs hovering mouseover to look for living people). PamD 08:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I agree that it doesn't always seem appropriate, so that perhaps there should be at least a synonym "Personal website", to use in biographical articles. That would need discussion, perhaps at Template talk:Official website or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, rather than here in this niche. PamD 08:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography seems silent about websites. PamD 09:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But, arguing against myself, I see that WP:ELOFFICIAL says Use of the template {{official website}} is optional. PamD 09:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]