Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Woman of the day: a new one each day from our women's biographies

    Shortcuts

    Jenny Siler - has Wikidata and articles in French and German

    [edit]

    Hi! I'd like to suggest Jenny Siler for an English Wikipedia article. She's an American novelist who currently has:

    About her:

    She appears to meet notability guidelines with her Edgar nomination and New York Times recognition. Would anyone be interested in helping translate one of the existing articles or creating an English version? I'm happy to help with the process. Foodbark (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to add, her works seem to have received critical attention from Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews as well, which are two places I'd normally check for notable American writers. I'll add her to my list but I may not get to her any time soon, happy for anyone else to jump in if they have the capacity/inclination. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the French and German pages are very poorly referenced. We can't include information that's not supported by reliable sources, so I don't think simple translation is a good option here. The book reviews would let us write a basic bibliography-style page, but are you aware of any independent, reliable sources that could be used to flesh out the biography section? pburka (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Foodbark, Chocmilk03, Pburka, here's some sources to help.
    I hope these sources are useful for whomever decides to make an article on Siler. SilverserenC 02:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There is Draft:Jenny Siler, created in Nov 2024 by @KeithDunlap: who only made 7 edits, of which 4 have been deleted and 3 were to this and its talk page. An earlier article was PRODded as an unsourced BLP in 2010. Seems like time for a decent article, but it might be possible to use the existing draft as a basis to save some typing of lists of works etc, although the new editor wouldn't then get credit for having created it (but could of course claim it for WiR). PamD 15:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that she also has articles in ht.wiki (Haitian Creole - new to me, too) and it.wiki.
    And a pseudonym, Alex Carr, which will need a redirect! And there was a redirect at that name in 2010, plus an earlier "Alex Carr" article which was speedy deleted as {{db-bio}} (not notable biog) in 2006 and may or may not have been the same person! PamD 15:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that WiR member @RebeccaGreen worked on the draft in January. PamD 15:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I now see also that the entire text of the "biography" part of the draft is copyvio, lifted from https://www.jennysiler.com/bio.htm ! PamD 15:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the most (only?) usable part of that draft is the citation to a newspaper article providing some good biographical background: Devlin, Vince (July 1, 2002). "Siler trades odd jobs for writing novels". The Missoulian. Missoula, Montana. p. 1. Retrieved 5 May 2025.. pburka (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I've started working on the draft (basically starting from scratch), and welcome any other contributors. I suspect the creator may have a conflict of interest, but am satisfied she is independently notable. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Humaniki is working again

    [edit]

    See: here. EN-WP: 20.29%. Woohoo! -- Rosiestep (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Rosiestep Humaniki 2.0 seems to be a new tool, but it is similar to the old Humaniki. Have you seen any on wiki discussion about it? TSventon (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    TSventon, I haven't seen on-wiki discussion about it. I saw a message & link on Telegram, posted by Nattes à chat, founder of LesSansPages. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a total for all genders at the bottom of the page would be useful. TSventon (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there, as we were nagging all the time about the absence of denelezeh, and then the break down of Humaniki, @Wyslijp16 did a python script and set everything up on fr-wp. She told me it can easily be replicated but I don't have a clue how to do it. I am trying to convince her to make a presentation at Wikimania ! Nattes à chat (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We also have this that you might want to replicate : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Les_sans_pagEs/Denelezh_2.0. If you click on the number for the data elements you get access to a working list of women missing for the given professions. Useful to know which professions are missing most Nattes à chat (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Nattes à chat, thanks. Is there an EN-WP version of the professions data? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No but I believe we could help in setting it up, or providing the explanation on how it works Nattes à chat (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's basically linked to wikidata so multilingual :) Nattes à chat (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we can set this as a challenge for the hackaton at Wikimania ? Nattes à chat (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realise that @Wyslijp16 has done it for all wikipedias https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Index/Projet:Les_sans_pagEs/Humaniki_2.0/ Nattes à chat (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Nattes à chat I think Rosiestep was asking about an en Wikipedia version of https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Les_sans_pagEs/Denelezh_2.0, not of Humaniki 2.0. TSventon (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nattes à chat, I guess @Rosiestep wanted an wpen version of Denelezh 2.0. I'm constanly working on Humaniki 2.0 (currently preparing an stable version), but I will try to work on Denelezh 2.0 next ! Wyslijp16 (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is great news! I have been updating the statistics on our Project page for several years, most recently by downloading the QLever figures to a spreadsheet and calculating the percentage manually. Downloading the Humaniki 2.0 figures to calculate the total bios is much easier, but it would be preferable if it could be done automatically. My request would be for a timestamp. Oronsay (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Just commenting here to say a big thank you to @Oronsay for keeping the statistics going, thank you!!!! Lajmmoore (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Still using QLever, as I'm unclear how often the stats from Humaniki 2.0 are being updated. Oronsay (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    New editor seeking to strengthen bios of living women contributing to our society and planet

    [edit]

    Hi Women in Red team and community, I'm a new editor who aspires to contribute a few hours a week to helping to ensure the bios of living women leaders and changemakers are kept current, complete and accurate. I've studied and continue to study editing best practices/rules but appreciate feedback of course. I am starting with women leaders in the climate and STEM fields because in my layperson's opinion these fields are particularly important right now. Thanks in advance for input or guidance. Cloudchaser92 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cloudchaser92: welcome to Wikipedia and to Women in Red! It's great to have you here. If you haven't already, suggest reading the ten simple rules for women's biographies essay. It's framed around article creation but still has useful tips for contributing to existing articles, as well. Is there anything specific you'd like help with or advice on at the moment? Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    TY @Chockmilk03 for the link- hugely helpful!- no other help needed at the moment but very pleased to now have the place to come when I need it Cloudchaser92 (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    New tool: Gender bias detector

    [edit]

    Hi all — I've put together a small browser-based tool with the help of Claude AI that scans Wikipedia biographies of women for common gender bias patterns and flags specific passages for editorial review. It checks for 49 bias indicators across six categories — relational framing ("wife of", "daughter of"), appearance focus, diminutive language ("just a girl", "managed to"), unnecessary gendering ("female scientist"), achievement minimisation (passive voice, "helped to develop"), and patronising tone ("feisty", "plucky", "defied the odds"). It also checks whether the opening paragraphs lead with personal and family details rather than professional identity.

    For each flagged passage it explains why the phrasing may be problematic, suggests an approach, and gives a before/after example rewrite. The "Fix on Wikipedia" button links directly to the relevant section in the editor. Try it here: https://nethahussain.github.io/wikipedia-gender-bias-detector/

    No login, no API key, no AI — it runs entirely in the browser. Results are pattern-matched, not semantic, so editorial judgement is always needed before making any changes. Feedback and suggestions for additional patterns very welcome. Netha (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a very interesting tool, Netha Hussain. I tried it on some of my latest articles and it alerted me to my use of passive voice. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netha Hussain: Really nice, easy to use, thanks for sharing. GanzKnusper (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for this, Netha. Very easy to use and no installation necessary. In connection with awards, I'm not too sure whether whether X received... is an improvement over X was awarded... The same wording is widely used for men too. I found this in several of my bios but have not changed anything yet. The tool will be useful in reviewing new biographies. I've included it on my user page. Have you developed any other useful tools? I see that although you say you are interested in women's biographies, you have not yet joined our project. You can do so under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members.--Ipigott (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the invite to join WiR! I have signed up now (although I am sure that I did sign up elsewhere when the project just started - so I was always under the impression that I was a member). As for the point you raised regarding passive voice in terms of winning awards, I agree with you. I see that there is a difference between actively seeking an award and being awarded something. An athlete may be running a race because they actively seek to win the medal (active voice is appropriate here). On the other hand, a peace activist may be given an award without them ever intending to win an award in the first place, but got the award just because of the work they have been doing all along (so passive voice is appropriate). If it is such that the tool is giving a lot of false positives and very few true positives in terms of flagging passive voice, maybe I should remove the clause from the tool altogether. I am open to changing the clauses in the tool based on what you and others here think. Netha (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netha Hussain: This is fabulous! I have tried some articles as a test and there are a few 'false positives' but I would expect that. I also really like that the tool identifies what articles do well. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @Chocmilk03! Any feedback for improvement is always welcome. The tool has many false positives because it does only pattern recognition, and does not consider the semantic structure of the language. It is possible to make the tool more advanced by incorporating an element of AI, where in addition to pattern recognition, an LLM "reads through" the text and flags for possible bias in the construction of language. Doing so would mean asking the user to paste an API key from an LLM of their choice where they have an active subscription. Assuming that a lot of people won't trust a random tool enough to paste their API key into it, I thought this wasn't a great idea. Netha (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netha Hussain Thanks, this is interesting. I've tried it on a few of my articles, which tend to be pretty short, and almost the only problem it's picked up is "She was awarded the title Honoured Cultural Worker of the Republic of Armenia in 2022.", which I see has been mentioned above. I don't see that as demeaningly passive, or gender-based in any way, and it seems the best and most natural way to make that statement! But I can always ignore the advice, of course. Thanks for your work in producing this useful tool. PamD 00:04, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    MightyRanger draftifications of notable women

    [edit]

    This guy is fairly active recently. Please share your thoughts on them here. ~2026-11263-77 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    In this connection, see the discussion under "Paid vendor" on MightyRanger's talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Polly Irvin

    [edit]

    Just came across this unreferenced BLP. If anyone can help add sources it would be appreciated. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like the sourcing has been significantly improved. pburka (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes kudos to MerielGJones who must have seen this message and responded with some great work.4meter4 (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:WikiProject 25 for 250

    [edit]

    Just learned about this campaign (Feb-Dec 2026), and thought some of you might be interested in participating: Wikipedia:WikiProject 25 for 250. -- Rosiestep (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Orphan Article: María Cristina García-Sancho

    [edit]

    María Cristina García-Sancho

    I would appreciate having articles linked to it as it is considered an Orphan Article! Thank you all for your help! Bassgem (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bassgem: as a start, you could add García-Sancho's name to the alumni at National Autonomous University of Mexico#Physicians and surgeons. You are welcome to ask for help and advice here, but generally the author of a new article is the editor who is best placed to ensure it is not an orphan. I looked for her name in other articles but did not find anything. I was able to find a mention in es Wikipedia and deorphan es:María Cristina García Sancho. TSventon (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You can add her to list of Mexicans, List of surgeons, and notable people born in wherever, but I suggest that the most valuable would be to (also?) add the relevant part of her story to Cordotomy which would benefit from an example of its use. Her work seems very relevant and interesting. Victuallers (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC) I did this ...[reply]


    Lists to which to add women

    [edit]

    I've just discovered List of English people, because I was alerted to an article I'd created being linked. I never knew it existed, and it seems rather ridiculous to have such a broad list (though it's categorised, and some sections just refer the reader to a more specific list). I'm amazed to see that it doesn't seem to have been proposed for deletion at any time since its creation in 2002. But since it exists I'll now go through my article creations and do a "What links here", and add them to that list or appropriate sublists, or equivalents for other nationalities. Exploring the hierarchy of categories I found Category:Lists of people by nationality and its child category Category:Lists of women by nationality, so there are many of these - but it's inconsistent, there doesn't seem to be such a comprehensive list for New Zealand, the random example I first checked (there are lots of lists, shown at Lists of New Zealanders, but nowhere for the miscellaneous people who appear in List of English people#Other notables: I wonder whether they all get shoehorned into one of the specific lists). To make women more prominent in the encyclopedia, we need to ensure that they are appropriately represented in all relevant lists.

    Maybe it could be a month's target - "List them"? Or just a tip-of-the-month?

    Or perhaps everyone here knows about all these lists already, and/or the list fanatics out there are picking up on all our new creations and adding them to the lists they curate! PamD 09:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for looking into this, PamD. Over the years I have created quite a number of lists specifically for women in different spheres of interest. Most of them should be included in Lists of women. In my opinion, I think it would be more useful to develop these lists further (perhaps on the basis of pertinent categories) rather than to include lots of new entries in general listings such as List of English people or similar, including all those under Lists of people by nationality. Nevertheless, it may be useful to check that the general country-based lists provide links to those specifically concerned with women. I would also suggest that as we have a focus this year on women in sports, we should ensure that related lists are included in the Sports section of Lists of women (many are not).--Ipigott (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that where a list such as List of English people exists, we need to ensure that all relevant women are included, so that it is clear that women are "writers" not just "women writers", "politicians" not just "women politicians". PamD 11:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember that some years ago there was indeed a problem with American writers and American women writers. So you are probably right. But it's going to require a tremendous amount of editing to follow up on your suggestions. It would be interesting to see what others think.--Ipigott (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've spent a bit of time on articles I've created, working back from the oldest. (See my contributions list for today, with some gaps to cook, eat, do other things). My first creation was Mary Robinson (Maid of Buttermere) in May 2007, but after that I'm shocked how few women's articles I created before joining WiR in late 2015! I've added all those pre-WiR women to their appropriate lists as far as I can find them. Our collection of lists is very inconsistent, but a regular problem was British women who aren't identifiably English / Scottish / Welsh / Irish. There are lots of lists of "English xxxers", but very few for British. So especially for people who have migrated into Britain and become British, it's difficult. But it's been an interesting exercise, and I plan to continue. Almost none of these women were included in any of the lists I found for them, so people looking at those lists were not being alerted to the fact that women are, and have been, English playwrights, Chilean scientists, and so on. It seems worth raising the profile of women by adding them to these lists where we can. PamD 23:51, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    100%. I spent some hours a few years back making sure that all women in List of New Zealand women writers and List of New Zealand women artists were included in List of New Zealand writers and List of New Zealand artists respectively. I still monitor those pages and often women are added to the former but not the latter. I'm sure this is true for other countries.
    (I also started going through relevant categories and adding missing entries; interestingly, I found men were more likely to be missing from the relevant "List of New Zealand X" - so women were more likely to be on one of the lists, even if only the gendered one. Not sure why that would be!) Chocmilk03 (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Strangely, while we have about 50 English artists listed including 10 women (close to the current prevailing 20%), we also have 498 women artists listed at List of English women artists. We could of course import these into the List of English people section and achieve a 91% female list. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]

    Article review: Deirdre Mulligan

    [edit]

    HI all! I am collaborating on a new article for a notable academic (privacy specialist) named Draft:Deirdre Mulligan. It is currently sitting waiting to be reviewed. It currently reads a bit like a CV, as is somewhat hard to maneuver with academics due to the reliable secondary sources related to them. If there are any editors willing to improve the article or provide feedback here during the review process, that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. Breadyornot (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Breadyornot. If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend "Ten Simple Rules for Creating Women's Biographies". My immediate feedback on your draft is that you need to make the page "deletion proof", or it either won't get past AfC or will end up at AfD. It's not obvious from the lead why the subject is notable (in the Wikipedia sense). I think there are potential claims to WP:ACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:BASIC. Which notability guideline do you want to show she meets, and how does she satisfy that guideline? pburka (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You, or perhaps NangkaKacang, ,could improve the draft by making it clearer why the subject is notable. In particular you should look for independent sources which specifically mention her achievements. The current draft is likely to be criticized for the fact that she is not yet a full professor. I see that some of your sources are items, including interviews, which are closely connected to the subject. It would certainly help if you could find independent reviews of some of her publications, for example this. I see she is also mentioned in connection with her website in press reports from the Washington Post and the New York Times. Don't worry if your draft is not immediately accepted. Just try to improve it on the basis of the feedback you receive. Please let us know if you are able to improve the biography. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The needle is still moving

    [edit]

    I noticed that @Oronsay updated the stats earlier today. I feel like it can sometimes look like we're barely making an impact, when the percentage of women's biographies only increases from 20.29% to 20.30%. But if we look at just the difference since the last update (11 days earlier), there were 1872 more biographies overall, of which 584 were women. This means more than 31% of the new biographies in that period were of women or gender minorities. It's not 50%, but it's pretty encouraging! pburka (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for looking into this, pburka. According to the details on our Metrics page, over the years the number of women's biographies has more or less consistently averaged just over 27% of the total number. In line with the general reduction of new articles on Wikipedia, the number of new biographies per day has varied from around 75 per day (2015 to 2021) to some 52 per day jn more recent years. Overall then, there have been no substantial changes in the rate at which we are increasing women's coverage although it would be interesting to see if we cannot do better -- perhaps on the basis of more attractive contests, further research into women in Wikipedia, and more efforts to recruit and encourage contributors to the project.--Ipigott (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Our Showcase page

    [edit]

    I see that since I stopped updating this page manually a couple of years ago, it has remained static. I suggest its icon on the WiR pages should be deleted. In any case, pertinent info is provided automatically under Article alerts on our main page.--Ipigott (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the Showcase icon myself and adapted references to it.--Ipigott (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    I created this page from Hansard. It's a list of as many female Parliamentarians as I could identify from the full list on their site. While gender is generally clear from the title, in some cases I had to resort to first names, and, of course, some, like Evelyn and Morgan (and even Courtney) are not gender specific. There are a few red links in the list. They may merely require redirects of course. Conversely some of the blue links may be to a different person.

    I also came across this much older list of about 20 young women from Huffpost in 2013. At least one of these red links was an article that has has been deleted, but may now be ripe for resurrection. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:46, 24 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]

    I've fixed the redlinked "A" parliamentarians, except Mary Aubrey-Fletcher who gets a red link in Baron_Braye#Barons_Braye_(1529) as Mary Penelope Aubrey-Fletcher, 8th Baroness Braye and probably ought to have an article.
    Some of the names are amazing: Helen Asquith (now a redirect) is Violet Bonham Carter, full name Helen Violet Bonham Carter, Baroness Asquith of Yarnbury. Just shows how important it is to create redirects from all plausible versions of a woman's name! PamD 17:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I noticed Helen Asquith, as a probable redirect. I always try to create as many of the redirects as I can - see for example Dorothy Jewson whose real first name was Dorothea and who had three surnames over her life. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]
    Looking at Bs: Katherine Bigham is redlinked as Katherine Evelyn Constance Bigham, Viscountess Mersey, 12th Lady Nairne at Lord_Nairne#Lords_Nairne_(1681), and I've added her to the dab page at Lady Nairne. PamD 17:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Eva Milman is now a redirect to Baron_Berkeley#Barons_Berkeley,_by_writ,_Second_Creation_(1421) where she's listed as a redlink with a much fuller name. PamD 11:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done a few more, but given up for now at Rosina Touchet-Jesson - if anyone fancies a challenge, she gets a mention in her husband's page and at List of female members of the House of Lords and changed her name by deed poll, and could do with several incoming redirects as she was Rosina Lois Veronica Tuchet-Jesson (and both spellings seem to be used - one of the people in the deed poll was Thomas Percy Henry Touchet Tuchet-Jesson!)
    But basically it's lunchtime and this was a pleasant job to work through while listening to Sunday morning's Radio 4 diet of Desert Island Discs and The Archers omnibus! Might continue later. PamD 12:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirected Vera Tyrwhitt to her place in Baron Berners, where she's listed as 15th Baroness. She made no speech in the Lords, so seems barely notable for an article. PamD 18:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    All the red links done except a handful mentioned above; some dab pages left. Various extra redirects created for some of these multi-named women.
    If this is supposed to be a complete list of parliamentarians, then Jenny Jones, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (born 1949) is missing: the "Jenny Jones" in the list is Jenny Jones (Labour politician) (born 1948). PamD 18:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find the baroness on Hansard's list. Any that I have missed will be on this page. Anything else missing is missing on Hansard. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC).[reply]
    Grizel Claire is actually Grizel St. Claire as far as I can tell. No speeches. No article for her, her husband, father or daughters (I think), but two for her sons John St Clair, Master of Sinclair and James St Clair. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC).[reply]

    Add to Women in Red

    [edit]

    Judith J. Leidl, MFA: Artist and Associate Professor, Studio Art, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, CANADA ~2026-12400-77 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting this Wikidata item: Judith J. Leidl (Q96955364). Peaceray (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Women in Red - March 2026

    [edit]
    Women in Red | March 2026, Vol 12, Issue 3, Nos 358, 359, 364, 365, 366


    Online events:

    Announcements from other communities:

    Tip of the month:

    • Those experiencing difficulties with new articles can follow the guidance in our essays,
      perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules.

    Other ways to participate:

    Instagram | Pinterest

    --Rosiestep (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

    Join Wiki Loves Ramadan 2026 – Create New Articles & Win Prizes

    [edit]

    Hello WikiProject Women in Red Members,

    You are warmly invited to participate in Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Ramadan 2026 on the English Wikipedia.

    This campaign focuses on improving content related to Ramadan, its history, traditions, culture, heritage, notable events, and global observances.

    You can participate by creating new articles related to Ramadan and its associated topics. Your contributions will help bridge content gaps and improve coverage of Islamic culture and history on English Wikipedia.

    There are also International Prizes for eligible participants.

    Please visit the project page for full details, timeline, and guidelines: Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Ramadan 2026.

    We look forward to your participation. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 09:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional ways of promoting WiR events

    [edit]

    Event registration tool

    [edit]
    recording
    slidedeck

    Today, I attended the training for Event Campaigns. I'll attach the slidedeck and the video links once they've been uploaded to Commons. In the meantime, I created these two event pages;

    Hopefully, these pages will promote our events to people who aren't aware of them through our common methods. Let's see if we get more questions on our main talkpage and or more new editors. As usual, these Event pages can be edited by anyone, including you, to make things clearer. Thanks in advance for any feedback, e.g., naming convention, whether we need to create an Event page on Meta-wiki and EN-WP, or if one is sufficient, etc. -- Rosiestep (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for launching interest in the Event campaigns. It's not obvious that the EN-WP link specifically targets Women's History Month. Maybe it will benefit from the slide show when it is attached. It might also be useful to include an intro similar to that in Meta. I'm also rather worried that a completely new Event page on EN-WP will not attract many page views, unless of course there are additional efforts to publicize it.--Ipigott (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the "registration option" to the EN-WP Event page. I don't know how to improve its promotion. My understanding is that if someone searches for an "event", they'll see those whose event begins with Event:. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]
    • I see we now have one - at least on my screen. This should certainly help. But I've just noticed it only comes up on the WiR pages. Pity it's not on all the EN pages. Or maybe it only comes up once.--Ipigott (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ipigott see #Celebrate Women below. Hopefully Rosie knows how it works. TSventon (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    WMF Wikimedia campaigns page

    [edit]

    Telegram's Wikiwomen group

    [edit]

    If you're on Telegram, and if you're a member of the Wikiwomen Telegram group, then you saw that I promoted our February events (albeit only a few days ago). I plan to do the same on March 1 with our March events. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I pasted our March invitation in the Wikiwomen Telegram group. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Celebrate Women

    [edit]

    Celebrate Women is a campaign across all language Wikipedias that runs from March 1st to 31st. Every year, in celebration of International Women’s Day, Wikimedia organizers use this campaign to list gender-related events happening during the month. As in past years, I added all WiR March events: m:Event:Celebrate Women/Events. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft: Ellen K Feder

    [edit]

    Hello, second article is done at a rough state: Draft:Ellen Feder

    If anyone could take a look I would appreciate it massively :) KingLeonid1 (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    A few first impressions:
    • Using the subject's first name is almost never appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. Use her surname.
    • A "Life" section is typically for her personal life. I'd rename that "Career"
    • She clearly passes WP:NPROF as she holds a named chair, but that info is a bit hidden. I think that ought to be mentioned in the lead paragraph.
    pburka (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How do I add the NPROF? Sorry, I'm new to this! KingLeonid1 (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPROF is a notability guideline. It explains which academics are considered sufficiently notable to have wiki pages. You should always ensure that the subject you plan to write about is notable before you spend too much time writing. It's also a good idea to highlight their notability early in the article. In Feder's case, the named chair makes her stand out from the average professor, so I recommend mentioning it in the lead. pburka (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For books in her publications list, find the isbns (preferably first hardback ed) and add them using {{ISBN}}: they then become a clickable link which the reader can follow to get more information about the book, and they serve to verify the info about the book in the publications list. I've added one as a demo. PamD 17:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Reduction in backlog of unreviewed women's biographies

    [edit]

    The tip in the January invitation calling for assistance in reducing the backlog of women's biographies seems to have been pretty effective, bringing the listing down from over 1500 to just 520. This was also partly due to the current contest which continues with opportunities for February too. I hope our administrators and authorized page reviewers will continue their efforts.--Ipigott (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm pleased to be able to report that with the help of the January/February contest, as of 1 March the number of non-reviewed articles is now down to just 233. It would be good if we could continue to keep this down to a reasonable level. But thanks to all who have helped with this work. It is an important aspect of attracting new contributors.--Ipigott (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had a look at the WP:NPP talk page here and the main drive seems to have made limited progress due to unexpectedly high numbers of new articles in the period. Oddly the numbers of new biography articles in January and February per QLever seem to be in line with last year. TSventon (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the unreviewed women biographies and related articles were reduced far more than the overall results of the drive in January and February. Furthermore, most of those that were still listed had recommendations from reviewers for various types of attention.--Ipigott (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Template creation requested

    [edit]

    After creating the redlist for 2026 deaths, I have added it to the Redlist index and the Recent deaths and 2025 deaths pages. Rather than manually update the remaining pages for deaths in 2015–2024, it would be great if a WiR tech angel could create a page header template that could be applied to each page, updated annually. Oronsay (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    In the absence of template help, I've added 2026 deaths to all remaining redlists. Oronsay (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    New biographies from Nottingham Women in Red

    [edit]

    Hello folks, another session organised by the amazing @SarahFColborne today, with five new articles from new editors: Helen Elizabeth Meller, Inez de Castro (warden), Margaret Glen Bott, Edith Becket and Ida Sargent (musician). If you're near Nottingham (UK) on Saturday, there is a one day exhibition about their editing efforts so far! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeannette Paulson Hereniko

    [edit]

    Hello: I am a paid/COI editor hired by Jeannette Paulson Hereniko. She is the founder of the Hawaii International Film Festival. She already has an article, but it is very poorly sourced and doesn't currently meet Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. I would like to help her bring the article into compliance by adding acceptable sources. I posted a request on her talk page on February 1. An editor responded asking for clarification of my request. I responded the following day and have not heard from any editors since. I was wondering if it would be a better idea accomplish the task in this space? I've noticed that requests in the COI queue that have considerable content or sources to review can have long wait times. I see one of the themes for this month is Women Artists. Jeannette has produced several films, and written and performed two one-woman shows. Any feedback would be appreciated on proceeding on Jeannette's behalf. She also has a very tight budget. If a volunteer was interested in helping her instead of me, I would be happy to pass on the sources I've found for her article. She is lovely and at 85, I get the feeling that for her, time may be of the essence. Thank you very much and best, LeepKendall (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

     Done pburka (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much! I have more citations to request adding. Shall I post them on Jeannette's talk page and then share that here? I so appreciate your time. Best, LeepKendall (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm watching the talk page now and will be happy to review them there. pburka (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so very much! LeepKendall (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Advice on declined draft about a woman artist

    [edit]

    Hello, I would be grateful for advice regarding a declined draft about a contemporary woman artist.

    The draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Olympe_Ramakrishna

    The subject has received substantial coverage in independent national media (more than 15 press articles dedicated to her work), and a Wikipedia article already exists in French: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympe_Ramakrishna

    I would greatly appreciate any guidance on how best to address the notability concern raised during the review.

    Thank you very much for your time and support. Saloj Nair (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi there, Saloj Nair. I'm sorry to see you are experiencing difficulty with your first article. In connection with artists, you can find guidance here. More generally, you can follow the tips in our Ten Simple Rules. Above all, it is important to find independent reliable sources which show the subject has obtained significant appreciation, for example by means of generally recognized awards or the inclusion of artworks in permanent exhibitions in museums or galleries of note. Please let me know if you are able to improve your draft along these lines. Unfortunately, the requirements for inclusion of new articles in the English Wikipedia are more demanding than those in many other language versions. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a good example of what's wrong with AfC. The page was declined with a terse explanation that the sources aren't independent. My best guess is that the reviewer is using a very narrow interpretation of "independence" and discounting any source which quotes the subject. In my opinion, this article is suitable for mainspace and the rejection was inappropriate. pburka (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with you, pburka, but the page was rejected by no less than three AfC reviewers. I would not have rejected it myself but was simply trying to offer some suggestions for improvement. In my experience, Theroadislong is normally more supportive.--Ipigott (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much @Ipigott and @Pburka for your feedbacks. I could not find information about artworks in permanent exhibitions or awards in the press. What do you suggest I now do with my draft ? Saloj Nair (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saloj Nair: I'm afraid that unless you are able to improve the draft, it will be rejected once again if you resubmit it, I suggest you spend your editing time creating women's biographies which meet the requirements of our Ten Simple Rules. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    OK thank you Saloj Nair (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saloj Nair, Ipigott, Pburka, I have moved the article to mainspace. Saloj Nair, I would advise you never bother using Articles for Creation ever again and just work on articles in your personal userspace or sandbox and then move them to mainspace yourself. It's a waste of time to use AFC, as they don't ever follow their own rules at WP:AFCPURPOSE anyways. Not to mention that the reviewer comment about WP:NARTIST was a joke of a claim, as WP:NBASIC right above it clearly showcased why the subject was notable, with over a dozen full length articles on her art across years. Easily and obviously notable. Apologies that you had to waste so much time on that, Saloj Nair, but at least the article is active now. SilverserenC 01:47, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    COI edit request relevant to this project: Kay Firth-Butterfield

    [edit]

    Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Kay Firth-Butterfield article. DrThneed (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Ann Castro (Q130815430): Thank you & Info

    [edit]

    Hey there, It was brought to my attention that I apparently appear on several of your red lists (Animal Trainers, Writers (Germany), and German Women).

    This is of course very flattering. Thank you so much.

    I just wanted to reach out to let you know that I have been updating my Wikidata page (Q130815430) with additional references and info (Imdb). Also if you need anything from me for the article - any additional facts, questions, or images — please reach out and let me know.

    I'd love to help make your work easier if I can.

    Thanks again and take care, Ann. (Ann Castro) Redakteur-W25 (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I presume that you're the "Bird School" Ann Castro. While it's helpful to have info about you, any editor who wanted to start a biography about you would need to find independent sources demonstrating your (wiki) notability. To assist them, you might want to create a small bibliography somewhere on your user page. This should include news, magazine, or scholarly articles about you (not by you). Note that published interviews generally aren't acceptable. pburka (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi pburka, Thank you for your pointers.
    I am a complete Newbie here. So ... the info on Wikidata is not what you are looking for? Artikels about me, also interviews, reference to my IMDB page, German National library etc etc. That is not what you are looking for? I thought it was because of this (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q130815430) that I even ended up on your red list in the first place?
    You mean the user page here on Wiki? I did not realize that existed. lol. Ok, clearly I need to inform myself better.
    THanks and take care,
    Ann. Redakteur-W25 (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the red lists are, as you note, generated from Wikidata, but, speaking for myself, it would never occur to me to look on Wikidata for sources. It's also important to note that inclusion in Wikidata does not guarantee that a topic is eligible for a Wikipedia article. To be eligible, a topic must meet one of our notability guidelines, typically the WP:General notability guideline or one of the WP:Subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:NPROF. Notability isn't determined by sheer volume of sources, and too many sources can even be detrimental (see WP:REFBOMB). It's helpful to editors to try to pick out a handful of really high quality sources to use for the core of the article (see WP:Three sources for thoughts on this). Of course this is only relevant if you really want your biography on Wikipedia. Remember that, once someone does write a page about you, you have minimal control over what is written about you. pburka (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Pburka,
    THank you so much for your patience. I never realized there was so much behind it.
    And I did exactly what the article you listed says not to do: I gave a reference dump list, thinking the more the better.
    One thing I am not quite sure I understand is what needs sources and what not.
    FOr example: On my notability: Because I am a parrot expert I got the following:
    • I had a TV-Show (national TV Station - VOX) for three years on parrots with problem behaviours, covering all kinds of training topics
    • I am on the Expert-Board of WP-Magazin (Which is Europe's biggest Pet bird publication)
    • I have written article-series for well known pet magazines (Caes & Cia, WP-Magazin & Ein Herz für Tiere)
    Does this cover it and I supply sources for these. Or references outside that this happened - for example articles about me? Press releases?
    Or should I only put stuff in that I did not do, but where others commented about it?
    How about when TV Stations interviewed me because of my expertise? DOes this count because an interview is about me? Or does it not count because I was in the interview?
    I don't really understand the levels, I guess.
    I do know though to leave out self published books, even if they are well known, because wiki does not like self-published stuff, correct?
    I am a bit overwhelmed to be honest.
    Thank you for your patience!
    Take care,
    Ann. Redakteur-W25 (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    On Wikipedia, the term "notability" has a very specific meaning. It can feel counter-intuitive, but expertise and fame generally don't count directly towards notability. For example, most reporters aren't wiki notable, even though they frequently appear on TV or write about a topic. Similarly, YouTubers or Instagram influencers with millions of followers often aren't notable. Instead, we're looking for evidence that independent, reliable sources have written about you and your work. Published reviews (positive or negative) of your books or TV shows would count, but a press release or a TV listing just confirming the show exists would not. pburka (talk) 12:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    THank you for the explanation. So for example the DPA article in which I am mentioned and quoted does not count because it is "WITH" me. However, when Frankfurter RUndschau wrote an article about me being an expert on tropical birds, or Cage & Aviary Birds (UK) wrote an article about me called: "Not your usual parrot person" then that counts because it is "ABOUT" me. Correct?
    So in my profile I should just put "ABOUT" articles with some relevant quotes?
    Thanks and take care,
    Ann. Redakteur-W25 (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, or at least it should highlight the best "about you" articles. The other articles can still be used to support facts about you. pburka (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I have done this now. Do I need to translate German titles/quotes into English? Also since these are printed articles (no online version available), should I quote excerpts? Putting the PDFs online is tricky with copyright laws. I don't feel comfortable doing that. Redakteur-W25 (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi pburka, thank you for the pointers! I have updated my user page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Redakteur-W25 with a list of independent sources, including my work as a long-term TV expert for VOX (15 episodes) and various national and international press features. I hope this helps anyone interested in starting the article. Best, Ann. Redakteur-W25 (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Artificial intelligence visual art#Requested move 11 February 2026

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Artificial intelligence visual art#Requested move 11 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Qwerty123M please could you satisfy my curiosity and explain the link to this project? TSventon (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I didn't need to add this link. I like to make sure consensus can be achieved in discussions like this by publicising the discussion to all relevant WikiProjects. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with TSventon, in that I can't see how the discussion is relevant to this WikiProject. pburka (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Margaret Helen Waterfield - improvements needed

    [edit]

    Hello. I was doing some quick clean up as I've not had time to work on new biogs. I found this article on Margaret Helen Waterfield, which was once on our red lists. I've cleaned it up a fair bit but it still leans very heavily on a single blog source, to the extent that the punctuation was identical. I'm wondering if anyone fancies adding some inline citations to stronger sources before it gets put on a delete list.

    EEHalli (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    question - Category:Media supported by WikiProject Women in Red

    [edit]

    Can anyone add Category:Media supported by WikiProject Women in Red to files found on Commons or are there guidelines?

    Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a really good question, Ooligan. To my knowledge, we don't have guidelines about that. My rule of thumb has been that if I upload an image, which falls within the scope of WiR, then I add Category:Media supported by WikiProject Women in Red, but I don't add it to images that I didn't upload. Thinking on it further though, I'm not sure what's the right answer. For example: I've added a lot of photos to this category Woman's Christian Temperance Union people, but a lot of photos were uploaded by others. Should Category:Media supported by WikiProject Women in Red, be added to the photos added by others? --Rosiestep (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Rosiestep,
    I have seen this category added by editor that did not upload the file. You mentioned "the scope of WiR," but I could not find the on the project page. Did I miss it?
    I would be willing to add that category in the future, if there were some guidance to help me (and others) to help identify files to categorize that would be most useful to the WiR WikiProject.
    -- Ooligan (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooligan, good questions.
    The scope of Women in Red is here, e.g. women's representation, broadly construed (e.g., their biographies, their works, their issues).
    The categories on Wikimedia Commons that relate to Women in Red are the subcategories of this.
    Beyond what I've already mentioned -as we don't have a guideline yet- let's get the opinion of other editors regarding which additional images to add to the subcategories of c:Category:Media supported by WikiProject Women in Red. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What benefits does the project gain from categorizing media as "supported by WiR"? Is it primarily to increase visibility of the project? Does it trigger automatic notifications regarding discussions? Something else? pburka (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Duša Počkaj

    [edit]

    This article needs sources if anyone has the time to pitch in. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    COI edit request relevant to this project: Natalia Trayanova

    [edit]

    Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Natalia Trayanova article. DrThneed (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    For potential reviewers, the subject is a professor and biomedical engineer at Johns Hopkins. She holds a named chair, so WP:NPROF is easily met. pburka (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Women in UK law

    [edit]

    A current AfD, Rehana Popal, led me to find the First Hundred Years project which celebrates women in UK law, initially from the centenary of the 1919 change which allowed women to become lawyers. While I haven't found anything about Popal on that site (though this confirms her getting recognition from them, and I'm about to change what seems to be a confusion with the BBC 100 Women), there may be other women listed there who ought to have articles and haven't yet. PamD 09:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, how come I didn't spot it: we already have First 100 Years, as a start. PamD 09:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've now made a dab page at First Hundred Years. PamD 11:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red&oldid=1343312909"