Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

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

And related projects

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

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


Trial of Kate Dover[edit]

A few days ago I created the above article (initially named "Felicia Dorothea Kate Dover") as a biography of a female criminal in response to the Women in Red project, and entered it for DYK. However there's a problem with whether or not it should count as a biography. Please see the article's talk page for the DYK discussion. I would be interested to read your views, whether here or on the DYK template. Storye book (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I imagine we should consult WP:Crime and consider whether Dover and/or Jones are WP:NOTE in and of themselves. Note that the victim already has a separate biography. I think we probably should consider making Dover or Jones as a separate article rather than a move as you propose, @Storye book:. Ideally, the trial page would need portions of text moved to the new biographies. Have you considered making a draft of the article(s) in your user space? Fred (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Who is Jones, by the way? Yes I can split out the ancestry, education and employment of Dover to a new biography page. It will be extremely complex, though, as it's the crime and trial themselves which reveal what she is really like and the tragedy of fatal flaws and downfall etc. Yes I'll userfy a copy of the article and see what I can do, bearing in mind that DYK requirments may block some changes. Thank you, though, you've got me thinking. Storye book (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Jane Jones was the other domestic worker. Great, happy editing! Fred (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Ha! Yes, of course. Silly me. I was in a hurry with other duties and not thinking. I'll userfy the article today and have a go. Storye book (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Update: I think I have now resolved the issue. There are now three articles instead of two: Kate Dover, Trial of Kate Dover and Thomas Skinner (etcher). I am not able to create a page for Jane Jones the other housekeeper: due to her not uncommon name, it has so far been impossible to trace her identity. Thank you for the kind advice given so far. Much appreciated. Storye book (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Three epic articles for the price of one. Thank you, Storye book - they're excellent. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I stand on the shoulders of giants, though - the journalists in those days were really something special. Storye book (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Help! I am having a problem with the status of the Kate Dover article. There were originally two biography articles: Felicia Dorothea Kate Dover and Thomas Skinner (etcher). Then someone came along and changed the female one to Kate Dover. Then I was pressurised into changing the female article to Trial of Kate Dover. Then people didn't like that, and I was pressurised into splitting the female article into Trial of Kate Dover and Kate Dover. Now the Kate Dover article has been tagged and I'm being pressurised into merging Kate Dover and Trial of Kate Dover back together again, as Trial of Kate Dover. I believe that the problem is that because in the 19th century female lives were not generally considered notable, we have to read between the lines of their lives because they were never celebrated or explored at the time. We have to work harder at appreciating the biographies of women of that era, so we should treat femaie biographies less ruthlessly than those of contemporary men. I should have thought that a female arsenic poisoner whose trial reveals a complex and rather unusual personality ought to be of biographical interest. So before I consider merging the biography Kate Dover back into Trial of Kate Dover, if you are reading this, please could you kindly give an opinion. I am concerned that splitting and merging these articles is becoming repetitive and achieving nothing. The tag on the Kate Dover page has at least one link which appears to imply corruption on my part. So I would like to make clear that I have no ancestral or financial connection with the subject whatsoever. My motives are solely along the lines of contributing to local history studies, contributing to Wikipedia, and sharing some revealing social history with the public. I fund my own research, so there is financial outlay, not gain on my part. I hope that covers it. Storye book (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The tag on the Kate Dover article has nothing to do with corruption or COI (I'm actually curious, where does the notability tag appear to suggest that?). It's an issue of WP:1E: Kate Dover appears to be notable solely for her role in one notable event which already has its own article. Per the notability guideline, "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." It appears to me that all coverage of the person (outside of census information, her death certificate, etc.) is in relation to the event. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@MarkH21: Currently we have three well-written articles: a detailed and lengthy trial article, and biogs of the two main players. There is a 1E argument to be made that the biogs should be folded into the trial. There is also, as you note, a counter-argument to be made based on "if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified". Noting the exemplary structure, format and content of the current articles, and the judicious and appropriate separation of content amongst them, would you take the opportunity to explain how we will be better off with a single article? If we will not be better off, would you consider removing the notability tag. thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I have edited the header and added a new section in Kate Dover to show Dover's independent notability as a rather unusual type of female poisoner - having a complex personality consisting of what might be seen as quite striking sophistication and innocence in an ordinary nineteenth century working-class girl, while at the same time either making a terrible mistake or doing a terrible thing (however one might view her crime). This new section relies on points which were all raised separately during the court case, but when collected together these points belong in her biography. I would like to remove the tag now, on the grounds that her independent notability has now been made clear. Storye book (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the clause "if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified," all of the media coverage about the individual is about the event. The rest of the article is not media coverage about the rest her life and does nothing to differentiate her from any other "ordinary nineteenth century working-class girl" as mentioned by Storye book (talk · contribs). Regarding the new "complex personality" subsection, it is again entirely based on media coverage related to the trial and does not suggest at all that her personality was notable in itself.
In the end, it is not apparent whatsoever that the person was notable for anything other than the murder and trial and the parts of the article that would differentiate her from another person of the time are entirely in connection to the trial. The material here is well-written and well-sourced, but the interesting parts (e.g. without the extensive family background) would serve well within the actual trial article. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@MarkH21: You have yet to articulate any benefit arising from the removal of the article. The purpose of rules - including IAR - is to improve wikipedia. How is wikipedia being improved by removing well-written &c articles? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The same reason that we have any notability guidelines (unless you believe that the inclusion of everything and everyone on WP improves WP). The minor biographical details of the article unrelated to the trial do not add value. The notable and interesting aspects can be moved to the actual article on the trial to create comprehensive and compact coverage of the trial. The guidelines are there for a reason and are agreed-upon by consensus. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@MarkH21: I can as easily say "the same reason we have IAR". Which is, to remind you, a *policy* not a *guideline*. So, again. What benefit do you contemplate? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I'll repeat it: The minor biographical details of the article unrelated to the trial do not add value. The notable and interesting aspects can be moved to the actual article on the trial to create comprehensive and compact coverage of the trial.

If you believe that the article satisfies one of the clauses in 1E, then by all means demonstrate that. For instance, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category." On the other hand, "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage." It is not apparent to me that this event is "major" with such wide-scale coverage, but that's a possible argument to make. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll also point out for reference here the policy WP:NOTNEWS, #3: "Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." (bolding is mine) — MarkH21 (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The ultimate value of the biography and the trial article, in their different ways, is to deepen our understanding of social history - in this case the relationship of a working class woman of individual character with the process of law, in the context of time and place. It requires both articles to see this in full. If we merge the articles we may (now or by future edits) lose much of Dover's biographical detail, and would thereby lose depth of understanding of her as an individual example of that kind of situation. If we put it all into one legal article, the rather striking individual woman becomes a cipher, when the WP Women in Red project is trying to undo that sort of sidelining. If we subsume the trial into the biography, we lose its great human story which gives so much insight into the community aspect of legal process in that time and place. Without looking at Kate Dover separately, it becomes much more difficult to read between the lines what was really going on there. This is quite a complex bit of social history, and we need all of it (and more if we can find it) if we are really to understand a world very different from our own. Storye book (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The point is that this isn’t lost if the articles are combined. Anything unusual about the person is solely in connection with the trial and can be moved to that article. There’s little lost here. — MarkH21 (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
In my original comment, I meant to link to WP:CRIMINAL, not the project page. I think it would be fair to say that Kate Dover is both internationally known and has an unusual motivation, hence warranting an article. Fred (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Trial of Mary Fitzpatrick[edit]

The above article, written in response to the Women in Red project, has been proposed for deleterion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trial of Mary Fitzpatrick. If you have any views on this matter, please would you kindly consider adding your comment, heading it with "keep" or "delete" as appropriate? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Update: The AfD has now been closed as keep, so the article is no longer tagged. If you read the above and commented on the AfD template, thank you for your contribution. Storye book (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Culturally sensitive review for Eagle Woman before DYK[edit]

I submitted Eagle Woman for DYK but would appreciate a review for language etc before it gets far enough to hit the main page. Most of the more detailed sources are decades old. Is there anyone here who would mind doing that? If not, where would be a good place to ask? Thanks, originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 20:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

With my culturally sensitive hat on, you should work in "America" or "United States" in somewhere. At the moment the article just assumes the reader knows where it is about. Johnbod (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't even notice I didn't mention the US govt until halfway through the article. Thanks! originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 00:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
One thing to note: she wasn't born in South Dakota, because it didn't exist at the time she was born in 1820 ("As the southern part of the former Dakota Territory, South Dakota became a state on November 2, 1889,"). The article continues to say she lived in South Dakota, etc. She was also not born in the Dakota Territory, as this was founded in 1861. -Yupik (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Awesome, noted and will incorporate. Thanks! originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 06:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
There are a couple of portraits out there that should be uploadable to Commons, given that they're photographs and she died in 1888 (so they're in the public domain). I've tried to pull one down, but I'm having some connectivity issues...if anyone else wants to try? Otherwise I can try and pull them this evening for upload. (They come up on a Google Image Search under the name "Matilda Gilpin".) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Ser Amantio di Nicolao Done image uploaded to commons and added to article WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ooh. This ties into the Fort Laramie negotiations, and that's my jam. Gimme a little bit and I'll look into it. GMGtalk 16:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Does anyone else see an image load on this source page 61? Or is this just marked out for the purposes of Google Books? GMGtalk 19:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

A 20/20 vision: 20% for 2020?[edit]

Watching the proportion of women in English wikipedia slowly inch upwards towards 18%, progress seems painfully slow. An ambitious goal, given this pace, would be to get to 20% by some point in the year 2020. Is that a goal around which publicity efforts could be coordinated? Dsp13 (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

  • The more I read about the extraordinary proportion of WP biographies which are sport, and specifically footballers, the more unlikely this seems! PamD 10:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the edit history of the project main page shows the last 12 months moving only from 17.75% to 17.98% (17.08% two years ago), so that would require a huge jump in growth - some 30,000 bios. In fact the rate of growth has slowed, which is perhaps not surprising after a highly successful period. Personally I'd like to see more emphasis on the better BLP figures, and the even better ones with sports people removed. Johnbod (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Based on the progress, I think we'd be a year short (20% in 2021). It would be nice though if i did get accomplished tho. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Let's not be too pessimistic. If we could revive interest in something along the lines of The World Contest and perhaps consolidate stronger support from Wiki Ed, I think we would have a fair chance of reaching 20% by the end of next year. As Rosiestep has suggested on more than one occasion, it might also be useful to have monthly priorities based on creating stubs, for example on writers and/or artists already covered in other languages (maybe with some automatic assistance from Wikidata). Given the Swedes' increasing interest and involvement in Wikipedia, maybe we could organize some kind of tie-up with them on focusing more strongly on covering women around the world. And let's not forget the BBC who give more and more attention to innovative women around the world. Victuallers has frequently come up with interesting ways of publicizing our activities or attracting new members. Perhaps he (or any other participants) also have some suggestions.--Ipigott (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, I'd favor hosting a stub-a-thon in Oct-Nov-Dec where we create stubs from translations or otherwise. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The Equal Edit: The was founded in 2001 and WMSE was founded in 2007, so Sweden has been going strong in the Wikipedia movement for a long time. While the 2017-18 Swedish initiative, m:WikiGap, is now mostly over, a new one, m:The Equal Edit [1] has taken its place: making Swedish history on Swedish Wikipedia more gender equal. The Equal Edit initiative is not about new article creation. Rather it focuses on adding women into existing articles. A benefit of this initiative for new editors is that it offers a light-weight opportunity to start editing, e.g. add a link for Jane Doe's article into other articles. We've been talking about Linkage+Findability at Women in Red for quite a while but as it doesn't fall under "new article creation", we haven't moved it forward. Maybe someone would like to develop it under the WikiProject Women banner? --Rosiestep (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
(sv-wiki. Se-wiki is the Northern Saami one and we're much younger than 2001.) -Yupik (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been chewing over a similar thought to this before. It would be difficult to achieve this, but it wouldn't be impossible...especially if we up our focus on stubs for the next few months or so. What would really help matters is if we could get a contest going again. I know there have been some concerns about arranging funding for one, but I wouldn't mind putting some money towards it, for one. It would really be good if the contest were to go for longer than a month; I'd be interested to see what would come of a two-month contest, say. Or even three-month, potentially. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
If we focus only on creating stubs to bump the overall percentage, then our wikiproject would be associated with quantity, and not quality. I've noticed a lot of stubs being made for the sports edithaton for July-August 2019, and I've been on the fence about that. Yes, these stubs have boosted the percentage even closer to 19% but they don't provide enough information to show why this person is notable to pass GNG. Creating solely stubs would not look good for any wikiproject, especially women in red. I think an article should be the most complete it can be when sources and information are available. If an article can only reach a meatier stub level like 1000 bytes of prose, I'd be okay with that only if that's the largest the article can reach. I don't think focusing on stubs is a good idea. Instead, I think making articles that are Start class or above is way more important. The more information the article has, the more likely it'd be kept if it passes criteria. I always aim for my articles to be at least start class. Maybe aiming for start or above would be a better idea. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
My concern with publicising a 20% goal is that it would likely sound, to an audience unfamiliar with Wikipedia, very unambitious. If I wasn't familiar with the specifics of Wikipedia's problems in this regard and I heard it was adopting a 20% target, I might assume that this was a sign of not taking the issue seriously (as in, why not aim for 50%?). On the other hand, perhaps such a public reaction could help shock people into action... Cordless Larry (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
When you put it that way, I agree. One would have to explain how bad the situation was in order to express how much an advance 20% actually represents, which is more awkward and indirect than an ambitious program should be. Maybe a better goal would be 2,020 examples of something, like 2,020 featured pictures (of which there are currently only 6,479 in total). XOR'easter (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
...Even presuming we're half-way to that goal, that'd mean three to four new nominations a day, all year. That's not practical. My best year ever didn't even crack 90 for the year. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 18:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
It didn't sound very practical to me when I typed it; that was just the first example I could think of for a "20/20 vision" that sounded more obviously dramatic than "20%". XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
playing on that theme, how about 2020 dyks or GAs? dyks might be easier - but then again I haven't dug into how many we're at already. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, let's calculate this out. There's about 8 DYKs a day, and 366 days in 2020, so we'd need two-thirds of all DYK slots for 2020 for that to work. 2020 new articles is probably possible, but getting them all onto the main page in 2020 is less so. There are 622 GANs currently open, though I'd imagine we'd be leaning towards a subset of the possible GA categories. We'd need sufficient reviewers - who are able to do a tough, fair review, and who won't be challenged - but I think that's at least possible, though not easy. We should probably also make a point of clearing out the current GANs as much as possible in the leadup to our campaign starting, so that we're not screwing over everyone else. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 19:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder that the scope of WiR is creating new articles, not article improvement (e.g. WikiProject Women focuses on GAs and GANs). --Rosiestep (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Then DYKs would be more feasible especially for blue link creations ;) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
What if we promoted a campaign in Q4 (Oct-Nov-Dec) for maxi-stubs at the 1000 bytes of prose level, such as MrLinkinPark333 mentioned? It's not something that everyone would be interested in, but some editors would be. Plus, as we allow "improvements" in the Outcomes section of each event page, some editors might be interested in bringing a mini-stub to a maxi-stub level; we certainly have a lot of mini-stubs that could benefit from that. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Thanks for the ping. Permastubs should only be made if there's limited amount of information there and all of it has been used in the article. If an article can easily pass the stub threshold, then editors shouldn't limit themselves to making stubs. Articles should be upgraded to as much as they can. I know not every article will pass the stub level. But if it's close to reaching 1500 bytes (per the DYK level), then it'd be better than say 100 bytes of prose. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: in general, I agree that if you can get an article to 1500 bytes vs. 1000 bytes, you should. Personally, it's difficult for me to write stubs. But there are other reasons to support a maxi-stub campaign besides (a) increasing the percentage of women's biographies. (b) I mentioned previously that some people might want to improve mini-stubs to maxi-stubs. (c) Another benefit of creating maxi-stubs is that newer editors -who we know have difficulty creating new articles- will be able to add content to the article if it already exists. March will be here before we know it, and Art+Feminism will be in full swing. Their in-person events focus solely on article improvement (no article creation) so every newly-created article within the scope of A+F is one more article that a newbie editor might expand in March. (d) Editors of Arabic Wikipedia tell me that there are very few sources in Arabic language regarding Arabic women so they concentrate on translating articles about Arabic women from I imagine this might be true for other languages. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not too keen on stubs either but I frequently come across a red-linked woman in an article and discover she has been covered by a short but informative stub in another language. Isn't it better to make that information available in English too rather than have nothing at all? Similarly, if you go through our Wikidata-based redlists, you'll see that many if not most of them point to stubs in other languages. Why not simply start by making them stubs in English? Last but not least, I must say I am constantly impressed to see how many stubs written by recent members of Women in Red are enhanced by others to reach Start or higher within a few days. This is often the case with participants in Wiki Ed where there seems to be a spirit of organized collaboration. I have a feeling we could work along the same lines at WiR. If we had a stub campaign in October to December as Rosie suggests, we could organize lists of short and longer stubs (up to or over 500B of running text) of newly created biographies, promoting them to lists of Start or more as they are enhanced. (You'd be surprised to see how quickly the ORES rating increases as you add a few more lines of text and a couple of good references.) We could set up teams of volunteers who are specifically interested in participating in bringing WiR stubs to the next level. This could all be organized as some kind of contest (with or without physical prizes). It would allow members like MrLinkinPark333 to continue to work towards fuller coverage of the women we bring into the EN wiki. And it would partly counter-balance all those stubs about men which continue to be created month by month. I too go for quality but even the world's most respected encyclopedias contain huge numbers of useful short biographies (often serving as a basis for our own work). Why don't we try to put something together along these lines and see how well it works out in practice?--Ipigott (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

A point about metrics and achieving 20%, also: while it may be fair to say that we're interested in quality over quantity if we focus on that, I feel like there are certain aspects of the publicity angle that we might be missing out on. Saying "with our work the percentage of articles about women on Wikipedia has gone from 15% to 20% over X years" is a lot different than saying "with our work the percentage of articles about women on Wikipedia has gone from 15% to 18% over X years, but we've made that 18% really in-depth". The former is a better look, publically, than the latter, and I think we have to be aware of that. Like it or not, it's the percentage of articles that is often the only statistic people really want to discuss about this project.

We haven't done a stubathon, per se, since Women in Red was created, and we haven't done anything similar since the World Contest in 2017. Creating stubs may not be ideal, but I think it's a useful way to broaden our base of articles. And it would give us a very attractive bit of publicity if we achieve our goal. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, @Cordless Larry:, I take your point about it looking like an unambitious goal. But I think there are ways to tell the story that can mitigate that somewhat. (A focus on "how far we've come", for instance...along with a focus on the raw numbers it's taken to get there.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I've proposed a Stubathon for Oct-Nov-Dec at the Ideas Cafe (our events planning subpage). --Rosiestep (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Today is the 5 Year Anniversary of WP:WikiProject Women writers, so I was going through the list of newly-created articles about women writers, and saw so many less-than-1500-bytes-of-prose articles, which are nonetheless, nice articles and good examples of why a stubathon for maxi-stubs (>1000 bytes of prose) could produce positive results: Tunde Aladese, Zoya Basharina, Anne Emery, Helen Reilly, Ailbhe Darcy. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have not been editing on Wikipedia for long, and I am a new member of this group, so I don't want to comment on the value or otherwise of a stub-a-thon. I would like to say, however, that I had not understood that WiR was solely about creating new articles (for one thing, the outcomes of edit-a-thons say "New or upgraded articles"). I'm sure everyone in this discussion knows this, but there is a big difference between improving an article to GA status, and improving it so that it makes the subject's notability clear, has sufficient RS, and survives a deletion nomination. Other Wikipedias have different notability criteria and sourcing/citation requirements. If there is going to be a stub-a-thon, I would suggest that there would need to be very clear guidelines about what they need to contain to be valid articles on English Wikipedia, or the creation rate is likely to be countered by deletion nominations. I'm sure everyone here also knows that stubs are not eligible for DYK, and although they could become eligible by being expanded, that expansion would need to be to at least 5x the size of the prose content. Personally, I think that encouraging creation of articles longer than stubs is more useful (but I'm probably influenced by not being able to write a stub when more information can be found). RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Same here. I try my best to get all of my articles above stub level, even if it just squeaks by the 1500 bytes level. Otherwise, some articles I've expanded that were created by others I couldn't find enough info to pass that level. So, I ended up going for more fleshed out articles as much as I can that cover everything I can find. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a great discussion, and I would love to see something like the World Contest happen again sometime soon. Regardless of prizes, I think the energy generated by everyone working towards a big collective goal can be powerful. Since article improvement has been mentioned, I just want to toss in a quick reminder about Women in Green, whose objective IS article improvement and GA nominations. Maybe WiG can work together with WiR on any major projects or contests for 2020? I don't think aiming for 2020 GANs would be practical (WiG's goals for 2019 involve nominating 40 articles for GA status, which is quite a challenge on its own), but we might still be able to collaborate in a useful way -- alongside article creation, perhaps editathon/stubathon/contest participants could work towards completing 1 GA article each, with advice/support from WiG along the way? Something to think about. Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Experiment: how many of these articles can we make Main Page-ready by September 15?[edit]

If anyone is interested, the above listed articles could possibly be included on the Main Page (if only they were fully sourced and cited). Anyone interested could improve the articles and I will ensure they are included as eligible to be bold linked from the "On this day" section on the relevant date.

All these women were born (or died) on September 15 (as far as we know) but currently do not qualify for Main Page inclusion because of sourcing issues in the articles about them. If editors enjoy working on these, I can post more lists for later dates. Just trying a single date for now. Pre-1900 women have the best chance of appearing since space is limited and we want variety in time periods included. Major anniversaries like the 90th year since Oriana Fallaci's birth or Nana Owada, who is turning 20 years old, are also given special consideration. But both their articles are a complete mess. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll get working on Yente Serdatzky. She seems interesting (I love short story writers), nice image, and definitely room for improvement. Penny Richards (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, have a look; Yente Serdatzky's article now has a lot more references, and a new infobox, and other tidying. Penny Richards (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
That was it. Thank you. Yente Serdatzky will be featured this September 15. We still have two more spots open this year if anyone is interested. BTW, we could probably get a full blurb for Agatha Christie if anyone was so inclined. Not on her birth date but on the date of publication for one of her most famous books. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
As a Penny Club courtesy, I also worked on Penny Singleton. More references, much tidying, better second image, and a new section on her labor activism (which I'd like to work on more when time allows). Penny Richards (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Not in the other language[edit]

I just learned about another Magnus tool called "Not in the other language" (, which creates lists of missing articles. In the "root category" section of the form, you put in the category name in the other language, e.g. "Kleid" (the German category names for "dresses"), and it produced 5 missing articles. Enjoy! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Good find - interesting tool. I'll start experimenting when I have a bit more time.--Ipigott (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates as we move towards September[edit]

I... probably should have done this sooner, but I had mentioned the Emily J. Harding Andrews image in another context, so I kind of wanted to wait on another image, while being a little intimidated by the sheer size of a lot of the images on my to-do list.

So I did one of the largest ones for today's FPC, for September's Defunct Countries drive, though I suppose it could have gone into this month's indigenous peoples' one, but I like to put things into the grouping that inspired me to do it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 06:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Articles about women on Wikipedia that have had the most disputes (the more notable the better)[edit]

Which articles about women on Wikipedia have had the most disputes (the more notable the better)? A journalist is asking this question as part of a broader interview about Women in Red. I remember the dispute around Katie Bouman. Who else comes to mind? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Donna Strickland, surely? That was a big one. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Not really - after she got the Nobel there was no "dispute", just an inquest, & before it was pretty low key. The big ones are probably over singers - Madonna (22 talk archives) had loads of low-level stuff - mind you, the other Madonna has generated quite a lot. Also politicians - I'd bet Hilary Clinton (48 archives) saw a lot - even the name was controversial. Look for big talk archives, or ask User:Iridescent, who knows everything. In true WP style, nobody was very bothered about the content of Sarah Jane Brown (who?), but what to call the article caused enormous rows until the present title left everybody unhappy. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Articles listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log are probably a good place to start. GMGtalk 16:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Though the only ones I could see, back to 2010, were for Ayn Rand (50 talk archives). One couldn't say that bios of women are in fact a big area for disputes, probably apart from Gamergate. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure you're looking in the right place? (e.g., Ashley Bratcher, Abby Johnson (activist), Lila Rose, Kamala Harris, Candace Owens, Rachel Marsden) GMGtalk 16:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I was just looking at the headers - these are just pages affected by eg abortion disputes. Take a look at Ashley Bratcher & her talk - I don't call any of that a dispute. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Clarice Phelps has a history. XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
UK politician Diane Abbott probably sees a lot of vandalism (am on phone, not easy to check), though not serious dispute. PamD 16:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
It really depends on what you mean by "dispute"; those articles with long talk archives are often just discussions about which image to use in the lead or similar, rather than anything particularly contentious. If you're after actual "do we include this incident and how much weight do we give it?" controversy, it would probably be either Hillary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher, (with Sarah Jane Brown getting an honourable mention as the undisputed winner of "most words expended arguing about a page hardly anyone ever reads"). If you don't mind opening a can of worms over whether "articles about trans women who are only notable for things they did pre-transition" qualify, then the undoubted champion both for quantity and vitriol of arguments is without a doubt going to be Talk:Chelsea Manning. ‑ Iridescent 19:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, a quick look through the first pages of what links to Template:controversial does not produce many women not mentioned above (not that many men either), except for Rachel Corrie and Pia Kjærsgaard (who doesn't seem to need it - oh, added by a bot in 2012, I've now removed). Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In this general context, I think it would be only fair to mention all the articles created in good faith by enthusiastic new contributors which have led to disputes often triggered by minor copy violations. Unfortunately, for most of us these articles are no longer accessible as they have been deleted. Some remained in draft for a time but as no one picked them up they too were deleted. The way in which these editors were treated by those monitoring their work has had serious repercussions on the number of new women's biographies created by members of Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • How's that now? Surely exactly the same could be said about an enthusiastic new user trying to fill in the gaps on racehorses, 19th-century oil paintings, or pro boxing. Or are you trying to suggest that there's something specific to Women in Red members that make them more prone to commit copyright violations than others, in which case there is a problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later, or that WiR participants should somehow be exempted from complying with copyright law? ‑ Iridescent 06:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there a way to see a list of articles with a WiR banner which have been sent to draft? (Yes, some editors won't have added a WiR banner, so it won't be possible to identify all relevant articles.) PamD 07:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • PamD: Yes, you can use PetScan to get a list of pages in the Draft talk namespace with a link to WiR. --MarioGom (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Margaret Sanger. It gets a lot of traffic by editors pushing undue emphasis on eugenics.Fred (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Chelsea Manning was a long-running and notable dispute that got quite a bit of negative press for Wikipedia due to insistence on misgendering her for years. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 15:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Re "years", a look at the article & the helpful list of move discussions on the talk shows that the final move on 1 October 2013 was some five weeks after her spokesman's first declaration & request to use "Chelsea", on 22 August, & predated her legal name change by several months! Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not really sure whether the OP question here is about female article-creators or articles about women, whose very existence might be seen to trigger disputes. I have had to deal with lengthy disputes on (1) William Swinden Barber (see its talk page), not about a woman, but for which the only portrait available is a rather fey one; (2) Trial of Mary Fitzpatrick which was the subject of an AfD discussion triggered within a day of its creation (discussion now closed in favour of keep), and currently (3) Kate Dover (see discussion on this page).
  • Each of those three discussions - or disputes if you like - was triggered by a single objector with very strong views, maintained only by that objector, and in all three cases a tedious distraction from normal work on WP. I think one of the problems we have here is that if a dispute is started by someone who just doesn't like something and refuses to let go of it, that their behaviour is not necessarily for the benefit of WP and its readership. Both of the latter objectors wanted to delete the female biographies on grounds of notability - but they were Victorian female murderers (one strongly suspected and therefore a mystery), for goodness sake - that's got to be potentially a good story.
  • My created articles are frequently about 19th century people in an era when women could expect to be sidelined. Often, if their own work was claimed as their husband's or employer's success, they could not expect to be mentioned in his obituary except maybe as his wife or admin assistant. 19th century vicars' wives who worked full-time in parochial work for free while their paid husbands got credit and promotion for the work of both of them are a common example of this. Kate Dover was apparently very skilled in drawing flowers. Her employer/lover was producing etchings - including flower designs - to be mass-produced on knife blades. Yet if she did contribute to that design work, her contribution will never be mentioned. Her employer's (Thomas Skinner's) article has to credit him alone with the work. If we tried to imply that Kate Dover could have contributed to his success in his last year or so, that would WP:OR and not allowed.
  • I do feel that biographies of 19th century women, or any women living in a time and place where they are automatically sidelined and most work credit given to men, should be permitted a gentler approach than the standard approach currently applied to the notability of all biographies. Or if you want to be fair - then let's change it to a gentler approach to all biographies in respect of notability. If we don't do that, biographies of women who have lived in a sidelining environment will always be in the minority on WP because they can be sidelined yet again by AfD notices. Thank you for reading this. Storye book (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

How has Zoë Quinn not been mentioned yet? See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

David's comment made me think of Anita Sarkeesian. Fred (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Advice on notability for Evelyn Tainui[edit]

I wanted to check on the notability of a subject before writing a whole article. Evelyn Tainui and her husband donated 1200 hectares of land to help the conservation of the taiko, a highly rare bird, after it was rediscovered on their property (it was thought extinct). There's several good sources to back up this happening. There is a less good source to indicate that they helped with finding the bird, and some information that they worked after the donation to help with taiko conservation. Is all that enough for an article? HenryCrun15 (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

HenryCrun15 From checking the page on the taiko (or Magenta petrel for whoever's curious), her name is spelled Evelyn Tuanui, which brings up more results than Evelyn Tainui. However, it doesn't look like there's many in depth pieces on her specifically; most mention her and her husband (or fail to mention her at all :/) donating the land as a pair, and that's it. I don't think it would pass at AfD considering WP:ONEEVENT, but it might be worth seeing what you can expand on the taiko's page. (Edit: it looks like there might be enough information and press on the Chatham Island Taiko Trust itself though? And that could be another avenue to include her/her family's story.) originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 04:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
There's already a para on them and the trust at the bird's article, and adding to that a bit might be best. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both. Apologies, I mistyped the name when I was writing in this talk page. I think I agree and will see if I can expand information on Evelyn Tuanui in the taiko page or the Tuku Reserve page. HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of Fellows of the British Academy[edit]

The list of missing articles here includes many women (many more men of course). There would be no question of notability for them. Unfortunately, only initials are given for some periods. These are essentially from the arts and social sciences - List of Fellows of the Royal Society covers STEM subjects (no red-linked women there for many years). Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added Wikidata items for FBAs from 2006 to now, with the exception of Laura Marcus, about whom I was unsure - see Wikidata Q64684420 is not Lindsey Marcus, despite link to Semantic Scholar author ID 73732672. Hopefully, I've done enough for them to be picked up in one of the Redlists. Oronsay (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Clean up: Ideas talk page[edit]

Should content of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas, and the talk page redirected to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. --MarioGom (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Add some Structured Data to Commons Files![edit]

Hey all -- on a bit of an impulse, I created a Campaign on the new ISA tool for Wikimedia Commons for the media files supported by Women in Red. The campaign allows us to add "Depicts" statements and descriptive captions to the images in a fun way. See the campaign: ! Hope you all give it a try! Sadads (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

My 1,500,000th edit[edit]

Mary Collins (psychologist) - needs more sources, if anyone can find them.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC).

Congratulations, and thank you for your huge contribution. Oronsay (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Nice work - high five! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Wonderful, thank you for sharing this milestone. And what an interesting notable, an expert on colour vision! Penny Richards (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations, Rich Farmbrough. Truly impressive! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all the Saami articles many of you contribute to[edit]

I would really thank all of you for the wonderful articles you created last month and the year before for the indigenous women part of the project and in general. The Saami ones have all been listed on the Northern Saami Wikipedia's Facebook page and many of the people have been tagged in them and even liked them. In addition, I have been told a number of times at various places during the summer how marvellous and how important it is that these articles are in the English Wikipedia and that hopefully they will spread to other language versions too. The redlink list I have had up forever is also starting to be more blue than red, which is a welcome change. So again, thank you so much! -Yupik (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

On a side note: there will be an indigenous conference at the University of Helsinki in a couple weeks where some of the people in the new articles will be presenting, so we'll try to get some good photos of them! -Yupik (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
If you have a chance, it might not be a terrible idea to ask for photos, explaining photo releases and making it clear that the photographer has to be the one to release in most cases. I'd love to up our coverage of Saami women at Featured pictures as well as article-wise, as Featured pictures is an easy route to the main page. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 23:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I've tried that before, but I'm either really bad at explaining photo releases and licenses or they just don't see the need. I've even tried saying that they'd have a much better photo in Wikipedia if we didn't take them at events, but still no one takes us up on the offer. -Yupik (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The situation in Norway is better though. So for example, the Norwegian Sámi Association and the Sami Parliament of Norway have released their photos under a license that we can have them in Commons. I'm not sure if you can use any of the photos for FP, but there should be some there since a lot of them are professional photos. -Yupik (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Yupik. Are there any more Saami women writers who don't have articles in English? I'm particularly interested in non-BLPs. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Rosiestep: I have tried to cover all those categorized as Sami writers in the other languages but there are quite a few more on Yupik's redlist. For non-BLPs, there's the Norwegian poet and translator Anna Jacobsen (1924–2004) and the Finnish translator Helvi Poutasuo (1943–2017). Living Samis include the Swedish religion researcher Louise Bäckman (born 1926), the Norwegian writer Inga Ravna Eira (born 1948), the Russian Sami poet Elvira Galkina (born 1965), the Finnish novelist Rauni Manninen (born 1946) (, the Swedish children's writer Madeleine Renhuvud (born 1968), the Swedish journalist and writer Maj-Lis Skaltje (born 1940), and the Norwegian poet and children's writer Ristin Sokki (born 1954). Hope this helps. Unless you cover them all, I might create a few myself once I have finished working on Danish resistance fighters for Milhist.--Ipigott (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Ipigott, for this list. I translated the non-BLP articles for Anna Jacobsen and Helvi Poutasuo. Regarding the others -some of whom are quite interesting- I'll follow-up as time permits. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Ipigott, from me too! I've been pretty much awol writing up grant applications and all of this, so I really appreciate you taking this task on. And thank you, Rosiestep, for creating those articles! -Yupik (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
That's a really interesting contribution you made for GLAM, Yupik. While I'm here, I have noticed that there are many short biographies with photographs on Sami politicians, particularly the ones from Norway. Unfortunately, apart from Sami language coverage which I cannot read, they don't seem to be backed up by secondary sources. Maybe one of these days you could look into them and perhaps expand some of their articles with more sources. You could then let us know which ones you think should be covered in English.--Ipigott (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata - September 2019[edit]

Wikidata redlist not updating[edit]

Hi all. The redlist for women with the most sitelinks across Wikimedia projects won't update when I try to refresh it. Whenever I try to update it the Listeria page says "Status:no items". It looks like the bot hasn't been able to update it since July. Does anyone know what's going on? Mcampany (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed The query was timing out. I modified it slightly and it updates correctly now. --MarioGom (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Mcampany (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata list of Women in Red events & redlists[edit]

Kudos to Tagishsimon for what they have done so far. Eventually, after all these items are created, we will tap into the 24 other language versions of Women in Red and have them add their redlists and their events into Wikidata. Some have started doing it already, e.g. annual Art+Feminism events, AfroCROWD redlists, the recent Interwiki Collaboration event... but mostly, not. Ultimately, this will help with promoting our events, plus it will encourage international collaboration and coordination. There is still a lot of work to do, pagestalkers, (see below) and we can use extra hands plus extra thoughts on how to improve on this idea. P.S. Why I mentioned Open Refine is because Gamaliel has mentioned that tool, but I'm clueless how to use it. I might have used petscan and/or quickstatements, but I don't for sure. I could really use a tutorial. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata list of events

I think someone started creating items in Wikidata for each of our events. Was that Tagishsimon or perhaps someone else? I'd like to know where we are with this task as I'd be glad to add the ones which aren't in there yet. I couldn't find a Listeria list showing which events are in Wikidata, and which ones aren't, ergo the question. Also curious if you used Open Refine or something else for the upload. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: after you've created the items, I'd be happy to help with adding what Type of event (e.g. geography, occupation, etc.), plus whom we collaborated with if applicable; plus time period (e.g. September 1 - September 30, 2019). If you state which P numbers to use, I can add that info after you do the heavy lifting of creating the items.
We also need an page with the Wikidata spreadsheet depicting all the events, including the sortable columns for Type, Start date, End date, etc. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
If you are going to do events, make sure to use on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008) for tagging the items :) Sadads (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata list of redlists
I added redlists, iirc -$V but it looks like events have not been added. Can probably do that in the next day or two. I used (probably) petscan and quickstatements. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: thanks for creating Wikidata items for the many redlists. I would like to add info into each of these Wikidata items. For example, for d:Q65183083, I'd like to add the Type of redlist (in this case, authority control identifier), plus the specific authority control identifier (in this case, Base Léonore). But I don't know which P numbers to use. If you could add that info into this item, I can do the others. We have many other Types of redlists (occupation, geography, dictionary, special focus area, education institution, time period, awards, works (see our current "Crowd-Sourced Redlist Index"). Each of these "Types of redlists" have several items in them and I'd be glad to do this Wikidata work if you could help me with P numbers, and so forth.
Could you also please create an page with the Wikidata spreadsheet depicting all the redlists; something that is sortable. I'm thinking this means that each of the Wikidata items will need to be renamed with something shorter; do you agree? I can do it. Just want to make sure this is correct. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

New Italian Ministers in Red[edit]

The newly appointed Conte II Cabinet has 3 women in red: Nunzia Catalfo, Elena Bonetti [it], and Paola Pisano [it]. Any one with skills in translating Italian is encourage to create these articles. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Neuroscience twitter wikipedia / wikidata campaign[edit]

There seems to be a fair head of steam building around a proposal for 'an informal group dedicated to creating @Wikipedia pages for most notable women in neuroscience' - fwiw. To that end we have a new redlist - Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Neuroscientists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Tagishsimon. Excellent initiative. There does indeed seem to be great enthusiasm on Twitter. Let's hope it will lead to concrete progress on Wikipedia, including perhaps some new members of Women in Red. It will be interesting to see how Category:Women neuroscientists by nationality evolves, especially for those in non English-speaking countries. Our focus on STEM in October offers a good opportunity to get started. When I find time, I'll try to put together a List of women neuroscientists.--Ipigott (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Rose Henderson fictional character on the TV series "Lost" has no article[edit]

Rose Henderson was a fictional character on the TV series "Lost" and has no article, yet there are numerous links from that name to the Canadian political activist Rose Henderson (1871 - 1937). Anyone wanna take that on? I've got ZERO experience writing about TV characters. If no one takes this on in the near future, I'll remove the incorrect links. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

They should be corrected to point to Rose and Bernard Nadler. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Brilliant and elegant solution ONUnicorn! Thank you. That sound you hear is my hand slapping my forehead :) Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
But her birth-name "Henderson" perhaps needs to appear in lead and/or infobox: at present it's only in 2nd sentence of "Arc". PamD 04:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I think I'd have used a separate redirect, either Rose Henderson (Lost) or Rose Nadler. That way if anyone decided in future to split the article into Ruth and Bernard articles, she's there. And can be added to surname list for Henderson. But I see you've already done what works fine, including the all-important hatnote in the politician's article. Thanks. PamD
Might fix those red redirects when I'm not on phone! PamD 04:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, now made both those redirects, and added Henderson to Rose and Bernard Nadler - though the only way to include a character's change of name in the infobox seems to be to call it an "alias", not ideal! PamD 06:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Oops, was editing too early in morning. Forget "Ruth". Have made redirect from Rose Henderson (Lost). Rose Nadler already existed as redirect. PamD 06:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


I see that we just hit 18% for En Wiki women bios. Well done! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Eighteen (cropped).jpg
Congrats to all! Time to celebrate! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Awesome. This is great news. SL93 (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks mainly to Missvain who moved a huge number of drafts to mainspace, last week there were 1,119 new women's biographies out of a total of 2,412. As a result, 46.39% of the new biographies were on women. I believe this is the highest monthly percentage ever reached. Lugnuts added literally hundreds of stubs on women in sports while David Eppstein created an impressive number of new articles on mathematicians. Jevansen (not yet a member of WiR) created lots of bios on tennis players. Other editors were keen to contribute to our Military History and Writers priorities as well as to 1day1woman. All in all, an extremely good week.--Ipigott (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Yay! Seems we have been striving for this marker for a long time. On to 19. Good work everyone. SusunW (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't even know what to say (aside from AMAZING JOB EVERYONE). Missvain (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
So amazing to think that when I started working to improve coverage around women-focused content, women's biographies comprised 9%. So this is a landmark for us!! Missvain (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Really, when was that? I'm not aware they were ever that low. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
9%??? I know it was 15% when our wikiproject started. But 9?? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the 9% figure comes from the 9% female editors that WMF found in their 2011 census? Speculating here, but I don't think the biography percentage has ever been that low. Enwebb (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I wondered that - the two are quite often confused. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • To the best of my knowledge, the first assessment of the percentage of women's biographies in the English Wikipedia was reported in Women through the glass ceiling: gender (1 March 2016) as follows: "The English edition contains the largest number of biographies with gender information (893,380), while the Basque edition (eu) contains the lowest number of biographies (3,449). In terms of representation of women, 15.5% of biographies in the English edition are about women." This article draws on figures published on 2 June 2015 in First Women, Second Sex: Gender Bias in Wikipedia. Since Women in Red was launched in July 2015, some 174,000 of the current 298,376 women's biographies have been created, i.e. well over half.--Ipigott (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - just for the record, the paper gives its relevant source as a WP dump of October 2014. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
That's a useful detail. In future, when we are calculating progress on WiR for the EN wiki, we can start with 15.53% in October 2014 when ca. 138,742 of the 893,380 biographies were about women.--Ipigott (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Great achievement!! Pats on the back all round!! Just out of curiosity, how is this figure calculated? It's not only from articles that have WiR tags on their talk page, is it - it must be also other articles? What if an article about a woman isn't tagged for WikiProject Women (or similar), will it still be counted? MurielMary (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@MurielMary: The counts are based on wikidata records which have values for human, and a gender; and a sitelink to the en wiki article. All sorts of people & bots work to ensure that all en wiki biogs are linked to a suitably coded wikidata item; the statistic is IMO accurate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
And one of the people who has worked hard to ensure as many women's biographies as possible are correctly reflected in Wikidata is Tagishsimon himself. He's been doing a great job. The only remaining problem seems to be bios incorrectly tagged female or male, often as a result of mistaken categorization on Wikipedia. People are often misled by the first name, for example Jean is a man's name in French and many Italian male first names end in A: Andrea, Mattia, Luca. There's also Sasha and Musa. Then there are a whole series of first names that can be used with either men or women: Alex, Andy, Charlie, Chris, Frankie, Hyacinth, Jamie, Leslie, Sandy, Vivian and many more (see Unisex name). Not surprisingly, quite a number of Japanese and Chinese people are given the wrong gender. We need to be careful with all of these.--Ipigott (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I see, thanks. I've never created a Wikidata item and I've created probably 500+ biographies and also moved other editors' articles into mainspace through the Articles for Creation process. Should I be checking that they have Wikidata items or do the bots do a good enough job of this? For example I just moved Dolores M. Koch into mainspace and see that it doesn't have a Wikidata item attached to it (nothing in the right hand menu list for Wikidata). MurielMary (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
MurielMary: Kock does in fact have a Wikidata entry - and it was updated shortly after you moved the article to mainspace. Many editors steer clear of Wikidata as they find it difficult to edit. The so-called gadget makes it much easier to add and update entries. If you are seriously interested in adding info to Wikidata, I recommend you add it to your profile in accordance with the instructions given. But don't worry if you prefer just to stick to Wikipedia. Nearly all new biographies are added to Wikidata without delay.--Ipigott (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


Interwiki Women Collaboration[edit]

Today, I was informed about m:Interwiki Women Collaboration, a cross-wikis and cross-languages campaign. The event runs August 20 - September 20, 2019. Although our August events are almost over, and our September schedule is already fixed, I'm reticent to say that English Wikipedia is too busy with other things to participate on such short notice. So what I will do is donate our September articles to the campaign on meta. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a sign of good faith collaboration. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

As it was apparently announced at Wikimania, it is really strange that no one brought it to our attention until now, especially as the WiR logo is displayed on their main page. Given the completely blank results page, it looks as if we are not the only ones to learn about it so late. I see that up to now, there are only nine participants, none of whom appears to be active on the EN wiki. I fully support your idea of donating our September articles, Rosie. They should provide a good basis for extensions into the many other languages they are covering. I see that in this connection, you have created WIR #136 but it does not yet appear in our template. Are you thinking of creating a WIR-136 tag for the talk pages of all the September articles or should we do that individually? It might be a good way of indicating our personal support. Anyone interested can of course join the initiative and list the articles they create in any language on their Meta site.--Ipigott (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott, thanks for your interest. #136 is in the template as an event we support; please look/search again. This is the "outcomes" subpage where participants add articles. The "results" subpage will be used by the coordinators after the event. I added the Women in Red logo yesterday after I became aware of the campaign, and donating our articles seemed like a good way to go for 2019; we can do things differently in 2020. That said, if any editors want to contribute articles themselves, they could do so in an English section on this subpage -- any articles created since August 20th could be added. m:WikiWomen's User Group may get involved, too, but that discussion would happen on that talkpage. Truly, there is a lot going on, and we need a better way of collaborating. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Greetings from Milhist![edit]

Hello, all! I'm here to inquire about the possibility of coordinating a milhist drive in the spring with the Women in Red Wikiproject. The proposal is located here, if you'd like more information. Note that at this time nothing is set in stone, I'm merely attempting to get a feel for how much interest there would be for a spring drive and if there is enough to move forward where should the effort be concentrated since as we all know getting people to work on drive related events is difficult at best :) Drop me a line if you have any questions, and if there is interested from this project's members in a cross project drive we'll keep you informed of the developments (if any) at MILHIST. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

TomStar81: Perhaps you are not aware of our September drive in collaboration with Milhist as suggested by Peacemaker67. I see it is now posted on your project site as "Backlog Banzai". See also Women in military history. Let's see how this goes before we plan anything for the spring.--Ipigott (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@TomStar81: do you know any people who might be interested in working on the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP) article with me? I think we can get it to GA. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: No names of editors interested in WASPS in general come to mind instantaneously, unfortunately. There are short lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military (our biography task force page), Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force where editors who once subscribed to specific task forces have listed their particular interests, you may be able to find some help there. As for the GA push, Peacemaker67, Ian Rose, Sturmvogel66, Hawkeye7, and Gog the Mild may be in a position to help with the GA push since these editors tend to the most content driven (and have the awards to prove it:) Hope that helps. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@TomStar81: thanks for the suggestions! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red collaboration with The National Library in Norway and Oslo Metropolitan University[edit]

This news may interest some of you, with a thank you to Astrid Carlsen (WMNO). --Rosiestep (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur :) Astrid Carlsen (WMNO) this is great news! SusunW (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
This is indeed an interesting and well focused development. As it looks as if the new articles will be in Norwegian, it would be useful for us to receive accounts of progress as many of the women to be covered will no doubt deserve articles in English too. Perhaps you have a project page where we can monitor progress?--Ipigott (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Astrid Carlsen (WMNO), are these articles being tagged on Wikidata (e.g. d:P5008 "on focus list of Wikimedia project" or something else) so that we can create a Wikidata redlist specific to the wiki work being done at the Norwegian National Library and/or Oslo Metropolitan University? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Here's a bit about this on Facebook. -Yupik (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata Humans and Gender Data Tools[edit]

There's a new ticket on phab entitled "Wikidata Humans and Gender Data Tools" which, as I understand it, is a couple of developers inviting a discussion of what will likely turn out to be the future wikimedia bias measurement tool: "Tools like Wikidata Human Gender Indicators[1] and Denelezh[2] and Wikidata Cultural Observatory[3] display data about Wikidata's human coverage, but do they do provide exactly what anti-bias communities want? What new features, tools or maintenance could we build to help these "countering systemic bias" projects succeed?" I hope folk here will have a good hard think & provide some input. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like an interesting development. There's some relevant background in 'Anyone can edit', not everyone does: Wikipedia's infrastructure and the gender gap. Various papers have mentioned the generally higher quality of biographies on women but as far as I know there has been no large-scale appraisal of the difference between the biographies of men and women. Maybe ORES could be used in this connection. There could also be further work on the comparative lack of reliable sources for compiling women's biographies. Generally speaking, in recent years less attention has been given to Wikipedia's gender gap in research papers. It would be useful to have a new round of contributions. Maybe WiR could put it forward as a priority?--Ipigott (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia women[edit]

Emna Mizouni, Wikimedian of the Year 2019[edit]

It's good to see that once again a woman, Emna Mizouni from Tunisia - user name Emnamizouni - has been selected as Wikimedian of the Year.--Ipigott (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Congrats, well deserved. Good to see its an African too :). HandsomeBoy (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
There's an article: Wikimedian of the Year. PamD 10:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
But Emna Mizouni is currently only a redirect to that article/list. PamD 10:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I looked for press reports and other secondary sources but did not find much, only [2], [3]. Perhaps reports will emerge over the next few days. I'm not at all sure whether being honoured as Wikipedian of the Year is sufficiently notable for an article. She actually spells her name with an accent: Émna Mizouni. In Arabic آمنة الميزوني.--Ipigott (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone, thanks for your greetings, I'm an African Woman that only spells her name with accent on Social Media accounts; but my name is Emna Mizouni and the Arabic translation you used is right آمنة الميزوني. For the media sources you found, it's interesting that only those two links were visible to you! Ipigott I'm always and forever supporter to Women In Red.Emnamizouni (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
And Women in Red is always and forever your supporter, Emnamizouni! Thanks for being such a great role model and advocate for social change! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to report that Emna has today become a member of Women in Red. She intends to write about Tunisian women. I'm sure we all look forward to seeing her contributions.--Ipigott (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Maria Sefidari, Chair of WMF Board[edit]

Maria Sefidari has biographies in three other languages, but not here. I created a stub two weeks ago, but it was speedy deleted as "not notable". The admin was kind enough to put it in my userspace to work on. I think it is ready to go, but it would be nice if someone else looked it over. I don't want it to be speedy deleted again. It is still brief and could benefit from someone who can read Spanish to add more detail from Spanish sources. The biography is at User:Bitter Oil/María Sefidari. Thanks. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a strong prejudice against having articles on Wikipedians that I think you're running into here. The draft in its present state looks maybe on the positive side of notability, but borderline, to me. It would help to have a much more solid case for notability before putting it up, in order to overcome that prejudice. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The only notability I can see is that associated with the FRAM case, but that would be WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC).
@Xxanthippe: I'm not sure I understand that comment. Can you explain what you're talking about? Bitter Oil (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Take a look at the WP:BLP1E page. Since you press the matter, I add my concern that a BLP may be used as an WP:attack page over the FRAM case/scandal. Eppstein has given good advice that could be followed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC).
A woman who is the Chair of a major and extremely well-known charitable organization is only known for being vaguely associated with an internal political squabble that no one outside of Wikipedia knows or cares about? Are you joking? Bitter Oil (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Notability exists only within the Wikipedia universe, and Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC).
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Wikipedia is not being used as a source. Bitter Oil (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The only case for notability that I can see is if mainstream media were to start writing about the FRAM scandal. That would take it outside the Wikipedia Universe. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC).
Ok, I think I understand what you are saying now. And I still disagree. Bitter Oil (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: I've added a bit more that should help it avoid being speedy deleted. I am hopeful that a Spanish speaking editor will expand it using Spanish sources. Bitter Oil (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I translated a few bits from the Spanish article. Nick Number (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick! Bitter Oil (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

REDress project - page in review so help appreciated![edit]

I've belatedly put the REDress project draft I was working on up for review: User:Moira Paul/REDress Project. This was part of the August focus on indigenous women and was discussed here before I started. I'm afraid life got in the way so I've only just gone back to look at it and decide it's ready to go. As always, I'd appreciate people more competent at wikidata and images to take a look to increase its chance of being accepted into mainspace. I've deliberately included names that are in red, so we have a way of picking those up and expanding them at another time.Moira Paul (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for doing this, Moira Paul! I looked through the article and added some photos. Would you be interested in writing a small blurb about how the dresses going missing is parallel to the women going missing (also [4])? I think it's good to go though as it is! -Yupik (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

In the news: Karin Dahlman-Wright[edit]

There is a Swedish but not an English article on Karin Dahlman-Wright [sv]. She's been in the news recently as resigning from vice-presidency of the Karolinska [5]. I prefer not to scandal-monger, but I think even before this she was notable. So if someone wants to try handling this gracefully... —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

She would definitely pass WP:Prof on basis of citations in GS, so there will be no problem with AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC).
In view of the explanations given here, I would suggest this is not the best time to cover her on the EN wiki. A less controversial figure from the Karolinska is Maria Albin [sv]. See [6] and [7]. She seems to have been behind a number of interesting studies.--Ipigott (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not refrain from writing about people because they are controversial: quite the reverse. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC).
Very true, but there is a certain contradiction between this and your comment 2 sections up. Just saying. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
What contradiction? Please explain. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC).

Mid-September featured picture report[edit]

Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 23:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Amparo Alonso Betanzos[edit]

Hi! I've recently joined Wikipedia and came across your project a few weeks ago. I have since tried to write articles on notable researchers in my particular field (technology), and computer science specifically. I am proud to have created a few in just a few weeks. I received a talk page message, however, saying one of them would be deleted for not satisfying the academic criteria. I find this quite strange given Alonso Betanzos has over 4,000 citations and is quite well known in her field. A quick read of the criteria (a second time, as I obviously checked before writing it in the first place) confirmed my assumptions. I am sure everyone here is aware of the prejudice female academics often face in the "real" world, but I was truly expecting something different on Wikipedia, especially given initiatives such as this project precisely exist to promote greater development of female participation online. I am here to basically request assistance in dealing with this issue given I've never participated in the deletion process. I would appreciate any comments and you are all welcome to continue this in my talk page. Thank you! PK650 (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Remember the history of the Donna Strickland BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC).
Thing about proposed deletion is that, if it's removed, that's it. PROD has failed, and it may not be used again. Let us know if it escalates further. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 04:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The only way it could plausibly escalate is to a full deletion discussion, I doubt that would happen now, and I'm confident that if it did the article would be kept. Alonso clearly passes our academic notability guidelines in multiple ways (one being president of a major academic society; the previous wording of the article using "presides over" rather than "president of" maybe did not make that clear enough). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I've seen people try to re-PROD things. Which you're not supposed to do, but not everyone knows. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 20:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I know, I often patrol the list of prods and end up removing re-prods. I would hope that whichever admin encounters such a prod would do the same. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • PK650: I'm glad we've been able to sort this out for you. I'm not at all sure the article was tagged because of prejudice towards female academics. Some article reviewers tend to apply criteria on article deletion too strictly, often ignoring convincing evidence of notability. As you have already created a number of short biographies on women computer scientists, you might like to become a member of Women in Red. You can join by using the box at the top of our main WiR page. In October, we'll be focusing more directly on women scientists.--Ipigott (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all so much! I did read about Donna Strickland in the news. So if I understand correctly one can remove the message and then it could still move on to a deletion discussion? What does the latter entail? That's a wonderful suggestion, Ipigott. So will you be working on women scientists with and without articles? Really looking forward to it! PK650 (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
One can remove a proposed deletion, yes. It's a good idea, in doing so, to use an edit summary that makes clear why you think the article meets Wikipedia's notability standards. There are other types of deletion notification that cannot be removed as easily. If you remove a proposed deletion and the person who proposed the deletion is unconvinced, they're likely to take it to a full deletion discussion, but they don't have to. The discussions usually take a week and involve editors putting forward their opinion on whether or not (and why) the article meets or doesn't meet the notability guidelines. See WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:HELPAFD for more. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Sports, sports, sports (Aug-Sep 2019)[edit]

July+August sports editathon[edit]

Photo of Sophie Luff, cricketer, uploaded in August
Photo of Tayla Vlaeminck, cricketer, uploaded in July

So far, our sports editathon has yielded 1,033 new articles in August, plus 556 new articles in July! So thanks to everyone who has been contributing articles for this event, and here's to making "sports" be Women in Red's 2020 year-long focus!

Final outcomes for our Sports editathon: July = 556 articles; August = 1,104 articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

But for athlete-related articles[edit]

According to today's issue of The Signpost, the bad news is that: "... for athlete-related articles, there are far less articles about female athletes than males, hindering the fair representation of the female in the athletic world." --Rosiestep (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Women in American football[edit]

Mike Vage from the A.V. Club has published a generally positive but somewhat critical article about our List of female American football players titled "They weren’t all kickers: Tackling the history of women in football". It points out that "the Women's National Football Conference has 20 teams, only five of which have Wikipedia pages" while the article on the Independent Women's Football League does not mention it is now defunct. Anyone interested in dealing with these shortcomings?--Ipigott (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Pre-event Survey for WikiWomenCamp 2020[edit]

Some of you may be interested in completing this Pre-event Survey for WikiWomenCamp 2020. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Graph showing progress on women's biographies[edit]

There has been a discussion on my talk page about preparing a graph to illustrate progress over the years. Perhaps one of our more mathematically-minded participants could use one of the templates at Wikipedia:Graphs and charts to compile a line graph. I think the priority is to display percentages reached over time (i.e. the percentages of biographies on the EN wiki which are about women). I suggest we start with the following (drawn from WHGI):

  • September 2014: 15.5%

Then no data until:

  • March 2016: 16.08%
  • June 2016: 16.28%
  • September 2016: 16.48%
  • December 2016: 16.78%
  • March 2017: 16.89%
  • June 2017: 16.98%
  • September 2017: 17.10%
  • December 2017: 17.34%
  • March 2018: 17.50%
  • June 2018: 17.65%
  • September 2018: 17.79%
  • December 2018: 17.77%
  • March 2019: 17.74%
  • June 2019: 17.87%
  • September 2019: 18.03%

Once we have this, we might also try to trace the number of new biographies over time but I think the percentages are more important. Any offers?--Ipigott (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that if it is too difficult to use the Wikipedia graph templates, someone may be ready to make a simple graph on paper and then photograph it. MS Excel also provides for graphs. Perhaps David Eppstein or Victuallers could devote a few minutes to this? Rosiestep thinks a graph would be really useful for her coming presentations. Or maybe someone could simply let us know of an editor interested in helping out with graphs. It seems quite important to me.--Ipigott (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The Blue Book of Iowa Women[edit]

I thought that this 1914 book of women from Iowa might be useful for articles - I created Emily Calkins Stebbins because of her entry in the book (I know that there is a template for clippings, but I can't find it again). SL93 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Translating Women conference in London at the end of October[edit]

If anyone is in town and interested in attending this conference, it's being held at the Institute of Modern Languages Research in London (UK) on October 31 and November 1, 2019. Potential to find a lot of new BLPs! -Yupik (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

For people with more permanent access to London or Nottingham, there's a series of these too. -Yupik (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this news. Translators do not have the coverage they deserve on Wikipedia. As we are focusing on writers at the moment, we could make a start on Annie McDermott [8], [9] (currently a redirect). Then there's Rosalind Harvey [10], Aviya Kushner [11], maybe also Eva Moreda [12], Anna Menyhért [13], Margaret Carson [14], Muireann Maguire [15], and Monica Manolachi [16].--Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder about findability[edit]

Please remember to make your article as easily found as possible. If you state that there's an alternative spelling of their name, make a redirect from it. Make redirects from longer or shorter versions of their name - if you've included a long version of their name in the lead it's because you found it somewhere, and a reader might find the same source and search for it ... or a careless future editor might create a duplicate article there, if you don't create a redirect.

And surnames: Wikipedia has loads of surname pages, mostly just a list of people with that surname. Please make sure that the women we write about feature good and strong in those lists. And if they were known under both birth name and married name, add them to both lists. If there isn't a surname list, there may be an article or disambiguation page because the name is also a word used for other things: add a hatnote or a dab page entry. If there is nothing at the surname, make a redirect from surname to unique surname-holder (checking afterwards that it hasn't got a lot of incoming redlinks). If several people share the surname but there isn't yet a surname page... create it, if you've got the time and energy. To format the top nicely, you can type {{subst:refer|type=surname}}, then add your people, and end it with {{surname}}. (There are also a lot of given-name lists, but I'm not convinced that they are useful enough to bother with: I suppose someone might remember Greta and not Thunberg, but for the vast majority of people it's more likely to be a mention of "Professor Thunberg" or "Thunberg's work" or a paper by "G. Thunberg" which sends readers to the encyclopedia to find out more about someone, so surnames seem to me to be vastly more important.)

I've spent the last couple of hours sorting out half the entries in the list of outcomes of our WIR-129 on Indigenous women (have a look at my contribution list), and will get back to numbers 1-47 in that list when I've got time - there is a lot of Real Life stuff I need to do, and I've been using this too much as an excuse for procrastination (no, I'm not wasting time, I'm fixing Wikipedia and making women more visible!)

I know redirects and dab pages etc aren't everyone's favourite thing, but they can make a big difference, and can turn red links blue in all sorts of places. (You just need to check that it's the right red link, not a tennis player who happens to have the same name as your Antartic explorer!) PamD 10:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)