Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 91

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85←Archive 89Archive 90Archive 91Archive 92Archive 93→Archive 95

Is there a way to get a list of high quality photos used on women's biographies?

Hi all

I'm putting together a social media project for March 8th International Women's Day to encourage people to suggest women who should be on Wikipedia. For this I need a large selection of high quality photographs of women from biography articles but I've no idea how I would go about collating a list, I think the requirements would be something like:

  1. Portrait photos, like the kind that appear in infoboxes
  2. High quality, I know there are some different templates used on Commons for this like Featured_pictures_on_Wikimedia_Commons, Quality_images, Valued_images
  3. Geographically diverse
  4. Don't have to be all 'famous' women, so not just 'most viewed articles'

Does anyone have any idea how to collate something like this? I'm very happy to get a giant pile to sift through.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@John Cummings: A good starting place would be the subcategories for Commons's assessments:
However, many of them aren't photos of individually notable women. For more restricted results, you can take a look at the results of this query; you can fiddle around with line 9 as described in the comments for lines 5-8. Unfortunately, this isn't anywhere near complete, but it does restrict it to images that prominently feature a specific woman with a Wikipedia article (though the picture is not necessarily in that Wikipedia article; still trying to think about what the best way to query that is).
(also, shout-out to the people here who know SPARQL better than me: if you have any ideas for making that query return more results before timing out, please adjust it) Vahurzpu (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Vahurzpu thanks so much. John Cummings (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Photo of Aalayah Eastmond

Despite the fact that Aalayah Eastmond has testified to the United States Congress several times, I cannot locate any public domain/creative commons images. Maybe others will have more luck. A photo would be a welcome addition to this new article! TJMSmith (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe something from C-SPAN [1]. Their licensing webpage states: Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution. Does anyone have any thoughts or the ability to extract images from C-SPAN footage? TJMSmith (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that any of the videos C-SPAN has containing her were taken in the Senate or House chambers, but her appearance in the Kavanaugh hearings was filmed by the Senate judiciary committee (video here). An image extracted from that should be {{PD-USGov-Congress}}. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Minnie L. Crosthwait

Does the "hive brain" think that there are two Minnie L. Crosthwaits or is something wonky? Alexander Street has this article and then this listing. Both are Black woman suffragists. Wikidata has a listing for the (1872-1963) Minnie. Any light shed on this would be appreciated. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, two. Earlier one is a teacher married to a doctor, later one is a nurse married to a teacher. The 1860-1937 biog looks good. This death notice for the later one also looks good. The earlier one has a trailing e; the later one does not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah good eye Tagishsimon. Minnie L. Crosthwaite (1860-1937) or Minnie L. Crosthwait (1872-1963). Thank you. If they were one woman I'd have enough for an article. :( WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Should I add a (politician) to the name of Draft:Isabelle Santiago

There are no Isabelle Santiagos on wikipedia at the moment, and on French wikipedia she is fr:Isabelle Santiago, but there is an Isabelle Santiago on IMDb, and a fantasy author, and a designer who come up earlier in my google search than the politician. Should I move the draft to Isabelle Santiago (politician), or publish at Isabelle Santiago? Newystats (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Just title it Isabelle Santiago. None of the others are currently mentioned in enwiki articles or even listed in Wikidata. If one gets an article in the future, it can be addressed then. Nick Number (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks!Newystats (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Susanna Ng

Hi everyone. I put up the article Susanna Ng during the October to December 2020 Women in Asia contest. It has now been nominated for deletion because some editors can't see the notability of a Taiwanese regional managing director for EMI Music Publishing Asia Pacific, the first international publisher to open an office on mainland China.

Any help will be appreciated.

TanookiKoopa (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Women in Red articles

It looks like you aren't using many of these categories to classify articles and they are empty. Do you expect to make use of them in the future? Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

An International Dictionary of Women Artists Born Before 1900

Does anyone have access to a copy of the above book? Author is Chris Petteys. I am looking for material to beef up Draft:Louise Anne Lobin. Thanks. Possibly (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: I'll just reproduce her blurb here, as I'm pretty sure it's de minimis:

LOBIN, LOUISE ANNE, née Florence (b. Paris) Painter (miniature portraits). STUDIES: with her husband Lucien Leopold Lobin. EXHIB.: Paris Salon 1874-80 yearly. REF.: Bellier v. 3, Bénézit.

"Bellier" is Bellier de la Chavignerie, Emile; Auvray, Louis (1979). Dictionnaire général des artistes de l'école française depuis l'origine des arts du dessin jusqu'à nos jours. Vol. 5 vols. New York: Garland Publishing. Reprint of the 1882 - 1887 edition published by Renouard, Paris ― Vahurzpu (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
It appears that this page is the Bellier entry cited. Vahurzpu (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@Vahurzpu: thanks very much. Do you think that the entries "S. 1874" and so on mean "Paris Salon? Just checking. Possibly (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: The book was published in Paris, and the span of years listed in Bellier for "S." matches up with the span of years in Petteys for the Salon, so I think that's pretty likely. Vahurzpu (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Timelines of women's history deleted -- need help with rewrites

Hi! There are a lot of timelines of women's history that have been deleted. You can see here: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 January 12. One that is probably easy to retrieve and rewrite is Timeline of women's sports, which was brought to my attention by Whizz40. The copyright issues need to be addressed, but a lot of non-copyrighted content was added, too. If anyone would like to help with these, it would be appreciated! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl: Someone seems to have something against timelines of women. It would have been more productive if the specific copyright problems had been brought to the attention of the editors involved. Not many of us look at Wikipedia:Copyright problems every day but perhaps it's time to give it special attention. As these timelines are usually pretty long and have many sources, they are probably good candidates for further deletions. See, for example, Category:Timelines of women in history and Category:Timelines of women. Now that the current batch have been deleted, only administrators will be able to retrieve them and sort out any problems before they are returned to mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl, Ipigott: The article Timeline of women's sports has been restored. We can now address the copyright problems and improve the article further, grateful for help as I am full-time home schooling at the moment. Also pinging Alanna the Brave who edited this article last year and Derek R Bullamore who edited the article some years ago - pls see discussion on my Talk page at User talk:Whizz40#Timeline of women's sports for background. Moneytrees, as we have a few editors, and hopefully more who might be able to assist, would you be able to restore the other articles as well please? We could then identify and ping editors of these articles as well to help with the work:
Hopefully, all of these are salvageable. Whizz40 (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Whizz40 -- I knew there were copy-vio issues within the Timeline of Women's Sports (I fixed a few last year), but I was still surprised to see the whole thing disappear like that. I would have assumed that a notice might be posted to the article or its talk page before it got blown up! I'll see what I can do to contribute to the restored page. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Dzingle1 and Figureskatingfan so they are aware regarding the ordination articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Rosiestep, Thanks for the heads up. We will put it on our agenda for our next meeting and see if we can get someone interested in working on the women's ordination timeline. Dzingle1 (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Polly PMCH2 -- here is the conversation I was talking about at our last 1000 Women in Religion Wikipedia Project meeting. Dzingle1 (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Colleen. I am happy to fix the problems. I dont know how to restore a deleted item however. Can someone help with that?PMCH2 (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I have created a draft article for Draft:Timeline of women's ordination PMCH2 (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Whizz40, As noted on the article talk page, I have created Timeline of women's sports/draft. My plan to is go through the article line by line and rewrite any content that too closely copies the source. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@Slugger O'Toole:: using the Earwig copyvio tool might be a quick way to identify text in the article which needs reviewing. The sources that need to be checked are listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 January 12 for each article.Whizz40 (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Whizz40, This was a terrific tool. Thank you. I cleaned it up and moved it to mainspace. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon Whizz40 (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Not that these articles were listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dante8, which covers an area within this projects interest. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI help 16:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. There are literally hundreds of articles written by this abusive sockpuppeteer who continues to edit to this day. WP:TNT and indiscriminate removal/deletion per WP:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors definitely do apply. MER-C 17:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
MER-C, if we want to clean up the page, I'd need to hide the edits that contribute to copyright vio, correct? Looking at version of the page, I can see several areas that are copy and paste. I could rewrite that text and hide the edit that created it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
You need to zap all edits between when the copyvio was added (inclusive) and removed (exclusive). MER-C 19:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
MER-C, yes! You're right. I can do that. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Am I understanding correctly that we need to start over from scratch with the women's ordination timelines? Can none of it be salvaged? PMCH2 (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Keeping the discussion going so the thread is not archived as there are still 3 red-linked articles. Whizz40 (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red: Participants vs. Members

At Rosiestep's request, I am copying the following discussion here for further comment.--Ipigott (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rosie. Hope things are improving for you in California. I'm a bit concerned about the replacement of Members by Participants on the main WiR page and on the "cards" people complete when they join the project. Maybe you've authorized the change but as far as I remember in our recent discussions in connection with the distorted membership list, we tried to keep the distinction between members and participants. If you think we should now call our members participants, then I won't pursue the matter further but at a time when we are insisting on membership for contests, etc., I personally think it would be better to maintain the distinction. Perhaps MarioGom has further information about all this.--Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott. Thanks for bringing this up. No, I wasn't involved with this change, and indeed, there is a difference between "members" and "participants". Hoping that MarioGom (or perhaps a pagestalker) has some insights. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Rosiestep, Ipigott: The change was done in the templates by SMcCandlish. There's further background about it here. We can probably add some parameter to these templates to use members instead of participants. --MarioGom (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
In the light of the discussions we had with SMcCandlish earlier where I explained that for Women in Red there was a clear distinction between members and participants, I am surprised he simply went ahead and changed members to participants on the cards (Participant since...) and a few days later substituted "Participate" for "Join WikiProject" on the registration box. Unless we can restore the use of members, we're going to have to make a number of changes on our main page and on all other pages where we encourage people to join the project as well as in hundreds and hundreds of user boxes. And what about all those who "participate" regularly in the project without wishing to become members? Is it usual for background changes of this kind to be made without discussion with those concerned? It was my understanding that before such actions are undertaken, they should be clearly presented, discussed and ultimately voted for or against. Interestingly, the article on Wikipedia:WikiProject clearly refers to members (and has done so since 2012).--Ipigott (talk)
SMcCandlish, please let us hear from you; thanks. Ipigott, can this conversation be transcluded or some such onto the WiR talkpage for greater visibility by our members, participants, and pagestalkers; thanks? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Copying SMcCandlish's reply left on my talkpage: --Rosiestep (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, to catch up on this stuff: The general matter is that wikiprojects are not private membership organizations, and virtually all problems that have arisen in relation to them have stemmed from people trying to make them operate that way. So, we've been moving (not very programmatically) to "participate/participants" instead of "join/members" language. The fact that this has not proceeded at a lightning pace and changed every relevant page yet is immaterial. These things have been discussed before, at CfR and RM and so on, and we do not need to have a re-re-re-discussion of the matter on a page by page basis, because the problem remains the same (cf. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:EDITING policies; no one needs "permission" to make such conforming changes).

However, this particular project is doing something quite unusual and unanticipated, which is distinguishing between wikiproject participants and event participants. I think the solution to that is probably just spelling that out, in those words. (Or coming up with some other term for event participants – attendees, contributors, etc.). It would be best if "participant[s]" were reserved for the on-wiki sense, since when all projects are consistently using it, that will make for easier templating and bot behavior and so on. That is, the better of the two possible places for a wording divergence is in the odd case of the off-site events, not the standard case of on-site wikiproject participants. Anyway, there is no big hurry, especially if the WikiProject X code needs massaging to stop using "members" in the first place. That actually seems to be the primary vector by which "members" and "join" re-spread after years of shifting to "participants" and "participate" (or "sign up" or "add your username" or whatever). Given that it's a dead development project (i.e. something that did not get sufficient community consensus to survive), it's not dispositive of anything, just an aging problem to fix.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Further reactions

  • Speaking personally, I'm not a member of the project as I don't do much writing about women (compared to railways, musical instruments, old 60s and 70s bands, historical architecture around London etc etc) but I am a participant because I still do a bit, and more often try and prod people towards this project in the hope their new article won't get deleted or similar. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I had to go check whether I was a member or participant. So the distinction hasn’t made much difference to me. (I don’t know if that makes the case for letting it go or that the membership model really isn’t hurting anyone.) Innisfree987 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Similar to User:Ritchie333. I suppose it is a useful distinction to have, although the general trouble with lists of WikiProject "members" is that most sign up then do very little, & many will not have edited anything on WP at all for years. Johnbod (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Johnbod: I agree with you that many of those who sign up as members do not edit further on Wikipedia. Fortunately this is taken care of in the main membership list which includes only those who continue to be active. We also have a long list of inactive members.--Ipigott (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • In the light of the above explanations, perhaps we should consider changing "members" to "Women in Red participants" (or WIR participants), which would still allow us to have participant lists for our individual events: meetups, contests, media initiatives, etc. Any other suggestions?--Ipigott (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • After reading the explanation of of why "participant" is favored over "member" in the general wiki community, I think it would be fine to change the term. A couple of down-stream consequences - We should change the language on our "challenge" pages under "Welcome!" where is says "In order to participate, contributors must be members of Women in Red. Anyone can register as a member by using the box on the main WiR page." I suggest just deleting that sentence. Also our current "membership badge" should be updated {{User WikiProject Women in Red}}. I assume we will run into more places where we need to update the term if the term is adopted, but it seems more of an editing issue than a problem. Everything should still keep working exactly the same (ass far as I can tell). WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: What's in a name? → Irony ! :), I suppose 'Participant' word is being preferred for it's openness and inclusiveness over word 'member'. Despite this project uses word 'member' the project is alive with activity! Where as what is the status of most other projects, excluding few exceptions, in spite of using word 'participant' ? IMHO, It's not only the words but spirit too matters, isn't it? Bookku (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested edits

Hello, all. According to this query, there are two WPWIR articles with open requests for edits:

The overall number of unanswered requested edits seems to have gone up during the last few months. While there are relatively few that affect Women in Red's scope, I ask that you consider bookmarking that query. It is probably better to have WPWIR editors handle some of these than a random editor, and many hands make light work. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Élisabeth Du Réau

This article, about a historian who recently died, was just started, and almost immediately tagged for notability. My sense is that the tagging was incorrect, but I'm not really very good with the academic notability guidelines, so I'm opening it up to someone who is. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao, thank you for the heads up. Would bet a dollar notable under NAUTHOR; CAIRN is a good place to look for reviews of her books. (I also on a quick look see popular coverage of an edited collection on VGE.) My plate is full at this very moment but as long as it’s not speedied, I should have time to help soon ish (in a few days or sooner if I need a little break from the to-do list !) Innisfree987 (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Innisfree987: I've removed the notability tag for the moment, and will keep an eye on it. I, too, have a lot on my plate for the foreseeable future, but I'll at least keep an eye on it to keep it from deletion. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I added some more published book reviews, enough to convince me that she passes WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
There's lots more that could be added from the version in French.--Ipigott (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I will add information from the French Wikipedia page.--MerielGJones (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@MerielGJones: Merci beaucoup. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao:@Silver seren: I will leave it for the moment since Silver seren (lovely name) is editing and there's no point in us over-lapping.--MerielGJones (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I was just making some minor cleanups to make the article look nice. I'm all done now, @MerielGJones:, so feel free. SilverserenC 21:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Silver seren:OK, many thanks.--MerielGJones (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we have any Le Monde subscribers? About half of her obituary is paywalled, but I would add the rest if available. Merci! Innisfree987 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been trying to get access via local public library but without success.--MerielGJones (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the effort! My libraries don’t have it either and when I asked a few friends, the response was “ah yes, the impenetrable Le Monde paywall”. Oy! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

two bios of BSL users languishing in Draft

FYI, over at Wikiproject Deaf there is a new user User:Esamiarum, trying to create lots of biographies of British Sign Language users as part of Wikiproject Deaf, many of whom naturally also come in the scope of WiR. There's a couple of biographies in particular which might be easily rescuable from the Articles For Creation process if anyone wants to look into it. Listed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deaf#BSL_Lives_Task_Force. Wittylama 14:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorella redirect page

Request for guidance: I finished an article on Thérèse Ansingh, a Dutch painter. She used the pseudonym Sorella, in fact is listed in RKD and Benezit Dictionary of Artists as "Sorella". When I tried to make a redirect page, I see that there is already a redirect page to Passer, a sparrow genus. I can't figure out why there is a redirect from the word Sorella to the sparrow as it does not appear anywhere in the article. Before editing the redirect I thought I would post a query here. The question is should Sorella be changed into a disambiguation page or edited to only point to Thérèse Ansingh? Thanks for taking a look. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That'll be your Sorella eminibey - Hartlaub, 1880, synonym of a Chestnut sparrow. So might as well make the redirect into a DAB page, I'm afraid. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorella. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah the Sorella eminibey. Thanks Tagishsimon the ornithologist! And thanks for making the DAB WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Sexual politics or Gender politics which would be better article title?

Greetings,

I had initiated Draft:Sexual politics, the topic is vast and needs volunteering for expansion, so those who are interested in the topic please do help out.

Mean while I do have a question ;

1) Sexual politics or Gender politics both topics are same, similar or distinct ?
2) If same Sexual politics or Gender politics which would be better article title?

Any one joining in draft expansion too?

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Bookku, wow big topic! I commend the ambition, these primary topic entries are important but challenging. For my two cents, I think the best thing you can do is pick a concept to focus on (like “sexual politics”) and then let your research (on how that particular term is used in sources) guide your scope, rather than trying to decide on your own what’s relevant (to be mindful of WP:NOR and WP:NOTESSAY). Plus we already have pages on gender, feminism, anti-feminism, pro-sex feminism and so forth, so the contribution would be in adding a page on a concept not yet covered. Good luck! Innisfree987 (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: Thanks for your encouraging words, as you said topic is too vast and certainly needs more hands contributing to it. Bookku (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"Sexual politics or Gender politics both topics are same, similar or distinct ?". They are distinct. I've alerted the Wikimedia LGBT+ group on Telegram in case anyone has time to help you out with the draft. Good writing! -Yupik (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Science Femme

I started this article about a hoax to disparage women. I wanted to share here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Good lord, thank you for sharing! The audacity of that person :o -Yupik (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Child poet

Hi all. When Lula Lowe Weeden was nine years old, her poetry was included in the fairly significant poetry anthology Caroling Dusk. I see she has an entry in Harlem renaissance and beyond : literary biographies of 100 Black women writers, 1900-1945, but anything else? Is she independently notable? Any help would be appreciated. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Terrific subject Eddie891! I notice that she is also referred to as Lula Lowe Weeden Jacobs and Lula Weeden-Jacobs so that might help searches. Here’s a death announcement and this 2020 book, Black Writers Interpret the Harlem Renaissance reproduces what I take to be Countee Cullen’s intro for Weeden In Caroling Dusk but also Gwendolyn Brooks’s commentary thereon (including reference to a poem I admit I am partial to!) I’ll keep an eye out for more, would make a great addition if material exists. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Doesn’t go to notability but in case she is, there are some details about her family in this digitized version of Arthur Bunyan Caldwell’s History of the American Negro and his institutions; (Volume 5). Innisfree987 (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Also doesn't go to notability but ProQuest 531457638 is a marriage announcement and ProQuest 531032618 has a photo and says that she graduated from Hampton Seminary in Hampton, Virginia, which may be an old name for Hampton University. It seems that one of her daughters was also named Lula or Lola Lowe Weeden; I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out which is which. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
FWIW if the Caldwell source is correct, her mother was also Lula Wheedon and her sister was lola Weeden (for clarity that’s iola)—confusing enough to make me type up her name as Lola which I believe is not the name of any of those three women but very possible for a daughter! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your research, AleatoryPonderings and Innisfree987! I'll try to expand Caroling Dusk and make room for some of the information we've found about her to be added there, since it (unfortunately) doesn't seem she's gotten sufficient coverage outside of the anthology for a stand-alone article. Of course, if people find more we can always split it out. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Eddie891 If this is the same person, it appears she got an MFA at the University of Colorado in 1942. Gamaliel (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Documentation of how to create WiR redlists in other language Wikipedias

An awesome editor has documented how to create Women in Red lists in other language Wikipedias. The guideline derived from how they did it for Turkish Vikipedi. This on github gives related points and examples for usage of Wikidata SPARQL (to query), Listeria (to create lists) and PyWikiBot (to create pages from files). Do you think it would be worthwhile to create a short WiR essay (instruction page?) on this topic and include a link to the github page (which might get updated from time to time)? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

We probably should have a how-to page. It could include a link to the github page, even if the SPARQL is a bit iffy, and the automatic page generation thing somewhat vapourware. Equally we could try to finish, or abandon, the use of wikidata items to control the occupations used in redlists such that we can build a lookup-report of occupations to redists. Example of the art in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Art critics. However, whilst Listeria is as unwell as it is doing anything Listeria-related is too depressing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Excellent idea! Despite the problems with Listeria, I certainly think it would be useful to create guidelines on SPARQL, Listeria and PyWikiBot, not only for the creation of redlists but also to provide lists of items which have already led to articles in English and any other pertinent language versions. This would no doubt provide better results than many of the lists of women we laboriously create by hand. If I remember correctly, our very first experiments with Listeria were directed at blue lists rather than red lists. Perhaps we should call on further assistance from Wikidata as this would no doubt add a more international flavour. We could perhaps envisage taking things even further by developing "gadgets" to launch Listeria lists on the basis of key criteria for occupations, etc., in different languages.--Ipigott (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Adding @Gamaliel, Megalibrarygirl, and Astinson (WMF) who may have additional insights and/or inclination to start the draft WiR essay. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Rosiestep, I wouldn't mind helping. I think we should have a few other help essays too, especially relating to copyright issues for both photos and text and how to get permissions, etc. OTRS on Commons is confusing. Also the way things are categorized there is a little different from Wikipedia. Tagging Victuallers for a photo-related essay. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm willing to help out, but one reason I'm so enthusiastic about listmaking, etc. is that my goal is to free up other volunteers to do other things, like article writing. Maybe a "request a list" page where we could just create a list for someone? Gamaliel (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Gamaliel: A "request a list" page is an excellent idea. I sometimes find that the requests I make in connection with our monthly priorities are not followed up. Maybe in some cases there are good reasons not to create them but it would in any case be useful to receive explanations. It's a bit late in the day now but in connection with our current Classicists priority, I had suggested making a Wikidata redlist of "Women born before AD 400" (or maybe between AD 400 and BC 500). This was in response to a request from a classics editor who thought it would would be a good idea to cover more women from ancient Greece and Rome, etc. I had suggested this could probably be done along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject MedievalWiki/Wikidata Redlist. I would also find it very useful to have blue Wikidata lists on women writers by country, women photographers by country and women artists by country (separate lists for each country for each of the three). If this were to be successful, we could decide which other women's occupations and interests could be candidates for Wikidata blue lists. We currently have an enormous number of Lists of women, most of which require extensive expansion and updating. I think it would be a good idea to see if Wikidata could provide better results for many of them and allow us to spend more editing time on creating new articles and assisting new contributors.--Ipigott (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Guideline for using Non-binary pronouns in other languages

Hi! I found this article about using non-binary pronouns in non-English languages. It's in Spanish, but it's still worth a look using Google Translate I think (my own Spanish is barely intermediate, so I often rely on help!). It would be nice to have a reference guide for this sort of thing on our page, too. If you all like the reference, I'll add it to the resources page. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Megalibrarygirl. I found it interesting but a bit artificial. Maybe I'm too old to be able to use "vuestrxs hijxs" for "your children", no doubt to convey that one or more of them may not be binary. By using the x's, you are in fact conveying a clear message that you know they are not all binary. For me, "vuestros hijos" seems to be perfectly adequate for covering all possible gender combinations. While I sympathize with the pronoun preferences expressed by individuals, I think we need to be careful not to overdo avoidance of traditional usage leading to a risk of misinterpretation. And by the way, how do you pronounce "vuestrxs hijxs"? Not many languages have introduced non-binary pronouns but a great deal of attention has been given to Swedish in the Scandinavian countries. To avoid using "hon" (she) and "han" (he), the Swedes introduced "hen" (to denote either or both). Over the years its usage has become more widely accepted and it has now been adopted by the Swedish academy although its actual usage in print seems to have declined slightly since 2016. There's an interesting Swedish article on Gender neutral pronouns including developments in Swedish and several other languages while the EN wiki has Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns as well as an article on Hen (pronoun).--Ipigott (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott, that's really interesting. I hadn't heard about the Swedish work for gender neutrality. In my experience among Mexican Americans on the TexMex border, there is a divide about using, for example, Latinx or Latina/o. I've also seen efforts to introduce an 'e' at the end, like Latine (though no idea how to pronounce that). One of my Mexican American friends feels that it's a form of English language colonialism to try to force non-gender on a traditionally gendered language. I don't know the answer, but I was really interested in finding out how other languages handle gender and non-binary concepts. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl: And in English there seems to be a divide about using Latina or Latino, Filipina vs Filipino, to describe women in general. To answer your original question, I think it might be a good idea to write a guideline on non-gendered pronouns for Women in Red but not on the basis of Spanish. I haven't looked around much but maybe such guidelines have already been introduced in connection with other projects.--Ipigott (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I see we have Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity and related pages.--Ipigott (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott, I think we should link that in our resources. :) I'll go ahead and link. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red membership list deleted

There is no longer any listing on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Members. MarioGom, can you help? (cc Rosiestep, Victuallers).--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Ipigott, fixed. It reached the size limit. I made the card template slightly more compact and it fits within the limit again. We'll hit the same problem again if the number of active members keeps growing, so a more long-term solution will be required for {{WikiProjectCard}}. MarioGom (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
MarioGom: That's great. Thanks a lot. I don't know what we'd do without you. In a way, it's gratifying to see we've exceeded the maximum expectation for membership of the project. Maybe the problem was triggered by replacing "member since" with "participant since" (6 more letters some 300 times). I wonder if our friend SMcCandlish took this into account. Maybe it would be a good idea to make a copy of the list as a normal wiki page. That would at least be a kind of safeguard if ever you are not available for a few days.--Ipigott (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott, if an emergency solution is needed at some point, the template can be edited to replace:
{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|3}}|Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Members/Inactive
with:
{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|2}}|Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Members
This would switch the main members listing to the compact (ugly) format used in the inactive members listing. --MarioGom (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I did not take 6 addl. characters into account, because we shouldn't have to. This card-based system is a maintenance problem in multiple ways and probably should not have been implemented without a lot more community input. I'm glad someone today can fix it when it breaks, but we can't depend on that always being true, and it should probably be phased out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
SMcCandlish: As far as I can see, there is a general willingness to move away from developments related to Project X but unless reliable alternatives are developed, I think it would be sensible not to introduce any further changes which are liable to upset things. If you are associated with others who are keen to migrate from Project X, perhaps you would be able to undertake the development of an alternative to the cards and membership listings along similar lines. I distinctly remember back in 2015 that the ease of registering in Facebook style was considered to be one of the major attractions of Women in Red. This continues today with some 90% of new registrations containing clearly expressed details of editors' intended contributions and aspects requiring assistance. (I try to follow up on all of these, examining new registrations every day.) Maybe alternatives already exist, if not in the EN version, perhaps in others. I have noticed that the Russians and Germans often come up with innovative solutions. Are you in a position to look into this? And if not, who would be able to take it on?--Ipigott (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Probably better looked into by someone who's better at Lua. I can't think of any reason this needs to generate an ever-growing number of "card" pages, instead of just being maintained in normal list form, but it would take some smarts to parse and update the lists in an automated way (e.g. to create entries in them from a form, or move entries from active list to inactive list or vice versa).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
SMcCandlish: In that case, it might be appropriate to make a request on Wikipedia talk:Lua although that might boil down to making one more venture into an uneditable area. As for the cards, there may be a case for removing them after, say, three months as they are particularly useful in allowing us to help new contributors along during their initial involvement but most of them are of mainly historical interest. Nevertheless, I see that mine still provides pertinent information while Rosiestep's (ping) is certainly ambitious but perhaps not too specific. I think we need to discuss this further before we make any radical changes. As I pointed out earlier, the cards have proved to be really useful and seem to me to correspond to WMF's call for more careful monitoring of new contributors. Many of those on Women in Red complete their cards even before they have a user page. Maybe MarioGom can find a solution based on the existing code. From what you say, whoever was behind Project X must have been an absolute genius. Is he still around? Maybe Harej can look into it.--Ipigott (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
There're some things that can be done to solve the issue (or delay it for a significant amount of time):
  • Making the design more compact, reducing the HTML markup and CSS style required, making text shorter, etc. This is easy to do by editing {{WikiProjectCard}} and I can help there.
  • Shortening the time required for a member to go into the inactive list. This would require maintenance at {{Reports bot}}. If this is changed, I think it would be better to make it a configurable setting at wikiproject.json.
  • Adding pagination.
Hopefully, we can push the first option to the limit. But in the long run, if Women in Red growth and success continues, we'll need to go into other options. Lua can be used to improve some things and share the maintenance burden. It would be awesome if we can replace the role of the bot partially or completely with Lua (I'm not really sure if it has enough APIs for it). Even if Lua is not accessible to every editor, it's accessible to way more than the bot, and it can be maintained by the community. --MarioGom (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with your closing assessment, but have to observe that it's not "the cards" (i.e., static, largely redundant pages in user space, at hard-coded names, being transcluded into pages with hard-coded names that break old bot code if moved) providing any of those features; the information contained in them is what does so. That data can live anywhere, and would probably be better handled as Wikidata and expressed locally as list entries (or in whatever other format is needed). But I think we've started talking about multiple things here. For my part, the concerns (not specific to this project) are with the following, in high-to-low priority order: 1) poorly thought-out, misleading, and ultimately WP-harmful messaging that signals to people that they are "joining" a "membership" organization (i.e. a private club) that can and in too many cases will be used to thwart WP:EDITING, WP:OWN, WP:NOT#WEBHOST, and other policies; 2) the obsolescence and maintenance problems of a moribund, experimental project-layout system (WikiProject X) that is unnecessarily complex, surprisingly inflexible, unmaintained, and based on an unhelpful and unnecessary proliferation of "micro-pages"; 3) consequent layout issues at particular wikiprojects, like a large amount of space being taken up in "prime" sidebar real estate by overly large participant-detail presentation (because of the inflexibility of layout system being used) – the data may be useful but this presentational tail wags the entire layout dog; 4) specific-wikiproject-level information management issues like the sorting rate of active/inactive participants (of two kinds).

It would probably help to identify what this card data, and WikiProject X in general, is doing well for this wikiproject (which has some broader needs than most), what it could do better, what it's not doing that is needed, and where it's just getting in the way, before we ask WP:LUA to jump on something, or we could just end up with a "WikiProject Y" system with at least as many problems. I see WOMRED as basically a superset of wikiprojects; I think it has all the [useful] features of any wikiproject, plus has added its own, like offsite-event-related features, so it's a good testbed. PS: Threads like "Documentation of how to create WiR redlists in other language Wikipedias" also indicate that the portability of this stuff is of some importance, and it highlights why hardcoded page names deep in code are undesirable (can't easily be localized).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

MarioGom: It may indeed be a good idea to reduce the time members have to be active to be on the main list. If I am not mistaken, it was originally three months but in your most recent edits, you have referred to one month. Could you check out what it is at the moment?--Ipigott (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Ipigott, I'm not sure, that question might be better answered by Harej.
  • SMcCandlish, using wikidata would make sense, if only it was possible to have an easy workflow for it, as we currently have with the form gadget. Note that our current technical problems are not caused by the way {{WikiProjectCard}} is organized or transcluded, but by the extremely verbose design (in terms of markup), which hits PEIS limits. I think that using other kinds of templates, data sources or Lua would have pretty much the same problem unless we rethink the layout. --MarioGom (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
    Which brings us back to WikiProject X and its issues. I guess a stopgap measure could be a new Lua module that parsed those card page and just pulled raw text out of them, then reformatted that in some simpler way, maybe as a plain * list (which could then be transcluded where you want it, or not transcluded and just left in a stand-along page under the main wikiproject page). If that worked, then I think removing the entire original WikiProject X "membership" pages would suppress display of the sidebars for them, though that requires some testing. If not, the module behind it can probably be modified to stop trying to create that complex sidebar if the content for it is not there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Whatever action is taken, may I suggest that any experimentation should be undertaken outside the existing operational environment. Only after proper testing should the project be invited to accept an alternative approach. I think nevertheless it would be useful for the project to be informed of plans adopted and progress made. Furthermore, if "members" vs "participants" is really the main issue, then I think that other well established wikiprojects such as [[wp:Military history}} which embarked on members and membership back in 2006 (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members) should also be informed of the EN wiki's apparent decision to replace "members" by "participants". Maybe you, SMcCandlish, could point us to the pages where these decisions were adopted as I have not been able to find them. I think we should perhaps have a page on WiR which clearly describes the background in relation to all wikiprojects and then list the specific problems on WiR and how we intend to solve them.--Ipigott (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Jessie Scott Hathcock

Found this in AfC: Draft:Jessie Scott Hathcock (1894-1986). In 1930, she became the first African American woman to graduate from University of Dayton. She was a humanitarian, educator, and civil rights leader in Dayton, Ohio. Seems to have a lot of local coverage. Wanted to mention it here to see if people believe the article meets GNG. TJMSmith (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Feminism in Saudi Arabia

Just a warning that a few more watchers of Feminism in Saudi Arabia might be good. The historical, sourced section by a Saudi Arabian woman historian, which doesn't happen to fall into the usual stereotypes of Saudi Arabia, was deleted without explanation this morning. I restored it, but that was half a day later. Boud (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that material might have a more natural place in Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. It would be good if Feminism in Saudi Arabia discussed something pre-2018 but not sure myself that Nabataea is really relevant there. Dsp13 (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Helping women academic subjects - looking to connect the subject with an editor.

Hi - The Dean of a department at Sonoma State University needs support in making changes to the Wikipedia article about herself and other faculty members. Is there anyone here that I can connect her with? Who can help? I've already suggested the info email but I'd like to put her in touch with someone. Is anyone available? I'd like to put her in touch with someone who can help her out with this. I have a COI with SSU and I try to avoid working with article subjects at this point in my life. I am grateful. Missvain (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Missvain, do you mind saying who is at issue so I can have a look at the bio(s)? I might be able to but it depends a little on what I’m taking on. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hollis Robbins wants to connect with a volunteer. She has issues with her article, I did not get into the details. She also has concerns about the Gillian Conoley article. Thanks for your consideration. She did send an email to the info at wikipedia but sometimes they aren't as warm and welcoming to folks needing assistance. Missvain (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh thanks, great sure those are within the realm of things I can handle. I’m not prepared to rewrite from scratch which is what especially the latter needs but I don’t mind fielding corrections. I’ve watchlisted both pages; you could tell them to meet me at the relevant article’s Talk or my talk page. I hope I can encourage them to become more active on other WP pages! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Icons on our main WiR page

I see that over the past few days, someone has been introducing and changing icons on our main WiR page which link to pertinent pages. While this seems to be a step in the right direction, as there is no record on the edit history of the page itself, it would be useful to know whose is behind the changes and whether any further developments are planned. Perhaps Rosiestep is aware of how these changes have been implemented and where we can find the relevant editing history? There have recently been suggestions that we should move away from Project X features but in this case we appear to be reinforcing them.--Ipigott (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The changes are in the template for the header on the main page and have been made by Rosiestep in the last few days.--Oronsay (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott, Note, the templated header is independent of WikiProject X and can be added to other WiR pages/subpages. By way of example, see here (feel free to remove the template and/or remove any of the icons if you wish). --Rosiestep (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Talking of icons ... I've not taken any notice of discussion about members/participants, but I'm now curious: where do the icons in our list of participants come from? Who allocated me a psychedelic initial "P", when some participants have images and many have nothing? What do I do if I have an image I'd prefer to use (can't think of one for the moment but...)? Just puzzled! PamD 20:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
PamD: As far as I can see from the revision history of User:PamD/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Women in Red, you added the P yourself when you registered on 27 December 2017. Perhaps you were inspired by the Christmas spirit. If you want to replace it or delete it, you can simply click on "edit" and proceed in the normal way. Please let me know if you run into any problems.--Ipigott (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott Ah, thanks! I had no recollection of that, but three years is a long time. (That's why I keep a record on my user page of all the articles I create, and importantly why I did so, because otherwise I sometimes wouldn't have a clue). PamD 08:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I've found a "P" I prefer for the moment - if anyone wants to find a nice initial, I can recommend https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:P and equivalents: plenty to choose from! PamD 08:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
PamD: It reminds me of the former beautifully shaped P on Danish parking signs which has now unfortunately been replaced by the nondescript international version you can see on the addition.--Ipigott (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Thanks for the explanation. I see it's "template Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/WiR header". I believe I actually suggested to Isarra a few years ago that we rather liked the icons and she went ahead and made a template for us. Sorry for raising the issue but at my age you tend to forget the history of things. In fact it was indeed related to Project X, Oronsay, as it was one of the features on the main page which until 2018 was causing problems. Fortunately, it's now in line with conventional Wikipedia features.--Ipigott (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Gilda H. Loew

Does anyone know good ways to dig up information about Berkeley alumni and/or Stanford faculty and affiliates? I started a stub for Gilda H. Loew while looking for women who pass WP:PROF by virtue of being American Physical Society Fellows, and it can probably be expanded. XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty dubious that this honour alone gives a pass at WP:PROF. From their website, in 2020 alone they elected 5 A names, 11 B names ..... That looks like well over 100 a year. Too many for auto-notability. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Having a journal issue in her honour is a good sign of notability. The preface to that issue - which is already cited in the draft - provides some good detail on her career, XOR'easter. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There was a recent RfC on a closely related topic here that included people reasoning, without any disagreements raised, that APS fellowships confer notability. I suspect this is not the only discussion on the topic, but I think it was the most recent one. But of course an RfC could be held on APS fellowships specifically if you disagree. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Not seeing that - it relates to American Mathematical Society fellows, & was won on other issues relating to the individual. Johnbod (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
There are a moderately large number of APS Fellows, but there are a lot of physicists. That's what you get when you apply a selective net to a fairly big pond. (And, as such, APS Fellowship has been an uncontroversial pass of WP:PROF#C3 for years, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
In my book, something that c. 150 people, mostly Americans, get every year does not confer notability. Of course most notable current physicists will have it, but that's different. Johnbod (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
A thought experiment for you: How many people, mostly Americans, are elected to state legislatures, as an average per year? How many people, mostly Americans, are selected in the annual NFL Draft? How many Americans publish their second novel, as an average per year? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The state legislators & novelists are rightly not auto-notable. The NFL lot may be for all I know, but we all know our sport standards are insane. In real football, at least you actually have to play in a qualifying match. Can't see your point here. Johnbod (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The state legislators really are by WP:NPOL, and the novelists are not automatically but many of them will be. My point is that you are throwing around numbers of people per year for this criterion as if that means something, while not showing a lot of evidence of numeracy in your use of those numbers. Why do you think 150 American physicists per year is an inappropriate number to include? What, specifically, about that number? What is your evidence that this is in any way out of proportion to other occupations? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@David Eppstein Neither of us can be bothered to find the exact 2020 number (which is oddly difficult on the web - why, if it's such a big deal? ). The 2019 number was 168. This isn't the place to pursue this, but these just seem too high to be nodded through as auto-notable. As you will be aware all SNGs are under a certain amount of pressure at the moment, with the wind against them, and the burden of proof is really on those claiming auto-notability by this or that criterion. I'd get better arguments ready frankly. In the past, I've been a firm supporter of WP:PROF, but I'm beginning to waver a bit. I'd happily change WP:NPOL, although very many will have regional press, & in fact the proportion with articles doesn't seem that high. I was blissfully unaware of this great expanse of unread one-liners. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The IEEE, which is a specific example listed in WP:PROF#C3, elevated 282 people to Fellow status this year. XOR'easter (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, it really shouldn't be listed in PROF - I wonder how many of these (the men anyway) actually get bios? If, as I suspect, it's not that many, that suggests it doesn't actually show notability. Johnbod (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes Category:Fellow Members of the IEEE has only 1934 members, which unless supply has drastically increased recently suggests a fairly low % of the actual fellows. To me that says it isn't a strong argument for notability. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd say rather that it suggests that many people who deserve articles for being at the top of their field haven't gotten them yet. XOR'easter (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I tried Stanford.edu, StanfordMagazine.org, sup.org (Stanford University Press), and PaloAltoOnline.com. None had any information. I think most of her work time fell in the pre-2000's, and isn't online. :(. But, wow, an entire issue of the International Journal of Quantum Chemistry! That's impressive. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for looking! XOR'easter (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Apart from APS there will be no problem with her passing WP:Prof; her GS citation record will assure that. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC).
Well that's fine, but that and the special issue are the sort of arguments needed. Johnbod (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
.@David Eppstein and @ DGG on this - you have used this as the sole argument for notability in the examples given above. Were you aware how many of these are handed out? Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware. I have pored through the entire list of APS fellows in helping to compile Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships. But again, there are lots of physicists (and lots of people who are officially mechanical engineers or chemists or whatever but counted by the APS as physicists), and the ones I've created articles for on the basis of their APS fellowships have generally seemed in line with other criteria such as WP:PROF#C1, so I think that for the most part APS Fellow sets the bar about where we want to for #C3. There are also many many IEEE Fellows handed out, for instance, and that's also at a similar level of academic accomplishment and explicitly listed in WP:PROF as something that passes. It's just because APS and IEEE are big societies. There are a few APS Fellows I might be wary of (the ones for community outreach rather than academic accomplishment) but they're not the usual case. Incidentally, I think your claim you have used this as the sole argument for notability in the examples given above is false. In all of the AFDs listed above by Xor'easter, in which I participated, I cited multiple criteria. Again, the fact that the people who passed this criterion generally also passed others is an argument that this criterion sets the bar at the right level. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Nope - at the first of that list you commented "Keep. Fellow of the American Physical Society should be enough for WP:PROF#C3, and he also has a plausible case for #C1. Article needs cleanup but not badly enough for WP:TNT. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)". I haven't checked all of them, but it seems, neither have you ..... Thanks for responding anyway Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Dude. When you accuse me of lying you could at least read the quote you think disproves what I said. Here, I'll boldface the relevant part for you: he also has a plausible case for #C1. That's a different criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, but no reason given for that. And you were the one with accusations of "lying" if you want to call it that. 15:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Johnbod (talk)
I regard Fellow APS not as a basic standard but essentially as a shortcut, which show notability sufficiently that there's no need for further analysis. Fellow iEEE is a little different, because it includes people whose notable work does not necessarily result in conventional publications, so it's sometimes the best we have to go on. And I have the same caveat about "community outreach" as David E. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)` .

Brenda Banks

I just created a draft page for the animator Brenda Banks: Draft:Brenda Banks (animator). She is believed to be one of the first African American women to work as an animator. There is very little information about her. I'm not even sure if she is still alive. Has anyone ever contacted a journalist to do an article on a person who is clearly notable, but lacks information? Brenda Banks would be a great subject for a news story! Thank you all! Thriley (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven’t, but there was a time when that or something like it was routinely suggested at AfD (“if you think the person’s notable, then go...”) I don’t see any reason not to, if you have a journo in mind that you think might like the story. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Innisfree987, Thank you! Sadly I found out today that she is believed to have died last December. Perhaps there will be more coverage as the months go on. A piece about her was just published in Animation Magazine which I’m not sure is a real reliable source. Thriley (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

International Women's Day → In the news ?

Greetings,

Lot many events do take place on International Women's Day, amongst them, since 2018 Pakistan women take out Aurat March and is leading to substantial social discourse in Pakistan, with substantial media coverage.

Wikipedia main page has Wikipedia:In the news section, would there be any scope to nominate Aurat March and/or International Women's Day for that section?

If yes, then how to proceed further ?

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Alice Barker

I am requesting help with a possible article on Draft:Alice Barker. I can't find reliable sources. Most everything written about her is about how this Harlem Renaissance chorus-line dancer has been overlooked. I can't seem to find an obituary in a reliable source. Thanks for taking a look. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

So, it looks like there aren't enough sources to turn this into an article. W hat is the best way to remove the draft. How do I delete this? Do I just blank the page? Basic question, but I've never done this before. Thanks for any guidance. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@WomenArtistUpdates: ((db|self)), but in curly brackets, should do it. Or else we could promote the article and see if it sticks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Tagishsimon. I have "db|self"ed it. I think everyone here who might have been interested has had a chance to add or comment. It looks like there really isn't enough secondary material. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s political science coverage is biased. I tried to fix it. With tens of thousands of articles on the subject, individual efforts can go only so far — unless others join in. by Samuel Baltz The article has links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Ann Wager

Looking for opinions on the notability of Ann Wager. She was the headmistress of the Williamsburg Bray School, which was a school for free and enslaved Black children from 1760-1774. (More background.)Possibly (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Now at Ann Wager. Possibly (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, I read the titles of the sources...was Wager a slave or former slave? Or was she just involved by teaching freed slaves? TJMSmith (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@TJMSmith: She was not a slave. She was the only schoolmistress at the Williamsburg Bray School during the time it operated. I thought that "Wager had been a tutor to white children in Williamsburg" would be adequate for context, but do you think we need to explicitly say that she was white somewhere in the article? Possibly (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, Ok. I added a few categories. Glad I asked before mistakenly adding her to incorrect categories! TJMSmith (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Mika Simmons

Can I get a few more eyes at this article? The subject has taken exception to it and fallen into all of the usual traps (COI, edit warring etc) you might expect a subject expert upset at their WP article to have. I think it should be possible to get a properly sourced biography out of it, it just needs using appropriate sources. In particular, I'm concerned that some of them, such as Vanity Fair, Grazia and Harper's Bazaar are not really sources that have ever been discussed much, or indeed women's magazines generally, plus I can see quite a bit of coverage of her in the Daily Mail, which - for all my utter dislike of the paper - does seem to specialise in women's issues more than other newspapers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, WP:DAILYMAIL is not considered RS, especially for a BLP. No word on Grazia or Harper's Bazaar, although they seem similar to Vanity Fair which is generally considered usable according to WP:RSP. Maybe they should be evaluated as potential additions to that list. TJMSmith (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Ummm, you have seen User:Ritchie333/Userbox Daily Mail, right? ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

What do our editathons sound like? An experiment

For the past two months, I've been making a Spotify playlist based on articles created or improved in Women in Red editathons in January and February. Whenever I noticed a new or improved article about a musician, I looked for a track by them on Spotify to include. Sometimes, the connection is more indirect (the new article's subject is the subject of the song, or the lyricist, or in one case the biographer of the composer). Either way, the linked article below is the reference. Here's the track list I landed with as of yesterday. It's certainly diverse and wide ranging! Penny Richards (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  1. Sevana, “If You Only knew”
  2. Henry Hadley, Isabelle Yalkovsky Byman, and the Kohon String Quartet, ”Piano Quintet in A minor, Op. 50, I: Allegro energetico”
  3. Tate McRae, “rubberband”
  4. Dessa, “Who’s Yellen Now?”( Janet Yellen, article recently updated)
  5. Nilüfer Verdi, Eren Tergut, Firtina Kiral, "Kedilerin Akibeti”
  6. Rachel Reinert, “All We Have”
  7. Coco O., “Where the Wind Blows”
  8. Anne Feeney, “Union Maid”
  9. A.P.T. Songs, “O Hampton! (alma mater written by by Sarah Collins Fernandis)
  10. keiyaA, “Do Yourself a Favor”
  11. John Adams and the BBC Symphony Orchestra, “Doctor Atomic, Act I, Scene 2: 'Am I In Your Light?'” (featuring Julia Bullock)
  12. Malika La Slameuse, “Je ne cesserai”
  13. Bhanwari Devi, “Budhau (reprise)”
  14. John Davis, “The Rain Storm” (composed by Blind Tom Wiggins; Wiggins’ biographer Geneva Handy Southall has a new article)
@Penny Richards: Nice work. You've inspired me to look into the Naxos series "Women at the Piano", and I've knocked together a list of featured pianists who don't yet have articles in English:
  1. Bärbel Andreae
  2. Emma Contestabile
  3. Ginette Doyen
  4. Lilly Dymont
  5. Lenore Caroline Engdahl
  6. Madeleine Grovlez-Fourgeaud
  7. Marie-Thérèse Fourneau
  8. Liza Fuchsova
  9. Carmen-Marie-Lucie Guilbert
  10. Denise Herbrecht
  11. Felicitas Karrer
  12. Muriel Kerr
  13. Ida Krehm
  14. Gisèle Kuhn
  15. Denise Lassimonne
  16. Jean Melville
  17. Dorothea Mendelssohn (current article is a redirect)
  18. Lottie Morel
  19. Ida-Marie-Louise Périn
  20. Cornelia Rider-Possart
  21. Reah Sadowsky
  22. Grete Scherzer
  23. Hilde Somer
  24. Annarosa Taddei
  25. Frieda Valenzi
  26. Madeleine de Valmalète
  27. Marie-Aimée Warrot
  28. Eva Wollman
Liner notes for the series can be found here: Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3, Volume 4, and Volume 5.
(Talking, incidentally, of Hadley - he was one of that raft of American composers who wrote operas for the Metropolitan Opera between about 1915 and 1935, on commission from general manager Giulio Gatti-Cassazza. Interestingly, a sizeable percentage of these operas featured libretti by women, including Hadley's Cleopatra's Night, the text of which was by Alice Leal Pollock. It's something I've meant to explore when I have the chance one of these days - I think there are several writers about whom articles could be written.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
What great initiatives, both! I’m so delighted to see the late Anne Feeney living on in the playlist. And thank you Ser Amantio di Nicolao for this excellent list—I hope it’s alright if I add these to our crowd-sourced list of redlinked musicians so future editathoners or simply motivated folks can make use of your work! Innisfree987 (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Penny Richards: This looks like a really interesting new venture. For those of us who are not members of Spotify, I was wondering if some sort of tie-up could be developed for Wikipedia, perhaps under External links or on the talk pages of the articles in question. Is there any way of monitoring the degree of access to the playlist on Spotify?--Ipigott (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Ser Amantio de Nicolao: This looks like a really useful list given the details in the Naxos write-ups. Innisfree987 I fully support its inclusion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Music.--Ipigott (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Great! They (and the accompanying sources) may now be found there under “Instrumentalists”. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Innisfree987: Happy to be of assistance. I suspect there ought to be enough from the liner notes to at least make a stab at a start on an article for each of them. I know at least one is the subject of an article in the Italian Wikipedia, so at least some of them are written up elsewhere. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Great minds Penny Richards! I've been creating one too (but just of people whose pages I've worked on. It's here. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Great minds indeed, Lajmmoore! I found another person making a Spotify redlist for Women in Red. Penny Richards (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I've rescued a few women musician bios from deletion, but the stand out one for me (exactly 6 years ago today) is Kat Wright - not only did I rescue the article, I became a fan of the music and she couldn't believe some guy on the other side of the pond really did want to buy her album. Can you stick some of her stuff on the Spotify playlist? This is exactly what I want a band I'm in to sound like! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Additional comments

All those involved in arranging editathons in connection with the focus on women in March are of course welcome to draw on our resources and collaboration. An easy way for us to monitor developments is via listings under Category:Wikipedia meetups in March 2021. I have been specifically informed by Prosperosity that WiR participants are welcome to take part virtually in New Zealand's Auckland Museum event on 6 March.

  • I should also advise those adding images to Commons in March that in connection with VisibleWikiWomen, you are invited to add the new Commons category:
Category:VisibleWikiWomen-WikiProject_Women_in_Red_-_2021
to each image file. The category can also be added to images created during March in connection with all the other priorities of the month. In this way, we'll be able to monitor the extent of our contributions.--Ipigott (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Cinda Firestone

I recently created an article for the filmmaker Cinda Firestone. She made her first film Attica when she was in her early 20s. I invite anyone interested to help build out her article. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

UK Department for Education public domain?

Is this Department for Education interview on YouTube ([2]) considered public domain? I was thinking it could fall under Open Government Licence (OGL v3.0). TJMSmith (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Potential DYK for April 2021 (Yom HaShoah)

If anyone is looking for a cool DYK candidate- I just started an article on Holocaust survivor Eva Clarke. Her mother, Anka Nathanová, gave birth to her in April 1945 at Mauthausen concentration camp. I found a great public domain image (U.S. Army) of them days after her birth during the liberation of the camp. The photo and article seem like a prime candidate for DYK, maybe specifically for Yom HaShoah (Hebrew for Holocaust Remembrance Day). TJMSmith (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and did self nominated! TJMSmith (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

WHGI statistics

Anyone know if we can do anything about the WHGI statistics? The numbers there seem to have been stuck since Feb 1. Dsp13 (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Dsp13: I have been in touch several times with Maximilianklein on this over the past month. The weekly WHGI checks have been run as usual but have not provided new results, apparently because the expected data dumps have not been made. I note nevertheless, that for the EN wiki, WDCM notes a small increase in the number of women's biographies from 346,615 on 22 February to 347,127 on the 28th (although these figures are always slightly higher than those from WHGI as they are based on usage rather than biographies per se). The WHGI team are currently bogged down with work on an operational prototype of humaniki which is expected by the end of the month. As soon as I receive updated figures, I'll post them on the main WiR page. On the basis of our monthly metrics, we seem to be progressing quite well.--Ipigott (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Ateaa Tina

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ateaa Tina. Atsme 💬 📧 18:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Cindy Milstein

I just removed a redirect from Cindy Milstein. She is a widely known Anarchist wirter and organizer. Any help finding sourcing for her would be greatly appreciated! Thank you, Thriley (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_91&oldid=1013928201"