Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Swiss women redlist via Wikidata

Can someone please create a Swiss women redlist using Wikidata? I'm meeting with Nattes à chat and we are reviewing that information. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Edgars2007 has been our expert on this. I always find it difficult to find "Swiss" articles as they can be in German, French or Italian and frequently do not have nationality information. It should nevertheless be possible to obtain an initial list from Wikidata info corresponding to sex=female and country of citizenship=Switzerland. Alternatively, you will find many pertinent names under Catégorie:Personnalité suisse par canton although these list both men and women. There's also Catégorie:Personnalité féminine suisse. @Rosiestep: To start you off, I've made a list from the French wiki of red links to Swiss actresses and women writers here.--Ipigott (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The query itself is not hard: [1] runs to find 2199 Swiss women in Wikidata, without enWP article. I've not done Listeria output, but I suppose it is routine for those who have to produce the redlist. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I "phoned a friend": User:Magnus Manske/Swiss Women in Red. Please move if need be. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Antarctic Bio Drafts!

Hello again,

We've a stack of Antarctic women biography drafts going through WP:AfC or soon to be submitted (thanks again, Janstrugnell, Megalibrarygirl, Alisonlee9, Caroldevine24, Mcpolaar, Jenna knox, Ngwilson, Shawjustine, ‎ProfessaRobinson, ‎WavyGeek).

Most are in pretty decent shape for first drafts, however all could do with a bit of copyediting and wikification. A few would also benefit from additional sources. We've tried to get some representation of non-english-speaking women, but references can be harder to hunt down! A number have already been accepted into mainspace, and I've added the articles that are currently drafts below.

Full redlink list including finished and unstarted pages at Wikipedia:Meetup/SCAR_2016

Thanks for any help your're able to provide! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Evolution and evolvability and T.Shafee: Thank you so much for these. I think we're all excited about working on Polar women very soon! A friendly FYI... "first female Romanian" should be reworded as "first Romanian woman". --Rosiestep (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Rosiestep! Also, thanks for the female/woman tip, I didn't know that. I've gone through and checked the drafts for similar wordings. Finally, thanks to Keilana for the whirlwind of editing! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
One thing to check, have I got the female/woman wording correct on Draft:Anna Wahlin? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, nvm, I just can across the discussion at WikiProject_Women_scientists. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I've been helping upload profiles of women in Antarctic research and three were flagged for possible deletion. I'm wondering if you have any advice for how to improve them and keep them online. Thank you! AfDs: Jessica_Melbourne-Thomas, Delphine_Lannuzel & Jemma_Wadham. Allisonlee9 (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I looked at J M-T and made some small changes. According to Homeward Bound she is a "co-founder" which is a significant claim. However the other co-founder has allowed Forbes to quote her as founder here - that's a pity as I think that would help establish her notability. The article at present relies on profiles that JMT probably supplied, Refs like the Forbes one cast more weight. Oh .... and well done Victuallers (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Also pinging Megalibrarygirl and Keilana for any advice / notability /RS opinions.
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion still appears to be ongoing about whether or not to keep this page *Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Melbourne-Thomas please let me know if there is anything I can do to strengthen it Keilana

Worth perusing

This is a list of major mathematics awards and a good place for surfing to see if we have more WIR candidates: https://www.agnesscott.edu/lriddle/women/prizes.htm. Montanabw(talk) 21:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Olympics in August

Are there any tie-ins currently planned for this project for the upcoming Olympics? I imagine the Olympics will increase interest and generate source material for a lot of female athletes. Knope7 (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Knope7 We have 2 events already scheduled for August but IMO, it makes sense to add Olympics as a 3rd one. Can you start some discussion about it here, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#August 2016 so we can see about consensus? --Rosiestep (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Copied this from my talkpage as it has to do with women in sports, albeit, it's not exactly the same topic:--Rosiestep (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see: https://thegymter.net/gymnast-database/ The entire website (and I believe several others) concentrates on women's gymnastics and apparently has many fans. Remember the huge difference between male and female athlete BLP numbers. How do we get a few of their fans to write some articles over here? Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That website looks like a great resource for improving gymnastics articles. The website looks like it features mostly current or every recent gymnasts. From what I can tell, many current female gymnasts have articles here that may need improved or updated, but there do not appear to be a lot of red links for recent female gymnasts. I do think getting fans of gymnastics or other Olympics sports could be a great opportunity for women in red. I would guess many woman athletes will see a spike in interest when the Olympics start to air. Knope7 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I realize that this is essentially a biographical project but there seems to also be a need for an area for the identification of thematic red links as well. I have in mind at the moment Women in the Confederate States of America, which is untouched upon at WP and the subject of a new monograph: Lisa Tendrich Frank, The Civilian War: Confederate Women and Union Soldiers During Sherman's March (LSU Press, 2015). Carrite (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a great project to uncover some notable women. Good luck with it. If you identify women without an article, would be interested in working on them if sourcing can be found. SusunW (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Carrite, just a friendly FYI that the scope of this project is women's biographies and women's works, broadly construed. In that regard, my passion is researching/writing about women's conferences from pre-internet days, plus the women who coordinated/attended those conferences. The thematic topic you suggest sounds interesting, too! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Carrite. Glad to see you've become a member of Women in Red. We look forward to your contributions. Let us know if you need any assistance. Perhaps you would like to participate in this month's online editathon on Women in Halls of Fame.--Ipigott (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

October Women in Science contest

Depending on WM support I'm considering running a women contest in October. I was thinking of targetting both Women in Red and Women in Green goals and give prizes to whoever creates the most articles on women scientists and whoever improves the most existing articles about women scientists. There could be prizes for whoever promotes certain core women scientists to GA during the month. We could draw up a core list of women scientist articles we most want improved. If there's some interest in this and perhaps WMDC chapter could fund it I'll begin a contest page and the planning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Definitely interested.Penny Richards (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You'll want to also flesh it out here, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#October 2016 and tie it in with Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/9. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Well if there's not more interest here initially then it won't be worth fleshing it out there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I would be interested too. I'm afraid I missed this thread as I have been tied up with all kinds of things recently.--Ipigott (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Carol Smallwood - possible subject?

Wikimedia received an email from a writer, Carol Smallwood, who inquired about having an article. (ticket:2016070810019371). Our standard advice is to suggest that they add the name to the requested articles list, however I cringe at having to leave that advice as I think that list is largely a blackhole. I thought I would check here in case anyone is interested in looking into her as a possible subject for an article. See this site.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

On the basis of this, she certainly seems to deserve an article. I also see she is a strong supporter of libraries. Perhaps Megalibrarygirl would like to add her name to one of our redlink lists - or perhaps even start an article?--Ipigott (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Butting in where I may not be wanted, but I threw up a quick stub to start this article about Carol Smallwood. She is a quite notable lady. Everyone can help to expand if you are so enclined. If someone can make an info box that would be good. I just cannot get my head around those silly infoboxes. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 10:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!!!--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant. You are always wanted here. I'm so glad to see you are still with us. With two sets of four visitors here in Denmark, I have not really had much time for new articles. Things might settle down in a week or so.--Ipigott (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm arranging to get a photo.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank for your kind note. My people tell me everything should get better quite soon. link to ani 1 [2] ani2 [3] ani3 [4] Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 19:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

There's a setback, as the article creator has been blocked, and the article nominated for deletion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

#100wikidays

I started working on m:100wikidays last month. For yesterday's entry, I created Rosa María Cid López, as a translation from the Spanish Wikipedia article. There's a Facebook group for #100wikidays and I posted the entry there last night. This morning, I get a ping that this happened. It's not a big deal, but it is nice to see how spreading seeds in various ways can have ripple effects in our work. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Rosiestep, my heart filled with joy when I heard that you are a Wikipedian of the year as while participating in WikiProject Women in Red, Wiki Loves Women I already noticed your name. You are a real inspiration :) Thank you ! --Armineaghayan (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Armineaghayan thank you for your kind words. In turn, you inspire me with your translations, e.g. a ripple effect. Let's keep doing this as it seems we're changing the world, one article at a time, and, of course, making new friends across the world, one at a time. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
One achievement after another. Great stuff, Rosie. Keep up the good work. You are an inspiration to us all.--Ipigott (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hoping to try m:100wikidays starting mid-August. Your story makes me eager to get started!Penny Richards (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, sure, my m:100wikidays 4 is devoted to Italy, but meanwhile I write other articles, so new articles are waiting us :)--Armineaghayan (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
For yesterday's #100wikidays entry, I created the article on Inga Fischer-Hjalmars, a pioneer in quantum chemistry, at the suggestion of Jscg. I translated it from the Swedish version and posted it on the 100wikidays Facebook page. Within hours, it's been translated by Armineaghayan to Armenian, and by Patricio.lorente(!) to Spanish. Would not have happened, I think, without that Facebook group. #cool --Rosiestep (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata figures for June

On the basis of the data presented in WHGI, from 31 May to 4 July 7,959 new biographies on women were recorded on Wikidata. In particular, there was a huge jump of 6,739 between 14 and 20 June, probably a result of entries by the bot developed by Edgars2007 which added "gender=female" to many of the Wikidata biographies. By contrast, for the remaining two weeks there were only 1,220 additions while in the week from 4 to 10 July, there were only 401 (i.e. only 19.49% of the week's additions were on women rather than men). In my opinion, this shows how important it is to ensure that our new biographies are recorded in Wikidata with the female gender. Otherwise we will not be able to use Wikidata as a substitute for our month-to-month metrics. Perhaps Harej can suggest how we can ensure more consistent figures from Wikidata?--Ipigott (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2016

Ipigott, my strategy for identifying new articles combines a daily new article feed and categories rather than Wikidata. Ideally we would use a combination of the two but until there's stronger integration between Wikipedia and Wikidata I am concerned there may be a significant delay between a biography being created and the Wikidata item being assigned its gender. Whereas categories are fairly frequently assigned on Wikipedia, especially if there is a new article feed. I currently have someone working on the tool that will automate Women in Red's new article metrics. Harej (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Rosiestep, since you also asked for a status update: it is on The Earwig's to-do list and should be done somewhat soon. Harej (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Harej: Thanks for your detailed explanations. It seems very sensible of you to base your approach on a combination of Wikipedia categories and additions to Wikidata. In the meantime, I'm not sure how we should go about providing metrics for June. We have the individual lists of articles written under the editathons, those picked up by various AlexBot scans and those from WHGI. Rather than spending a lot more time on gnoming, maybe we should just wait until your data are available. Any comments from @Rosiestep, SusunW, and Megalibrarygirl:.--Ipigott (talk) 06:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
We -James, Adam, Fluffmutter- talked about automating the metrics at the Wikimedia Diversity Conference last month; Fluffmutter said it was the best session of the event. So I want to exercise patience and see what James has developed. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I want to exercise patience and let them do it because I actually hate doing it. :) I do it because I think it is important that we have a record. I am thrilled to finally see us reaching automation. SusunW (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
We are going to get PTSD from gnoming names. I know I need to step up and help but part of me is so horrified at doing it again that I've weaseled out over and over.... :P I like any suggestion that helps us not have to gnome on that so much. Now if anyone could find a way to automate helping at AfD's that would be awesome too... LOL. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red --> Women in Green

I'm thinking it would be interesting to look at the 1,002 articles we created July 2015 and see how they've changed over the course of 1 year. Every article starts with the first edit which is often just a stub. So I'm thinking we measure improvement as anything which occurred after 31 July to these 1,002 articles (or a subset of them). Improvement isn't only measured by adding content. It's also links (wls; ELs), categories, images, copyediting, Wikidata, and so on. Is there an analyst out there who can take a stab at this? Maybe it's something that harej's team has done for other projects? Maybe there's a tool out there which actually measures things like this? I can't imagine I'm the first one to ask for this. Putting it out to the universe, so let's see who comes up with what. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There is an automated service called ORES that "guesses" how an article would be assessed by a human reviewer. It's pretty reliable and is good for quickly ascertaining how articles have developed over time. Would you be interested in the "then-and-now" snapshot of how articles were when they were created and how they are now? Harej (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Harej yes, please, thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
It may be interesting to assess the comparative quality of the articles created a year ago and their status today but my gut feeling is that most of them have hardly changed in substance. It would perhaps be more interesting to assess their comparative importance on the basis of page views and then concentrate on improving those which are most frequently viewed. Unfortunately Women in Red does not use the traditional tabulation of article ratings as we have for Women writers but very few of them have progressed beyond Stub or Start. Project X also has features which can display the tags on articles. Maybe it would be useful to look at these too. The problem with all this is one of incentive. Most people prefer to create new articles which can immediately be credited to them, irrespective of quality. Only when articles reach GA can editors receive credit for their work. Destubbing can possibly also be measured but I am not aware of any tools that can be easily applied. This may all seem rather negative but I am only offering these comments as food for thought. Perhaps we can come up with a new approach which would credit editors with significant improvements to existing articles (maybe on the basis of upgrading from Stub to C or C to B or simply in terms of an article's length).--Ipigott (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

"Most people prefer to create new articles which can immediately be credited to them, irrespective of quality. " Exactly, and this is one of the problems on here, people tend to not edit articles significantly after creation and just create new ones. Coming up with a mechanism to encourage people not to forget about their stubs and nurture them into C-B class articles would be very important I think and provide the "tunnel" between women in red and green. Excellent point Ipigott. In many cases though, there is unlikely going to be enough info to get articles up to GA status or even B class.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I am the opposite. I prefer to focus on the quality of an article from the get-go. Partially because I will probably not remember to go back later, but mainly because research and creating a full "picture of the puzzle" is both more interesting to me and I think more valuable to the project. I don't really care if I get credit for creating an article or not, but I absolutely agree with Ian and Dr. B taking an article to C, B, GA, etc. is a more important bar than just creating the article. Having a mechanism which statistically measures improvement seems worthwhile. SusunW (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
My own approach is similar to yours, Susun. When I create an article, I try to do a really good job from the start. That is one of the reasons I tend to work on biographies of women from Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia or other areas of Europe I know well. I can often find sources which search engines do not display, as information is often contained in data bases or press archives. But I must also congratulate you, Susun, on mastering the use of machine translation to the extent that you are able to create in-depth biographies on women from virtually anywhere in the world. On the other hand, I frequently try to improve the quality of articles I have not created myself, occasionally even reaching GA. I think it is here that it would be interesting to work together on enhancing a subset of the articles created under WiR, perhaps on the basis of their popularity (page views), historical importance, or recent impact. We could for example draw up lists of women in various fields or from different geographic areas whose articles merit further improvement. Of course, as mentioned above, we would need to create incentives for editors to join the cause.--Ipigott (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that's the best way to do it, but it can be difficult when there's a massive amount missing to focus on quality. I know in the old days I would go for quantity, to get as many notable topics blue linked as possible. But then a lot don't get expanded much. It's not an easy task building this encyclopedia! I do think we need to focus more on the core articles though, not just what is missing. Every day thousands of people are looking for a decent article on some of the big name people and not seeing articles anywhere near the standard they should be. But you need to be motivated to work on a core article!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Access to college library resources for improving articles about women

Hi WiR,

Just a heads up that Hunter College would like to help with the improvement of biographies of women on Wikipedia by giving an experienced Wikipedian remote access to its college library resources (databases, ebooks, etc.).

The arrangement is through the Wikipedia Visiting Scholars program, which connects educational institutions and Wikipedians to improve public knowledge in a topic area of mutual interest. The page for the Hunter College position is Wikipedia:Visiting Scholars/Participating institutions/Hunter College and the application is a Google Form here. (sorry for the cross-post with WikiProject Women) --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Re-redding and starting to see red

Hi all, I'm just getting super frustrated with AfD. While today they closed another AfD keeping a pornstar bio, we have a Pakistani university department head Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanwal Ameen, an international development worker and TED fellow [5], and the first muslim woman pilot in India [6], all up for AfD and not necessarily doing well. I am getting seriously ticked and the next time I hear an OTHERSTUFF argument, I think I am going to scream. Is there any place where this can be worked on? Every time that Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts is updated, there are more PRODs and AFDs than I've ever seen in any other wikiproject where I subscribe to alerts. It's ridiculous. Montanabw(talk) 06:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I might be completely missing it, but how do you subscribe to alerts?? I have access to a lot of resources and would love to participate in more AFDs because of that, but I rarely remember to check the alerts. (Sorry it's off topic...) Keilana (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Keilana, just watchlist the page. Montanabw(talk) 00:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
This re-reading is very discouraging to me as I try to fight the systemic bias by creating more woman articles via the themes at WiR. Hey Keilana Watchlist this page to see the current woman project AFD's. [7] What can we do about all the re-redding going on? Anyone? Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 21:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw I have been super frustrated with AfD for a long time. It is ridiculous, as you say, and I find it to be an extremely hostile environment. Stating that GNG is not what it is, that creative doesn't say what it says, that local and regional coverage are forbidden, that length and not depth is the definition of substantial seems to be enough for the lemmings to evidence the Asch effect. I know of no way to fix it, as many of the "experts" are just a lot louder than anyone else. If one says follow the guidelines as they are, the doomsday predictions begin as do the accusations that one is asking for special accommodation. Someone once said that individual projects can create their own guidelines. That would be the only possibility I see that would work. SusunW (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Fouetté! Now to do some serious googling... :) Keilana (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Well gang, the fat is in the fire now: Dueling RfCs at Wikipedia_talk:Notability one is mine and the other ... is part of the problem. Montanabw(talk) 22:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC) TO wit: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Adding_ways_to_assess_Systemic_Bias_to_WP:N. Montanabw(talk) 00:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You all know I spend a lot of time on AfD. (though recently, I've been busy with life stuff). AfD is seriously broken. There are a lot of angry people basically intimidating other editors and like SusunW said, they are just "a lot louder." I would love to see something change. I just don't know what to do. I'll check out the RfC, Montanabw. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Could one of you leave a link here to the two rfcs? I do not know what to do either Megalibrarygirl. Everyday I look at the article alert list which grows longer and longer by the day. I have an editor harassing me following me around, I am getting threatening emails, people are filing and threatening to file bogus SPIs against me. I am going to hold off writing anymore articles to see if people will leave me alone then. The following is creepy. I really enjoy writing articles to help the project, but it may not be worth it, if more woman articles are deleted every day than we can write to replace them. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 00:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I did, just above, they are both at WT:NOTABILITY. Montanabw(talk) 17:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm new here, though I've been a bit active through GGTF. I understand that it must be really frustrating to see biographies of porn actors kept while academics get tossed, but shouldn't this be addressed at the level of WP:NACADEMICS or other topic-specific guidelines?

Peter Isotalo 19:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo thanks for weighing in. Actually, that is a huge part of the problem. It is NOT required that someone meet individual notability requirements if they meet GNG. If one has 10 articles in RS over time documenting that the person has been noted as a person of interest, it doesn't matter if they have done anything to satisfy the requirements of a specific field. Many people are not single-faceted and trying to box them into a specific field is like ignoring their other notable contributions. SusunW (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, part of the problem is that the gang at AfD seems to take the individual notability requirements (SNGs) as a mandate forgetting that WP:N is the policy and everything else is just a rough consensus. The other problem is that there are so many topic-specific guidelines, but many are simply a small paragraph that has been expanded on at a totally different set of pages that discuss "Outcomes" and these "outcomes" are treated like policy-- though they are not. Just to take another example, ambassadors are not deemed inherently notable, but winners of certain named beauty pageants are... seems odd, particularly when the deletionists argue that there is too much fancruft and fret that somehow we will break the WP servers... I guess. Montanabw(talk) 06:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the comparison between beauty pageant winners and ambassadors might be a strong argument to go on if you'd want to expand the notability criteria for, say, academics or politicians. Overall, I'm inclined to believe that the addition of a general clause/reminder/caveat/etc. of systemic bias to the notability guidelines might not really make much of a difference. I'm really somewhat of a deletionist myself, but if we've decided that fairly non-notable porn actors are worth keeping, there's a good reason to be equally generous in the inclusion of other categories of people.
Peter Isotalo 22:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Peter, you pretty much got it in one—the system is totally messed up if a pornstar can get her own article but not an ambassador. And, of course, when this is mentioned, how DOES one counter the stupid "oh that's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument." (Sighing, grumbling...). Montanabw(talk) 05:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with all comments in this thread but also have no idea how to help, sorry! :( 06:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Jane (talk)

Well Jane, certainly reviewing articles put up for deletion and trying to save the ones that are salvagable is a good start! Montanabw(talk) 05:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I too am very frustrated with the AfD process and the evidence of systemic bias therein. In the most egregious instance concerning a page I wrote, the AfD blurb made mention of BLP and the need for at least one reference, when in fact the person in question had been dead for over a century and there were seven references at the time of the AfD nomination. My issue, though, is how to usefully and properly invoke systemic bias when addressing individual page nominations? What would one write in an argument against a specific AfD that amounted to anything more than an exchange of charges ("You're biased" "I am not")? I can see the value of such a policy in assessing the AfD nomination pattern of specific editors, however. So I would rather advocate for changes in the AfD process. A few suggestions off the top of my head:

  • Two individuals have to sign on to an AfD before it gets into the week-long queue that will inevitably waste a bunch of people's time. That allows for at least one reality check on crap nominations like the one I mentioned above.
  • Some kind of a QPQ such as exists for "Did You Know...?" nominations. I've noticed that I hestitate to put forward DYKs because of the extra work of the QPQ, and some similar sort of disincentive to moving forwards lightly might be helpful in retarding trigger-happy AfDers. (Alternatively: a weekly nomination cap?)
  • Editors with a pattern of foolish, untenable, biased, or otherwise rogue AfD nominations should have the power to AfD summarily removed. I have no idea how this would work, and I admit to very little experience with back-end processes here so I won't be surprised if someone can show that all of these ideas are unworkable or otherwise problematic. Meanwhile, I appreciate all the thought people are putting into this, since it's such an important issue. Alafarge (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

As our 1 Year Anniversary approaches...

July 18th will be Women in Red's 1 Year Anniversary. I think it'll be important to pause and reflect on all we've done. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  • We have certainly achieved a great deal over our first year but I have a sneaking feeling the project's initial attraction is beginning to wear off. In June, for example, despite three well-defined editathons, many of our participants contributed articles on topics other than our priorities for the month. If the Wikidata figures can be trusted, our recent performance has also diminished, with only 19.49% of all the new biographies in early July specifically addressing women. Similarly, after 11 days on our Women in Halls of Fame editathon, we have only 41 new articles, far fewer than one could have expected at this juncture. My suggestion is therefore that we should try to come up with new incentives for participation, perhaps on the basis of a competitive approach along the lines of what Dr. Blofeld implemented for the coverage of Wales. We could also return to some of our more popular themes (writers, artists, scientists, leaders) and also provide more specific support for articles on sports. If the metrics problems can be resolved, our more active members (myself included) will be able to spend more time on content building and less on background support. I also suggest we introduce language or geographic areas as a basis for new editathons. We could start the ball rolling with women's biographies from the French, German and Italian wikis with red link lists from Wikidata and could also try to collaborate with those who have been developing coverage of women in Africa, India, or in the Arabic or Farsi languages. Specific geographical collaboration on women with wikis in other languages could possibly provide a new basis for extending WiR internationally. And last but not least, should we not specifically ask our participants for their suggestions too, perhaps in the form of a mini questionnaire? We could possibly also develop lists of participants by sector of interest as many participate only in editathons addressing one area (e.g. science or writing or music) but not in other areas. I look forward to comments.--Ipigott (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I would certainly be willing to do a trial contest perhaps in the autumn sometime, covering both women in red and green but that would depend on WM funding and the support and participation of people here. I mentioned a contest idea a week or two ago and I got the impression that most people here don't like anything competitive. I would run it more as an editathon with prizes, rather than a competition if there was the support, and reward editors who produce and improve the most content with books about women that they want, which in turn would future benefit the project.. Penny Richards I know has a positive view of the Dragon contest and would like to see something run for women, but others need to show their support for it too, which seems to be lacking at the moment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the "prizes" could also come as virtual awards such as "Most active WiR content builder" or "WiR destubber of the month" (possibly by sector of interest). Credit could also be given to participation in improvement of existing articles up to DYK status and editors could be invited to participate in a list of most popular articles by page views. I think the barnstars for participation are also worthwhile but these now need to be refined, perhaps covering sectors of interest in general rather than just individual editathons. We could also support excellence in image creation or improvement.--Ipigott (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of something to perk it up a bit without an actual "contest", but just make people know that if they work hard they'll be rewarded for it with books of their choice. I know Kirill Lokshin said that WM would be interested in funding books for something like this. What I would suggest is to apply for an annual grant, divide it into 12 months, and reward people each month for hard work. I do think it's worth doing a "contest" as a trial with a good prize though to see if we can attract more editors to producing content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Just an observation. It is summer holidays for many. I know I was gone the entire month of June and only created 1 article. Even this month, I am playing catch up with many real life projects impacting my production ability. I'm not sure diminished participation is due to lack of newness or disinterest, as it may just be the time of year. SusunW (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, summer holidays are probably a factor. Besides travel and summer jobs and kids off school to distract regular editors, some may not have access to their usual hardware or online resources, when away from campus libraries or between academic appointments. (My laptop is in the shop because summer's the best time for that; I'm typing this on a desktop I'm not fond of, that doesn't know all my usual passwords, so I'm limited for editing.) I would be more surprised if there was no dip during July and August.Penny Richards (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
What's been said matches up with my perception: it's summer in North America and many of us are busy with other things. Over the long term, I think we'll see June, July, August, and December be our slower months. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I too have been much less active because of summer, so I agree it's too early to worry about a dip. I can't believe WiR is only a year old -- it's such a strong community, I feel as if I've known you all for much longer! And having access through WiR to all your ideas and knowledge and helpfulness has itself felt like a reward. Not to mention an antidote to the darker aspects of Wikipedia... Alafarge (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Rescue squadron idea

I've decided to try and focus on AfDs to KEEP from going red: User_talk:Montanabw#First_ever_AfD_alert_of_the_day. Could we consider creating a subpage off WIR to have an "article rescue squadron" to try and salvage notable articles? Montanabw(talk) 03:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea. One thing I've discovered from these sock deletions is that if other editors contribute to building the content of an article, it is less likely to be deleted. But there seem to be quite a bunch of editors who monitor what we are doing and are more than ready to tag articles with AfD before anyone has had a chance to look at them properly. Some WikiProjects seem to have a gadget for listing AfDs and other articles tagged for notability, etc. Perhaps we could use the same approach.--Ipigott (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I see you are basing your efforts on WP Women alerts. Could this be extended to cover all the other women projects? Many of our new articles are on scientists, artists and writers who are not often included in WP Women.--Ipigott (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I will be glad to help periodically, but drama avoidance is high on my list of whether or not I participate. SusunW (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I am totally in, Montanabw. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that to avoid too much drama, those of us who peruse the lists need to kind of thin them out to focus on the most important; I might weigh in on an AfD about a beauty queen or Bollywood star, but those aren't a "hill to die on." At my own talk page I am going to start listing one or two that may pop up. My hope is that prompt action on the most suitable targets will avoid the toxic debates that characterize AfD right now. But where could such a project set up a "home base?" Montanabw(talk) 05:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we could create a home base on Women in Red. Participants could post the deletion candidates they consider worthy of attention, with a few words explaining their reasoning. It's certainly not worthwhile for all of us to examine the cases for supporting minor beauty queens or pop singers but there are many really notable women whose biographies are being deleted. Let's concentrate on them. Can't we make this a feature of our main WiR page? It certainly seems to be worthwhile. We could also list deletions which appear to require revisiting.--Ipigott (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
This seems like a good idea to me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests

Planning a North African contest/editathon for October, prize money $1000-1500. If interested in contributing on African women and reducing systematic bias please sign up in the participants section at the bottom as there may be prizes for books on African women for participating which will further help this project ;-)!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Automated metrics report

Rosiestep and I met at the Wikimedia Diversity Conference last week to discuss the technical needs of WikiProject Women in Red. As a result, I am happy to announce that WikiProject X is fast-tracking a long outstanding task to automate the Women in Red metrics report. The strategy we came up with: number of in-scope articles will be determined based on an article's membership in Category:Women and its subcategories. For newly created articles, there will be a daily report (akin to the current new article bot) that recommends articles to be added to categories. (Think slow trickle—as opposed to a big deluge with a monthly report.) As articles are added to categories they are automatically removed; false positives can be removed by hand. The outcome of this should be that we get a sense of how many articles are being created about women, including going back before the founding of WikiProject Women in Red. I've wanted to work on this for months, but we had to wait on an overhaul of Reports Bot's code before we could get started on this. Big thanks to The Earwig who will be working on this. Harej (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Harej and The Earwig:. This seems like a very sensible way of going forward. It's rather like the initiative taken by Edgars2007 who has developed a bot to assign "female" on Wikidata to all articles with one of the subcategories under Category:Women by occupation. Will you simply be listing the new articles on the Metrics section of the main WiR page or will you also be interfacing with Wikidata? I'm not sure what you mean by "As articles are added to categories they are automatically removed". Removed from where? It's very useful for us to be able to identify new articles as many of them need attention although we should of course avoid duplicates. If you are not adding entries to Wikidata, would it be possible to list those new articles which need a Wikidata entry as it seems to be all important to ensure Maximilianklein and his friends can assess progress there? Now that we have the Russian gadgets, it's much easier for us to make basic Wikidata additions for new articles. Please keep us posted of the first results of your new approach.--Ipigott (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Ipigott, the new article list would be a list posted to the WikiProject, probably under "Metrics." Articles will be automatically removed once it is determined they count as in scope for the project, i.e., they are articles about women or their works. The list would exist for the purpose of helping populate the categories, but if having a list of new pages is valuable in and of itself, they could be not automatically removed. I think it would be good to facilitate quick additions to Wikidata as well. Harej (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@Harej: It looks as if we are making good progress on several fronts. The "Gender by language" results from WHGI are now being automatically updated every week, giving us the number of new EN women's biographies compared to the total number for men and women as well as the new overall percentage of women's biographies. I wonder if you could keep track of all this, perhaps automatically updating the data in the main WiR introduction. I have recently been doing it manually. I also welcome the possibility of keeping a record of the list of new articles on a month by month basis. One of the disadvantages with Wikidata appears to be the lack of "history" or archives of earlier results. The alternative would be to continue monitoring the results manually.--Ipigott (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@Harej: Can you give us an update on June metrics? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@Harej and The Earwig: I'm not sure if you're getting my pings, so I'll copy this over to your talkpage as well. As it's 21 July, we need to review our June metrics. Is the list ready? If there's a problem, can you tell us, e.g. should I be working on the July metrics myself? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing...

This page is on my watchlist and every time it pops up that song goes through my head. Have you no sense of decency at long last? freshacconci talk to me 18:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep up the good work though. freshacconci talk to me 18:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

United Nations!

Michelle Bachelet, Executive Director of UN Women

I am over the moon to tell you about an editathon being run by the UN on 12 August in "Egypt, four Arab countries, and New York", and how we fit in. They've asked for nothing more from us than to keep doing what we're doing and provide a list of our articles accumulated during a 1 month period, which I'll take to mean from 12 July through 12 August 2016. The focus is twofold: increase the number of articles; and editing existing articles. Just our cup of tea: Women in Red; Women in Green. The UN has some targeted areas of interest but we are free to contribute anything else which suits us:

  • Artists
  • Writers
  • Women’s organizations
  • NGOs
  • Celebrities
  • Academics
  • Researchers
  • Libraries

Keep doing what you're doing, my friends. Watch for me to get a meetup page created where we'll document our work, and let's show the UN the power of us! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I've created the meetup page for United Nations Empower Women. Please spruce it with your talents. And can someone please create {{WIR-UN 2016}}? If someone wants to create the invitation, I'd appreciate it, or I will by the weekend. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Great news! Where is the like button on this thing!? Jane (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
How very, very cool Rosiestep. This is awesome! Buster7 could we link your women artist's page? SusunW (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course, SusunW, I would be honored to be even a small part of this wonderful effort. Buster Seven Talk 04:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Buster7 and SusunW: Hmm. You know, I can't remember any paintings by women artists being featured since Rosa Bonheur, which was a bit ago now. We've gotten a LOT of stuff from the Google Art Project, and there's a number of museums happy to offer downloads of their collections - the Met Museum, the National Gallery of Art, and various others. We don't want to flood Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, but I'd say one or two paintings a day wouldn't be amiss.
Quick guide:
  • At least 1500px on the shortest side (unless there's a strong reason why it isn't, like, the painting is postage-stamp size or something)
  • It needs to be a good reproduction. (anything from a museum site or the Google Art Project should be fine in this regard)
  • Nothing fair use.
I think that's all you really need to know for paintings. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: If you're in contact with them, could you ask them if they'd release some of their photos of Bertha Lutz and the other four women delegates that signed the United NAtions charter? Particularly this one Ask them for at least 1500px on the shortest side; that'll let it pass through featured pictures and get onto the main page. Higher resolution is better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Adding May Hachem93. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden the list in question of Buster7's are all WPA artists and their works are for the various U.S. Post offices. Thus, the works themselves belong to the federal government. Many of them also have works in museums, like Marianne Appel who has works in the permanent collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Smithsonian American Art Museum, Beulah Bettersworth whose painting hung in the White House and is part of the Smithsonian collection, Ethel V. Ashton has works at the Woodemere. Finding photos of them??? As you know, not my forte. Here's Buster's link and what we have been working on User:Buster7/The List - Women Artists SusunW (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Rosiestep I have no idea, I am sorry, how to create the template you want. I already used it on Beulah Bettersworth and Verona Burkhard, but it is showing in Red. If you can either tell me how to do it, or maybe someone else can, that'd be great. SusunW (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
SusunW No worries. I just created it: Template:WIR-UN 2016. Also, linking to the page on meta: m:Wikipedia and UN Women Project. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
you ROCK Rosiestep SusunW (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Suzanne S. Welsh

I have been working on finding moire sourcing to this article on Welsh. I am trying to save it because it is currently at AFD. If anyone has a free moment, I need more help to find more sources and hopefully save the article from deletion. The lady seems quite notable to me, we just need to find a few more sources and references. Thanks, Zpeopleheart (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zpeopleheart: I sympathize with your feelings but I have not been able to find much in the way of reliable sources. It looks to me that local press archives would be useful but I do not have access. Thanks also for all the work you have been doing on the article.--Ipigott (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for your help. The admin moved this to draft. Check out the new version. I look forward to hearing any constructive ideas or suggestions. I did get the couple book references put in. Thanks again all! Zpeopleheart (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hallie Jackson

Hi, just to alert you that some content has been removed from the Hallie Jackson article which you recently improved. I'm not sure whether the information was correct or the sources reliable but you may want to restore it if appropriate. Thanks, Certes (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks Zpeopleheart! Certes (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant

IPiggott. The fine stats will be ruined They are deleting all fouetté a created arrives Please help stop. Ask DGG. He would not let them delete one of the he said. Perfect great article. Zpeopleheart (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zpeopleheart: Can you be more specific about the articles nominated for deletion. We can then contribute to the discussions. As far as I can see, for the June editathons Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant created four new articles on entertainers, six on Jewish women and five on scientists. I cannot see any have yet been deleted.--Ipigott (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The lady just above. Carol Smallwood and lines that she did for scientific and art for the drive Zpeopleheart (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
We can certainly help out with Carol Smallwood.--Ipigott (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I am very surprised to discover that ThePlatypusofDoom suspects Fouetté of being a sockpuppet of User:Carriearchdale who has not contributed to Wikipedia for over a year. I believe Rosiestep met Fouetté recently in Italy or Germany. Perhaps Keilana has also been in touch with her? I'm not sure how this can be sorted out. Any suggestions, anyone?--Ipigott (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is a (now blocked) sockpuppet of a previously community banned user. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Exhausted_and_Fed_up --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I met @Nattes à chat and LaMèreVeille: at Wikimania, not Fouette. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. I was confusing all those exotic names. Then we'll just have to live with the blockage I suppose.--Ipigott (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It is ok IPiggott a hello kitty lady says the full on ARBCOM case case will be filed soon. Than all the disruptive named and IP person will be included as parties in the ARBCOM Zpeopleheart (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I've requested undeletion of Fouette's 4 deleted articles. Two speedies were stopped. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I can handle the two astronomers (one may be a keep), but the articles Valeria Lynch Lee and Carol Smallwood need adopting if they are to remain. Thanks. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Clarification. User:Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant has been confirmed to be a sockpuppet [8] and has been banned. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC).

I'm working on Valeria Lynch Lee. Got lots of hits in historical newspapers. She founded one of the first African-American public radio stations in the country. SusunW (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Fouetté was never beeAlthough it is uncommon to go from a short block to indefinite, it's clear by the discussion, proof provided, and User:Carriearchdale's own behaviour both in this thread, and elsewhere during this discussion that such a block is necessary the panda ₯’n banned, That is just simply not true. At this moment she is indeft blocked pending the outcome of her ARBCOM case. I hear it is taking longer since she was not allowed to use her talk page to collect and organize her diffs which is her right. I myself have read over the anis and the SPI report'. Bbb23 even commented on the SPI. No one could really be confirmed to be a sock puppet of the user they said, because that is user was stale for more than a year, and could not even be compared to to provide any evidence. I have corresponded with Ffouette, and all I can say is that her main stalker/hounder has apparently placed a retired sign on their account. Zpeopleheart (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Update Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant found not to be related. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Carriearchdale. I see a reference to an Arbcom case, but I do not see an open case.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The block log says something else though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
This is really getting hilarious, the lengths people will go to try to smear an editor. Yes Lemon girl that is what Fouette's block log says right now. That is why this is having to be sorted by ARBCOM. The admin who made the mistake in blocking Fouetté is stated sock of banned user Carriearchdale, now lemon girl since you are good at quoting block logs, bring us a diff here than says Carriearchdale was ever banned or de facto community banned as I saw someone say so where. Please let me see a diff that says Carrie was ever banned. Also as Spilbrick wrote above with the diff Fouetté was shown not to have any evidence in the SPI. @Spilbrick from what I understand the ARBCOM may not totally appear online to to at least one editor being found guilty of outing. I guess there are privacy issues and stuff. Not too sure about that part. Zpeopleheart (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of an Arbcom case, but now that I look, there was indeed a community imposed block on Carriearchdale. See this. And till we get any updates otherwise from Arbcom, Fouette remains a sock of Carriearchdale. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
One of the beautiful things about Women in Red is that it has never been plagued with the negativity that surrounds other projects and Wikipedia in general. Posting information on blocked editors or lifted blocks from editors can be viewed as "need to know information" but this is not the place to argue whether or not those bans were properly placed. Please take the discussion to your own talk pages or to whatever body handles community disputes. Unless the discussion involves article creation, it has no place on the project talk page. SusunW (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Gee Lemon girl, you are proving me right and that you are wrong with your provided diff. Here is a quote from the original closer of that Carrie person's indefinite block, not ban. Although it is uncommon to go from a short block to indefinite, it's clear by the discussion, proof provided, and User:Carriearchdale's own behaviour both in this thread, and elsewhere during this discussion that such a block is necessary the panda ₯’. Diff please miss lemon girl. Put up or shut up, please pardon my French. Zpeopleheart (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I see Zpeopleheart that you were blocked for 6 months previously. That explains a lot. I will urge you to collaborate with users rather than being disruptive. Anyway I don't want to comment on this topic anymore as it is not worth my time. And this is not the correct venue anyway. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


I am restoring my talk page posting that was apparently refactored by another editor, or on the agf side it might just have disappeared on it own. Regardless, I am finished discussing this particular topic in this venue. For the record @Rosiestep, I attempted to archive this topic twice out of respect for your post above, but all I got was threatened plus my comments were removed.

"Wow Lemon girl, after I closed out and archived this thread in respect of Rosiestep 's request, you found it necessary to re-open the thread to make more convos about your inability to correctly read, and report truthfully what the logs say. That can be considered disruptive editing on your part. Oh, and btw where is the diff miss lemon? Of course you could not find one because that Carrie person was never banned. Zpeopleheart (talk) 6:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)"

I am done here. Zpeopleheart (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Women state legislators

Hi-I can help with articles about women who served in state legislators. Recently, I started an article about LaVon Crosby who served in the Nebraska Legislature. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Theatre

How about a month on Women in Theatre? I think it's a topic broad enough to have a lot of interest, and there's loads of history we can look into going back centuries. WP:OPERA and Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre might well collaborate on drawing up lists, if asked. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly opposed, but we just finished Women in Entertainment, which included this subset. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I think there can be an advantage to a more focused set. I mean, I think Women in Entertainment tended to go more 20th and 21st century; we could go back a bit more Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure, makes sense. I like 19th century women a lot and would be glad to work on them. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps 19th-century Women is the better topic, then? Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Just noticed this thread after being overwhelmed with visitors over the past couple of weeks. I certainly support the idea of Women in Theatre and think the clear focus will help with coverage. Maybe we could devote a couple of weeks to it later in the year. To clarify the live acting aspect, we could call it Women on Stage. As suggested, it should include actresses, opera singers and associated players. Perhaps Adam Cuerden could help us to extend our red lists.--Ipigott (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Category of Featured Pictures Number of women-related images before WIR
(does not count images replaced as part of WIR)
 Number of women-related images after WIR Percent increase Notes
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Artists and writers 25 32 22%
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Business 0 0 NAN Very unpopulated category: Has 5 items in it
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment 35 43 19%
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Military 2 2 0% May be a good choice for an editathon
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Political 10 17 41% Includes two portraits of men by Frances Benjamin Johnston
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Religious figures 0 0 NAN A small category. May be another good editathon topic, though
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Royalty and Nobility 21 21 0%
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Science_and_engineering 8 15 47%
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Sport 14 14 0% Another good editathon category.
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Traditional dress 4 4 0% A small category
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Others 10 10 0% Count presumes one of the mounted police is female - hard to tell in helmets and bulky jackets

There's going to be an increase in "Science and engineering", "Sport", "Artists and writers", and "Others" soon (given a few FPCs that are obviously passing), but this is the stats as of today. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Bravo! This is great! Am so enjoying your pictures! SusunW (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I should probably note Chris Woodrich is also doing a lot of stuff, especially on women in Indonesian film. It's just he doesn't document it on here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Teresa Andrés Zamora
  • @Adam and Chris - A bit off-topic but worthy of mention nonetheless is that on the far side of a Featured Pictures prospect, you will find this photo of Teresa Andrés Zamora. It certainly is a candidate for Worst Quality Picture Ever, IMO. Do we have a page where we can keep a list of awful quality images used in women's biographies so that someone can work on improving them? I guess this falls under Women in Green. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Good week for women's biographies

I'm glad to say that the recent stats show that 27.55% of the new EN biographies in the last week of July were on women, one of our best weeks ever despite the summer holidays. (Maybe this results from the number of "female" biographies added to Wikidata rather than the actual number of new articles created.) Overall though, we're still at 16.37%, as we have been for the past three weeks. The overall automatic metrics report for July reflects this with only 771 articles for the month of July. But now we have ample opportunities for expansion with our UN and Polar editathons.--Ipigott (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott Whatever the reason the numbers went up, it's a good thing. I suspect the overall is still flat because of deletionists, but if we continue to focus on well-documented new articles, those numbers should eventually rise. (By the by, I added a Greenlander to the indigenous group who looks interesting and may have Danish sources). SusunW (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Heads up, all: one of Keilana's articles is now under the gun: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Janet_L._Mitchell. Montanabw(talk) 20:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I found lots of sources Montanabw but they need to be incorporated into the article. I'll try to get back to it, but have an appointment. SusunW (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
For now, list them at the AfD and perhaps also on the article's talk page. That way, if someone else has time, they can help add them in too. Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Even better in early August

Last week with 281 women's biographies out of a total of 837, they represented 33.57%.--Ipigott (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC

Twelve

Twelve articles put up for AfD on Aug 3: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts. Now, over the last few days, I am noticing a lot of things that I personally think are not notable, such as winners of state-level beauty pageants, but I think there is a need for someone to track that issue -- do we have paid editors making puff pieces and adding our wikiprojects to them, or do we have people at AfD being overly hasty -- or both? Montanabw(talk) 17:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Many more WiR articles deleted

After the problems with Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, I have just noticed that all the articles created for WiR by Arcituno have now been deleted. They include the following: Entertainment: Noemi Lapzeon, Janette Rauch, Elena Ballesteros, Natalie Langer, Francesca Antoniotti, Daphné Bürki, Géraldine Lapalus, Cláudia Cruz, Xiomara Fortuna, Emilia Krakowska, Annett Renneberg, Jessica Zahedi, Ulrike C. Tscharre, Angela Roy, Christine Neubauer, Astrid M. Fünderich, Sophie Hilbrand, Louisa Thomas, Marie Joussaye, Jana Nagyová, Maria Gładkowska, Johanna Gastdorf, Gabriele Metzger, Sibylle Weischenberg, Petra Nadolny, Sabine Thiesler, Dorota Pomykała, Charlotte Vanhove, Paula Conrad, Gabriella Andreini, Antje Hagen, Verena Grendelmeier, Margot Werner, Ursula Hinrichs, Ellen Schwiers, Ingeborg Wellmann, Viveca Serlachius, Johanna König, Maria Becker, Marta Husemann, Olga Gzovskaïa, Amalie Haizinger, Stella Hohenfels, Louise Dumont, Tilly Wedekind, Grete Diercks, Amalie Haizinger and probably a few more. There are also several from the other June editathons. The stats in my thank-you notes will have to be revised. I don't understand why WiR attracts problem cases.--Ipigott (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott, I would not recommend revising the stats in the thank-you notes. They were based on a moment in time, and we know things can change thereafter, a little, or a lot; e.g. your time, my friend, is precious... use it for other things. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Just as a note, this is not the only sockpuppet of that user. User:Sudowoodoo participated in the Art History Challenge and there will probably be similar fall-out. I agree however that the articles need to be checked, because the fact that this specific user created the article doesn't imply the notability is nihil. Jane (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems these were deleted (from a random sample) with the rationale "(Mass deletion of pages added by Arcituno)". I don't think that is an acceptable reason; perhaps the deleting admin, User:DragonflySixtyseven would kindly expand on that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh %£%%£££ ! I'd spotted one and just reversed it as there was no rationale offered by @DragonflySixtyseven:. "Mass deletion" is what was done .... its patently not a reason. I will ask as well about the rationale and how many people were involved in the discussion. Lets AGF that it isnt arbitrary. Victuallers (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
"Mass deletion of pages added by Arcituno" is in fact an acceptable reason, because Arcituno was a sockpuppet of the banned user.... I believe it was Slowking4, but I could be wrong about that particular detail. I quite realize how annoying it is, and if any of those articles were substantially written by other users, I can restore them. I've written some allegories which might help explain why the deletion is done. DS (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a Catch-22. If all of these were copyvios, or if they were created by a banned user with a reputation for copyvio (I'm thinking of the still-open 700+ article mess made by the ItsLassieTime sock drawer), I can see the need for uncritical mass deletion. But if they were essentially salvagable articles, then the sockpuppetry or undisclosed paid editing or whatever crime was committed by the creator, and especially if there were other users who were involved working on them, then a bit of care should be taken. Perhaps the trick would be to create the equivalent of CCI for "problem users" where the articles they created could perhaps also be moved into Draft: space (perhaps by a bot) for editors to review and "clear" just as is done for Copyvio stuff. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 04:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I feel pretty frustrated about all these deletions. Practically every day in June, I reviewed all the new articles created under the four editathons of the month, Entertainers, LGBTQ, Jewish Women and Scientists. Arcituno created 43 biographies on Entertainers, 1 on LGBTQ, 2 on Scientists and 7 on other WiR areas of interest. I read them all, sometimes making edits, mainly on categories, CE, etc., and I added several of the names to Wikidata (although I think most were already there triggered by articles in other languages). Though usually quite short, the articles provided excellent summaries of the essentials about each person and were always well referenced. Many of them were drawn from our lists of red links, frequently those listed in the Wikidata list. The new articles were often based on coverage in other languages. I now see that not only have the articles been deleted but all my own edits have completely disappeared too. If I try to recreate a biography, I am warned that it should not resemble the article that has been deleted - which makes it impossible to cover these people on Wikipedia without entering into discussions with the deleting editor. (I think most people would like to avoid any risk of being associated with a serious problem and so move to something fresh.) During the same period, Fouetté created 4 articles on Entertainers, 6 on Jewish Women and 5 on Scientists. These were generally longer than those by Arcituno, were well written and well sourced. Many of them were also inspired by articles in other languages. I see from here that of the 35 articles (mainly biographies of women) created by Fouetté between 27 April and 10 July, 14 have been deleted. I expect within a few days, all the others will be deleted too, like all but 3 of the 97 created by Arcituno listed here. The lesson of all this seems to be not to review/edit/list new articles by the most enthusiastic newcomers as they are likely to be unauthorized from the start. And there seems to be no easy way to restore any of the excellent information the articles contained. There are two or three other names of competent new editors I have been following. I am just waiting for them to be caught and punished too. I have been aware of a few cases of sock puppetry over the years but none in which so many high quality articles have been deleted. Great pity for all those notable women who had been included in our encyclopaedia for a few days but are now no longer likely to reappear... --Ipigott (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@DragonflySixtyseven: Your claim is not supported by the page you linked to. "Mass deletion of pages created by a sockpuppet" (or even "Mass deletion of per WP:CSD#G5") may be an acceptable justification, but that is not what was said. Other editors are not supposed to have to guess the real reason for a deletion. I also note that G5 applies only to articles "that have no substantial edits by others". This does not appear, from others' comemnts, to be the case here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I did google a few names above and found very little content on some of them except social media and self promotion. I'm sure a lot of them were salvagable and should be restarted, but it may have been correct to delete at least some of them of weak notability. Somebody like fr:Daphné Bürki though should never have been deleted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Some were indeed deleted in the normal way on lack of notability grounds. I contributed myself to a few AfD discussions. There were nevertheless a considerable number about notable women based on Wikipedia articles in other languages, encouraged by the WiR lists of red links. I nevertheless find it astonishing that virtually the entire contribution of Arcituno was deleted, with little or no warning or discussion. I quickly looked through each one and can assure you that on the basis of the sources, most were fully acceptable. One of the reasons I looked carefully into each one was to establish which particular editathon was being addressed. I must say I was amazed by the number of new articles Arcituno was able to produce in such a short time. If he or she is indeed a sock of Slowking4, I'm still not sure what the original crime was. The quality of Slowking4's articles seems to have been consistently fully in line with Wikipedia criteria. The original problem seems to have had something to do with images rather than article content. But maybe we shouldn't question the wisdom of the experts. It nevertheless seems a shame that people so keen to contribute are simply banned outright.--Ipigott (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
While I absolutely agree to G5 for editors banned for anything resembling a content reason, I'm generally willing to reverse G5 deletions upon review for editors that were banned for reasons unrelated to content. The trouble with applying the allegories in this case is we're cutting off our nose to spite our face. Regardless of how horrible an editor's crimes were that got them blocked, we never delete material from before the block on their original account (unless there were content issues involved), so clearly the problem isn't that certain editors are so heinous that we don't want the name of Wikipedia associated with their work. And when an editor is blocked for non-content issues and sockpuppets in a way that isn't obvious for a while, usually they're either Wiki-addicts who don't want to stop contributing, trying to prove that they weren't that bad after all, or (as the allegory mentions) trying to prove that Wikipedia really needs their content. (There are other cases, like personal grudges, but I suspect those tend to become obvious a lot sooner than the other reasons.) In those cases, does Wikipedia really need to delete content that helps build the encyclopedia just so banned editors can't claim some philosophical victory over us, or brag offsite about how Wikipedia needs them? I get that it's supposed to prevent those editors from coming back, but I suspect the banned editors also think we're cutting off our nose to spite our face, so I'm not sure it even works to do that. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 13:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
There appears to be a consensus that in this case Wikipedia (and this project) lost some good content.... and some editors, in very good standing, have had their work deleted too. Like Ipigott, and several others, I have been actively reviewing WiR articles. They have not just been waved thro' to our project. I would like to suggest that we ask @DragonflySixtyseven: to undelete the articles and put them where we can easily review them (draft:space?) so that they can be moved into main space, left to fester, or deleted. I would ask DragonflySixtyseven if s/he has any suspicions about the content of these articles as I couldn't find any reason to disown them? Do we have a working party? Victuallers (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Victuallers: I'll help if we can get drafts. Hard to know what was even there, as Ian said, without having drafts. I am pretty sure if @Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl: can find time from their real world obligations, they will also help. SusunW (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I will help. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
If SusunW picks any of these up, we can expect far more comprehensive coverage than before. Furthermore, she is unlikely to begin biographies unless she is first certain of the person's notability and can put together a number of recognized sources. Many of the deleted articles were stubs, containing only essential details. I wouldn't mind participating either, but I would first like to have an assurance that the articles will not be once again deleted, either for lack of notability (like many of Fouetté's) or simply because they were among Arcituno's creations. The recent silence of DragonflySixtyseven in this discussion gives me the feeling that he or she feels it is more important to keep them out of Wikipedia than offer any kind of support to revival. As Rosiestep is an administrator, she should be able at least to see what the articles looked like before deletion and draw on the sources used. But perhaps that kind of behaviour will be frowned upon by all the administrators who have been involved in our deletions and we certainly don't want to be involved in further conflicts. In my opinion, unless we can have a clear understanding that our project will not be constantly attacked by deletion addicts who give us virtually no opportunity to comment on speedy deletions, we would do better to forget the past completely and move on. If ever entertainers and Jewish women reappear on our agenda, we can then examine where the new priorities lie. In any case, as Dr. Blofeld has pointed out, several of the articles probably lacked real notability anyway - so not all of them require attention. Strangely, I see that a number of the deleted articles have led to Wikidata additions. It looks as if the absence of articles on Wikipedia does not lead to names being subsequently deleted from Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy to source any drafts, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Please don't attribute motives to me; I'm just really busy (and taking time off from several other tasks right now). I don't like deleting valid articles, but it can be necessary. If 'arcituno' is willing to lie about who he is relative to his other accounts, can we 100% trust that his translations are valid? And I'm willing to restore articles for which there's sufficient non-arcituno content. DS (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Olga Gzovskaïa should probably be a redirect anyway. There is an article on English WP called Olga Gzovskaya, which needs work. SusunW (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@DragonflySixtyseven: has agreed to undelete some and I see that above we have now undeleted over a dozen above. All the ones I looked at were OK. As nearly always, new articles need some tidying but these don't require deletion. I'm willing to undelete a batch by Arcituno as they are at least very good drafts of stuff that we want. I havn'[[]]t found out what s/he has meant to have done but I see no reason to punish the articles involved. The mass deletion has caused a lot of extra work as many of these had cross-wiki links, wiki data and normal wiki links which have sometimes been lost. So if a WiR editor wants to list some articles below then I will undelete. Victuallers (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I should like to apologize to members of the project for the unnecessary drama. little did I imagine that mass deletion would be deployed to make a point. I thought it was deprecated. going forward, with editor decline, new editors who can edit in wikicode, will increasingly be blocked editors doing creditable work. might want to make a wikia fork of new articles as rough drafts to use in the future. Arcituno (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.24.31.114 (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata redlist of women scientists

Can someone please update this Wikidata-generated women writers redlist so the bluelinks are gone, and also create a similar list of women scientists please? --Rosiestep (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Rosiestep, auto-updating Wikidata-based redlists are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists/Tasks/Wikidata Missing Article Report and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Tasks/Wikidata Missing Article Report. Harej (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Harej this is great! --Rosiestep (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_13&oldid=1137357674"