Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Music editathon in January or February?

As a result of OnBeyondZebrax's article on Women in music, we are discussing the possibility of having an editathon in January or February on women in music (possibly concentrating on composers and instrumentalists) (see User talk:OnBeyondZebrax). My preferred dates would be 10 to 31 January as we will need February to prepare for the March Women's History Month. We hope to have feedback from Pharos, Tim riley, Victuallers and anyone else with ideas.--Ipigott (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, Ipigott we were talking on the ideas page about education for January and Black History for February. I'm not sure we could do two editathons in one month, but on the other hand it is possible? SusunW (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Music would be a great topic but the timing might need to change a little. Keilana (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Let me first copy this over from OnBeyondZebraz's talk Page

Women in music is an important article, so first, thank you for that! I support @Ipigott's idea of a Women in Music edit-a-thon in January or February, perhaps for 10-14 days. All the "women" categories are, to my knowledge, non-diffusing, so any biography in a "women" category must also be added to a non-gendered category within the same field. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Thanks for your support for an editathon on women in music. How about 10 to 31 January? Maybe Pharos can tie us up with something otherwise it would be interesting to see how we make out alone. Maybe we should concentrate on composers and instrumentalists to avoid initial overspill on pop. As for the categories, I think in music especially, categories such as Category:Female singers and most of the subcategories are main categories in their own right as female voices need to be distinguished from the males voices. Category:Female dancers likewise.--Ipigott (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

We've had a good relationship in NYC and a number of past events with the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts, and User:Kosboot is actually a librarian there. The most recent event was this past May, when User:Lange.lea organized us for Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/WomenOfJazz. That said, scheduling something for January would depend on circumstances and the availability of different people.--Pharos (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Pharos for your amazingly quick response. We seem to be establishing an excellent relationship. For the time being, I'll put the proposal for January on the WiR talk page. If you can come up with anything, let me know. My own inclination is that we should have an open event on composers and instrumentalists initially and perhaps organize something specific on jazz and/or other genres later. It would also be good if we could become involved in events extending outside of NYC too. Perhaps Tim riley and Victuallers could let us know if there is any interest in the UK or Europe in January of February?--Ipigott (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm off to a wikimeet in Birmingham this weekend. I'll ask ... Victuallers (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Roger. Further discussion on the event on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Women in Red#Music editathon in January or February?.--Ipigott (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Bags of useful international pop, jazz and folk material, I'm sure, and for classical music though there will necessarily be slim pickings on female composers there are masses of top notch women performers whose articles could be improved if a female-oriented editathon is thought desirable. My great guru on editathons in London has been User:WereSpielChequers, but that was a little while ago, and things may have changed. – Tim riley talk 18:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. We're probably corresponding on the wrong page but I agree with you that we need to promote performers and instumentalists. Interesting work on composers may emerge from some of the other languages. For a start, just look at Argentina. Maybe not all completely classical but... --Ipigott (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• And now let me respond specifically to the earlier comment from SusunW: You may be familiar with the Spanish proverb: "No hay mal que por bien no venga".

To Keilana and you, Susun, I think it is very important to maintain Black History for February but I must say very many of the biographies from the recent editathons have had a direct relationship with education. The other problem I have with "Education" at the moment is that 90% of the red links come from the USA. Music on the other hand is universal. I think we have time in January to address it. May I ask for feedback here from Rosiestep, Keilana, Victuallers, Dr. Blofeld, Megalibrarygirl, Missvain, Pigsonthewing, SusunW, Alafarge, Big Iron, Nvvchar, Gobonobo, 97198 and any others who would like to respond.--Ipigott (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ipigott it matters not to me. Education fits in with a bunch of other categories and it may well be that that list becomes a feeder for Black History month, Activists, science, etc., as you pointed out, there is a lot of overlap. I was merely pointing out that it should get on the idea board asap so that there are not conflicts. As I said about religion, music isn't my topic. I love music, have a pretty good set of pipes, but no real knowledge. Bios I can usually pull off. SusunW (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Black History month is a different month here in the UK. Shouldn't be a problem finding trainers for an event in London in February, meta:/Meetup/London/100 is on December 13th, if someone can get me dates for an editathon by then I'm sure we will be able to get some experienced trainers from the crowd there. ϢereSpielChequers 20:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, aware that in the UK it is different, not sure why that is but I checked and the UK is the only place that is different that I can tell. Caribbean, US, and Canada is February. UK is in October. Anyway, dates that were being bandied about on the calendar for an event were 14 January to 24 January SusunW (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Whichever we work on, any month, I'm happy to try to get lists together. I enjoy making and sourcing the lists. So far, most of the educators, like Ipigott mentioned are from the US... I found a ton from the state Hall of Fame sites, so that tipped it a lot. I can try to expand to other countries, though I tend to be hampered by language. I'm only fluent in English and I understand enough Spanish to get by and can sort of use my Spanish to get the gist of other Romance languages. I'm lucky to have a few friends who are fluent in other languages, though, so I'll hit them up and see if they have anything to offer. However, whatever we decide to write about is cool with me and I'm happy to help any way I can. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• I thought of something, we could include this list, which is more internationally inclusive: Women's organizations with education since that's the mission of many of these groups... advocacy with raising awareness, which I think touches on educating the public... Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a great offer, Megalibrarygirl. Up to now, we have very little on music so it would be great if you could make a start. I would suggest concentrating on composers and instrumentalists for a start (maybe two separate lists). Later on I'll be able to help out with international coverage as I am fluent in most of the European languages but I'm pretty busy with other things at the moment.--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• List for music is begun: Women in music Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

For whatever reason, I have not received the pings for this section, so sorry for the delay in joining the convo. I think a music editathon is a great idea -- much needed. Note, the post I made regarding January-February was in a vacuum... not in consideration with the other events we were lining up for 2016Q1. A sponsored event by some institution would help drive dates. Any suggestions for sponsors? If not, let's ping someone at GLAM or WikiEdu for ideas. As usual, the redlist(s) will be very important; let's also consider image redlinks, such as we have in the scientist editathon. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Among other people, let's ping User:Gerda Arendt for input on a music project. Montanabw^(talk) 02:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• The Women in music is coming along nicely. I found some international redlinks to work on. Please feel free to add! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl you rock, Sue! Truly. You have done such a great job with these lists. On Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki are recurring lists for Bach cantatas, that also links here Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Missing articles:Bach Cantatas site. I am sure Gerda or Dr. B can tell us where there might be other WikiProject links and I found this link, which I haven't had time to comb through but will work on it [1] SusunW (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD: scientist Elizabeth A. Wood

Just got an AfD notice on a new page I put up for scientist Elizabeth A. Wood. Not sure why since she seemed to me to pass notability just fine. Not least, there is a science writing award given out in her honor. Would appreciate folks weighing in on what is needed to deal with the AfD notice.Alafarge (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Update — just noticed on the AfD nominator's Talk page that he has been recently called out by other Wikipedia editors for being too quick with the AfD tag.Alafarge (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

More AfDs

These articles created by User:Neelix are at AfD as part of ... let us just say, the mass deletion or attempted deletion of things he has created. The majority of the articles (and the only ones I have listed here) are about women.

1. Glendene Grant
2. Iris Thomsen
3. Mélanie Paquin
4. Bukola Oriola
5. Vednita Carter
6. Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation
7. Deborah's Gate
8. EVE (organization)
9. Tania Fiolleau
10. Jassy Bindra
11. Shae Invidiata
12. Lepa Jankovic
13. Aaron Krogman
14. Denise Wong
15. Sienna Howell-Holden
16. Glenda Warkentin
17. Evelyn Chew
18. Men Against Sexual Trafficking
19. Sex Trade 101
20. Katarina MacLeod
21. Bridget Perrier
22. Streetlight Support Services
23. NASHI
24. London Anti-Human Trafficking Committee
25. Women of Distinction Awards
26. The Source Dance Company
27. Timea Nagy (activist)
28. White Dog Cafe (founded by a woman).
29. Buying Sex is Not a Sport

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC).

Thank you for the heads up. I'm a rabid inclusionist, and yet I think...three of these? passed even the most basic stretch of notability standards. So much creepy dreck. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Creepy but is worth determining if any happened to be notable, I voted keep on a couple... Montanabw^(talk) 05:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I just voted "Keep or merge to Human trafficking in Canada." on one - where we three are the only voters. I looked at some of these articles (i.e. about 3 of the most notable ones not on this list) a year or two ago. It seems that the process was to give each entity an article, and to gather as much information as possible. If this was another wiki that might be fine, but we have "Notability" criteria to deal with. Actually it is sorta fine here, because we have AGF and merge. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC).

I find the reminder that we have notability criteria peculiar from someone who just voted keep without explanation (in each case the only one to do so) a bunch of times, in response to this obsessive POV mess on fringe organisations and people. Nearly all of these people are of the same level of notability, but it's sad that while all the actors are gone in a jiffy, a number the other equally randomly un-notable people are on the fringe because people think it sounds like a feel-good cause. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I voted "keep" without explanation a bunch of times? Must have been my cat walking on my keyboard. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC).

Invitation

Fight the gender gap: write articles on women

I made a template, a start;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Beautiful! (And it works.) I'm sure there are hundreds of people you can send it to. How about working on women composers? I see there's already a long list at List of female composers by birth year with a few red links but there must be many, many more we should cover in the other language wikis. Maybe we should start Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Women composers?--Ipigott (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's lovely, @Gerda. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I love this! Hope it is a sign that your vacation was restful and restorative Gerda Arendt.

It is! See my talk, under baklava, - a returning user, o happy day! Will create a popcorn template also ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

As I am still on vacation, I will not send it to individuals, but every user posting on a certain well-watched page, on ANI, AE and on arbcom request should feel morally obliged to create a "qpq" woman stub ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Women in Red

Here's a neutral box, easily modified. If you need modifications, ask Alakzi. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Help needed to bring Sherry Thomas to GA status

Hi everyone! A few days ago, I began a Good Article review of Sherry Thomas, a critically acclaimed Chinese-American romance writer. Unfortunately, the GA nominator (Plange) has not been active on Wikipedia for the last few months, and she has not responded to the requests for revisions at the GA review. Is there somebody at this Wikiproject who is willing to work on the article to bring it to GA status? I certainly wouldn't want to lose the opportunity to bring this article to GA status. I am also posting this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers. Thanks in advance for your help! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably all you can do is ping the GA board for someone to close the review and then restart it.Maybe someone can take it over, but I'm not sure the rules on that. Sucks, but... Montanabw^(talk) 00:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK nominations

We're seeing a lot of nominations of women scientists and architects over at DYK – so much that it's getting hard to build a prep set without 2 or 3 hooks about women! I'd just like to point out, though, that most of the hooks are emphasizing that the woman in question is the "first" in her country or profession. This may be true, but it starts sounding very repetitive, and we can't run more than one such hook in a prep set. Thanks to User:Maile66 for going through the approved hooks and suggesting more interesting angles. I would like to urge everyone who submits a DYK to please look for an interesting angle or aspect of the subject or her work, aside from being the "first", so we can ensure variety in the prep sets. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree but for another reason. Should we say that Ada Lovelace was the first woman computer programmer or the person who first imagined what a computer might be and what it could do. Oh and well done if we are giving DYK a bit of a problem - did they notice it when it was all men? However we don't need to underline that they are women as if its unusual that a woman can be a scientist etc. I'll stop. Victuallers (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate the significance of any woman being the first woman in her field of whatever it is, that woman had significant achievements to get there. And if she's notable enough for her own Wikipedia article, she didn't stop after becoming the first woman in her field. Marie Curie was the first woman to win a Nobel prize. But the reason for the prize, her research into radiation, is what benefited the world. — Maile (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree and have tried to mix them up. I mean who isn't fascinated that platypi venom was discovered to have similar toxins to snake-, spider-, lizard- and sea anemone-venom all mixed together? But I am also thrilled if we can get 2-3 women per day in DYK, as that means we are making a difference in the imbalance of articles. SusunW (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

(Off-topic comment: I've lived in Australia my whole life and didn't know that platypuses were venomous until reading that DYK hook. Thanks Susun!) 97198 (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much to Maile and Yoninah for helping find interesting hooks - I love reading about the achievements that make these wonderful women scientists notable. (And to be quite honest...venomous platypuses make me not want to come to Australia! Sorry Sophie...) Keilana (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@97198: I still want to visit Australia -- venomous platypuses won't keep me away. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You're a braver woman than I, Rosie! ;) Keilana (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Me too it's one of the many places on my bucket list. I do not, however, have any intention about finding out about that venom. The guy who got bit said it was worse than a shrapnel wound. But truly, thanks to everyone for pushing the DYKs through. Several would still be languishing without a little extra help. SusunW (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This Sunday 11/22/15

If you're going to be working on Women in Science articles this Sunday, please consider signing in as virtual participant at the New York event: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/NYAS. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Events at Women in Red navbox

@Rosiestep: I cannot find the editing page for the box titled "Events at Women in Red". The edit button (E) simply goes to "#REDIRECTTemplate:Navbox". --Ipigott (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: the navbox is here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/Navigation. However, I think it needs to be renamed so that you can edit it by clicking the (E) button. @Dr. Blofeld: can you sort out the naming issue? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 18:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Edgars2007: thanks! Can you also fix {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Nav}}? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you want me to do there? Include those VTE links? There isn't anything broken from what I can see.  Done --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi, all of you ! I just created Bariza Ghezelani (a rescued of an AfD on French WP), but I am a French contributor, and I don't know enough which categories and portails/projects are to be choosen. So if you could have a look on the page, check it and improve it with categories and so on, it would be great ! Thanks, --La femme de menage (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

AFD

Judy Ho Another new article on scientists list proposed for deletion *sigh* SusunW (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I voted. Could use some more eyes and attention. Minor4th 15:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Rhonda Patrick Another new scientist proposed for deletion and worse, marked as a potential hoax. Seriously SMDH. SusunW (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sabrina Gschwandtner new artist article. Nominated within hours of its creation by a new editor. SusunW (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

megalibrarygirl Thanks! I hate that they probably ran off this editor, but hopefully we will have saved the file. Extremely interesting work. SusunW (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

SusunW, I agree. The nominator, Ireneshih, is nominating articles just days after creation without seeming to do WP:BEFORE. It's rather concerning that there is a lack of due-diligence. Another article I'm trying to rescue is Olivia Gude. At first glance, she seems to pass GNG. I think someone's doing an edit a thon somewhere because I'm seeing a lot of art related articles popping up. I'm concerned about this trend of no WP:BEFORE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl serious lack of initiative on the part of the nominator. Both state and national awards. *sigh*. Hopefully we have done enough to convince others ;) SusunW (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

SusunW, thanks for helping me add to Olivia Gude. It was so clear that she passed, at the least, GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl way beyond GNG. With what we found on her awards, she clearly passes artist and I think SNOWY might be appropriate ;) SusunW (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

15.89%

I spoke with @Masssly and Maximilianklein and Frances this morning regarding their IEG-funded Wikipedia Gender Indicators project (WIGI). A big thank you to them for the research and design work on WIGI, which, in a nutshell, uses Wikidata data to present statistics about Wikipedia's women's biographies. Please take a look at the website -- this is a beta version -- hover over data points, review the graphs, and provide feedback. Their IEG grant will run out soon so our feedback could be a valuable component in determining whether or not to renew the grant. There are more eyes on this WiR talkpage than the IEG page; this discussion can be linked to the grant's page. (15.89%? That's the percentage of women's biographies on the English language Wikipedia per WIGI, effective yesterday.) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to leave feedback; is there a direct link in there somewhere? Montanabw^(talk) 21:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure where to put comments either. What I know is that number is still dismal. What I know is that the project must continue if we are ever to be able to judge whether our efforts are making a difference. The alternative is the manual collection of data, which is both exhausting and uses up time that would be better spent creating new articles or improving existing ones. SusunW (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Masssly and Maximilianklein To clarify... We'll leave our comments about WIGI Beta on this talkpage as it gets a lot of eyes. Please watchlist it. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. You need to advertise more for these kind of projects and task forces in other communities. I'm a user of Persian Wikipedia and I even didn't know such user group existed. I have been drawn into these discussions completely by chance. By the way, it seems that we have done a better job on Persian Wikipedia (20,27% of bios are about women). Persian Wikipedia is ranked 5th overall among all Wikipedias in this respect. I started a thread about the whole issue at our local Village Pump and introduced the above-mentioned user group. Feel free to drop me a line if I missed anything important. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have looked carefully through the WIGI documents. The work obviously needs to be supported for at least a couple of years more if we are to monitor any real progress on Wikipedia's coverage of female biographies. While the various pages are informative, I think it would be useful for all the non-statisticians among us to have an introduction giving an overall summary of the most meaningful trends. At the moment, several of the pages are rather difficult to interpret. For example, on "Gender by country" we are told it displays the "percentage of biographies of women by country of birth" but there are no percentages in the tables. Only two countries are included in the Top 10 and in the Bottom 10 and it is not at all clear what figures such as "247" for Spain actually refer to. I also find it very surprising that only 24% of biographies have a city or country of birth. Is this a result of poor data transfer from the biographies to Wikidata, perhaps because insufficient details have been included in boxes or whatever, or is it because the information really is missing from the articles? The display under "Gender by language" must be rather misleading for those who are not language experts. It looks very much as if Norwegian has the worst coverage (although that is because the data on the far left are taken from the minor Nynorsk site, whereas the more representative Bokmål data near the centre of the chart are far more positive). As for the 15.89%, I would have liked to see how this has evolved since July but I could not read the data files and they would not open in Excel. Above all, it would be extremely useful if the project had a discussion page or at least a page where people could express their views and suggestions. Failing this, one of the Wikipedians working on the project could perhaps open up a WIGI talk page in their user space.--Ipigott (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Ipigott: Concerning the accuracy of biographies that have a city or country of birth, our data relies solely on wikidata and so we can only speculate on how they add up to 24%, so yes perhaps "this [is] a result of poor data transfer from the biographies to Wikidata, [or]... insufficient details have been included in boxes". In all great points you raised, we're happy to look into all of them. Also you mentioned the wigi score at "Gender by country", would you like to see percentages rather then the decimals we're presently displaying? Thank you. —M@sssly^✉ 15:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this project is very valuable and should continue to be funded by Wikipedia. Not least, it has the potential to be a one-stop for deadline-challenged journalists looking for some quick data on gender and Wikipedia. But I was going to offer many of the same points as Ipigott: I found the way the data was organized and tagged hard to parse. A for-instance: how can both Spain and the U.S be in the top AND bottom 10% of changes at the same time on the "Gender by Country" page? Also, my first instinct on seeing the map on that page was that green meant positive changes, red meant negative changes (but what would that mean, bios being removed?)—or some kind of best-and-worst scenario—since those are common color-coding schemes with maps. But I couldn't make any of it add up to my satisfaction. So I'd like to see this project continued in part because I think even just improving the data visualizations of the existing data set would be a huge boon.Alafarge (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you @Rosiestep: for mentioning WIGI and starting a thread here. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red is definitely the perfect place to find editors interested in Wikipedia's gender gap to give feedback about our work (wigi.wmflabs.org), we would love to hear from everyone on this WikiProject! To keep things more organised and because this talk page gets archived every 30 days I've opened User talk:Masssly/WIGI Feedback where anyone can leave their feedback. I would also be very happy to have a conversation with anyone who would like to get in touch off wiki. Lets keep the conversation going, Cheers. —M@sssly^✉ 15:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality?

This page about a Syrian women has disputed neutrality. The editor who put disputed neutrality on the page says:

"But if it is indeed a biography, then by definition, neutrality is disputed until significant contributions to it are made by other editors."

Link to see the full discussion .... I'm confused! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Suspect interlocutor got mixed up between "biography" and "autobiography". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC).

That makes sense... but still frustrating. >.< Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I had the same thought, so I asked. SusunW (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Patton Boyle

Hey guys, another one who would likely merit an article. I can add it to my backlog, but I'm already overstuffed as it is with bios to write. I came across this woman in my research and given the entry for her at Encyclopedia Virginia, I'm actually surprised that she doesn't have an article since she seems to have been a major player in the civil rights era, at least in Virginia.

I don't like to throw around the term "obviously notable" but she seems to be obviously notable per coverage like this, this, this, and especially this. Here's some other sources: [2], [3], [4], [5]

I figured that I'd mention this here in case one of you could write the article faster than I could. If that's the case, then hopefully the above sources can help. I didn't want to post this request here and then make you guys do all the research too! Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I'll get started on it. ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's the draft I'm working on: User:Megalibrarygirl/Sarah-Patton Boyle. Also I found a stub on her husband, E. Roger Boyle. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Megalibrary girl, did you get autopatrolled rights? If so, I think it's ready to move into article space, but toss the construction template and just move it so you don't have to deal with the review process. If any concerns, ping me at talk and I'll mark it patrolled or whatever is needed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks good Megalibrarygirl and yes Montanabw she did. I just blipped out that part at the top that says draft for review. Dr. B taught me that is only required for people who must be patrolled. SusunW (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC

)

Hi! Thanks for the feedback, Montanabw and SusunW . I haven't added all the references though yet. Should I move it anyway? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You can wait until you are ready. Was just saying the text looks good. Also, I just copy all this stuff on every file, so I don't have to remember to put it. When you take it live, then you can just take off the first colon on Category and delete ether the death or living person. At any rate, it will always then have categories ;) SusunW (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:}}

[[:Category:1900 births]]

[[:Category:1989 deaths]]

[[:Category:Living people]]

SusunW

Here's a Richy Tip {{DEFAULTSORT:{{Subst:Qla}}}}

If the person has a usual western-style name (or one we index in that way) this will fill in the DEFAULTSORT for you.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC).

• It is (mostly) done. I added a lot more, found some old newspaper articles. Tokyogirl79LVA, do you have any photos we can add? She is a very interesting woman! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Nothing's coming up in Digitool, but then that's not entirely surprising. Most of the photos of her would be recent enough for them to be copyrighted, sadly enough, and the image on the EV entry came from a local paper. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The image here could no doubt be used on Wikipedia rather than Commons for "fair use".--Ipigott (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott and Megalibrarygirl: if we are using "fair use" rationale, can we use this one? [6] It is a frontal image and shows her in action. The only reason I question it is because there are others in the photo, but the rationale is clearly that it enhances and improves her recognition as a Civil Rights Activist. SusunW (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

My choice would be the first one as it also shows she wrote about her work.--Ipigott (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

LOL, I wish we could use all of them. She was such a cool person. :D I like the head shot, though if we have to use just one. But the one of her in the prayer group also captures her spirit--she was very religious and her religious convictions led her to civil rights activism. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl your file. I uploaded the head shot. See what you think. (I use that same rationale all the time, one fair use, so feel free to steal it). SusunW (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

LOOKS AWESOME!!!! Thank you, SusunW. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to share this with my bosses at the LVA - they'll be excited about this! Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Luciana Zogbi new article by new editor

Hi! The editor of Luciana Zogbi recently reached out to me for help on their new article. Seriousbrain is a new editor and I'd like to help them out. I found some sources in English, but I suspect there are more in other languages (I found one in Polish, for example). If any of you have the time to do a search, esp in other languages, that would be super. I've asked Seriousbrain to provide more sources, too. Also, does anyone know the notability criteria surrounding Youtube hits? I've seen that brought up on AfD, too. Thanks in advance, you awesome Wikipedians! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, never heard of her, but I really enjoyed the video. Unfortunately, the only two links I find are the two already on the file. SusunW (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, SusunW. :) I was glad that someone reached out for help and I was hoping there was some more info out there... I guess I might have to tell them that she may be WP:TOOSOON?

Also, I found an amazing stub about a Burkina Faso politician named Saran Sérémé who was an activist, was tortured and then ran for president. Almost all of her sources are in French and I don't know how to write about her life without context. I added one French source because it was obviously about her running for president. LOL. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl I think French is the hardest language for me. The translations in Google translate never seem to be right, or maybe it's just me. French is so lovely to listen to and fluid, but when it comes out of Google translate it is a choppy non-melodious discord to me. Add it to the Black history month and note that it is a stub in need of expansion. Maybe it will pick up someone to work on it. I'll try to find stuff in the mean time. SusunW (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed there is a French wikipage with a bunch of resources. The translation is rough, but again, maybe someone will be able to help who speaks French. SusunW (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks,SusunW for taking a look. I'll check out her Wiki, too. When I stumbled on the article it had no sources at all and I was concerned it would get prodded. :P Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Needs some TLC/article suggestions

Hi! I'm not sure what happened to my last post, but I was going to see if anyone was interested in editing the article for Sharifa Alkhateeb. I came across her via my work at the LVA and it looks like the article needs some TLC. I'm going to try to get around to it, but it might not be for a few days at least and I'm concerned that there may be some closeparaphrasing or copyvio there. It's just setting off my Spidey senses a little.

• You are correct, there was a copyvio and direct posting of text from this link. I extensively edited it to take out the promotional language and copyvio. Please feel free to change whatever. SusunW (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Other than that, would anyone be interested in seeing if Eleanor Gladys Copenhaver/Eleanor Copenhaver Anderson would pass notability guidelines? She was a leader with the YWCA and was somewhat influential in Virginia.Most sources like this one mention her in relation to her husband, Sherwood Anderson, but maybe she's independently notable? The Dictionary of Virginia Biography also has a lengthy biography on her as well, although it isn't online. I can help provide a copy of the entry material for anyone, if they want. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Clearly independently notable. See [7], [8], [9], [10] SusunW (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79LVA I did the article. I needed one for my 100 bios in 100 days. I had to make a judgement call on the name, so I did it as above with a redirect on the married name, since the career was established under her maiden name. Maybe I should have done it the other way, since she was Anderson longer, but that seemed like it was pulling off of his fame and she was clearly notable in her own right. SusunW (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sweet! This is pretty awesome! Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Signpost article for women scientist edit-a-thon

Let's write an article for the WP:SIGNPOST about the Women scientist edit-a-thon in the Special Reports section. The SP EB is supportive of this; let's do it. Readers would be interested in who organised it, where and when it was hosted, how many people turned up, what sort of people they were (volunteers? academics? librarians?), which areas were worked on; perhaps a list of articles created. Plus photos (NYAS event) if available and there are no privacy issues. Also think about explaining how it was organised, whether there were roadblocks to overcome, who best to approach, how best to advertise it, etc., so that other people can derive some guidance and ideas on how to organise something like this themselves. A "lessons learned" type look back at the event (if applicable); pitfalls to avoid, as well as things that made it a success. If Wikipedia wants to attract more editors to participate in these types of events, there needs to be more coverage. We not only delivered >300 articles, but a socialized experience, and others might find that very appealing. Adding @Lhariton, Alexisclements, and Pharos: who may not have this page watchlisted. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this just for the "live" editathon or the "virtual" one.... or both? I'm happy to help if I can. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Both. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Women photographers by nationality

I was working on some categories and I found out that the category for Women photographers by nationality was deleted. Do you think we should make a case for reinstating it since we're looking at doing a Photography editathon later? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

We do have a List of women photographers which is sorted by country. But as we have many categories of women by nationality, I don't know why photography should be an exception. Perhaps the category was deleted as it only contained American women photographers.--Ipigott (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it was weird, too. Maybe I'll look into trying to rebuild it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: if you need assistance with this, @Ser Amantio di Nicolao is very helpful with category projects. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you kindly *blush* I don't see any reason it can't be rebuilt - I'd be happy to help, if you wish. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There was this one, Category:American women photographers, so I created and populated Category:Argentine women photographers and Category:Australian women photographers. Plenty more to do and that list is a great starting point. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon Concierge Service

The concierge is in. How can we assist you?

This section to the concierge bell in the infobox of our current event: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/4. I figure there will be editors who will be looking for assistance and won't know where to turn. I think it would be a good idea to include this concierge bell feature in every event's infobox. Sure, this will require us to answer questions now and again, but I think we're up for it. If you're familiar with the WP:Teahouse, this "Concierge Service" is meant to be like it. If you don't like the idea, we can always scrap it! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I like it Rosiestep. Finally got caught up on my DYKs but I was panicked for a few days thinking I wasn't going to get them done. I also resorted to writing notes on the redlist, but thankfully Megalibrarygirl saw my scribbings and helped me so scrape together enough for a stub. Sad when one of the top researchers on cancer in the US can only get a stub because no one is writing about her, but everyone is quoting her research. Says something important about our sourcing criteria, IMO. SusunW (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea, too, Rosiestep. Also, SusunW, I agree that there is a sourcing/notability issue in Wiki, but it always seems like when it's brought up anywhere besides some WikiProjects, like ours, no one wants to talk about it. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl and SusunW: I have had the same experience regarding sourcing/notability. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: While I think we should be doing everything possible to encourage new or inexperienced users, I'm not convinced at this stage that a concierge bell is the best approach. I think the top priority is to revamp the Women in Red site to overcome our navigational problems and avoid being constantly taken back to WP Women rather than Women in Red when trying to return from one of the project pages. Everyday, I have to open and reopen about four or five windows to be able to track what's going on and I have more experience of Wikipedia than most. Just imagine what it must be like for those who have just joined us. As for helping newbies, etc., I have been trying to make personal contact with them on their talk pages but have only had responses from about one in ten (or even less). Nearly all those who come in through in-person editathons seem to disappear from Wikipedia editing within a day or two, only reappearing at the next editathon a year or more later. I have tried to encourage Pharos to collaborate in helping to keep in touch with them (e.g. by email) but there has been no follow-up. As for establishing notability, it is a constant problem, even when pertinent references are given. Would it be possible to list AfDs and especially Speedy Deletion candidates on the main project page, perhaps on the basis of WPBIO? We might be able to catch them before they disappear.--Ipigott (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott and Rosiestep: I am with you on the navigation issue, which I have maintained from the get-go is a problem. I also have the same issue as Rosie in that I don't seem to get the messages from the WIR various pages and have to scroll through them periodically to see if there are any notices. Don't know if that is why I didn't get any help from anyone except Yoninah, bless her, on my DYKs or not. But, I think the button is good even for experienced people, as I said above, because with the navigational issues, one does not know where to stick up their hand. SusunW (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I think I'll leave the concierge bell in the edit-a-thon infoboxes as it gives me peace of mind to know that if an editor lands on our meetup/event/editathon page, and if they have a question, and if they click the link provided for the concierge desk, they will land right here on the WiR talkpage, which does have a lot of eyes on it; e.g. it's a reasonably good place for them to leave a message. Let's at least give it a try, ok? --Rosiestep (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Yes, by all means leave it on the editathon pages and anywhere else where new users may need help. It will be interesting to see how many editors make use of it. We certainly should do everything we can to help them along.--Ipigott (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, Dr. Blofeld, and Keilana: Thoughts on the concierge bell/service wording here vs. here? Reword it? Where else should we put the bell? Would a different image convey the intent better? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Rosiestep My 2 cents, not everyone may know what a concierge is so go with the one that says "concierge service" can be of assistance!. SusunW (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the wording on the meetup for religion, Rosiestep. Also, we may want to invite other wikiProjects like WikiProject Catholicism, Islam, Atheism, Judaism, Hinduism, etc... for the religion meetup. :) 15:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Yes, we should certainly try to involve all these other projects. I have been looking at recent activity on their talk pages. The most active are Catholicism (50 page watchers), Judaism (46), Islam (28), Buddhism (17), Hinduism (13), Seventh-day Adventist Church (7) - so they should all receive invitations. And while I'm here, thanks for all the additions to the Women in Science list of red links. We also need to make a list of all the relevant categories for new articles. There are quite a few of these but perhaps the most useful are Category:Female religious leaders, Category:Female religious workers, Category:Female clergy, Category:Female Christian missionaries, Category:Ancient priestesses, Category:Buddhist nuns, Category:Christian nuns (and all the subcategories including Category:Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns by nationality), Category:Female saints.--Ipigott (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, this is old (disscusion), but I think, that {{Clickable button 2}} would be fine. For example such one: Ask a question. Which opens a new section here. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

An AfD and a likely one

Hey guys, just letting you know that a page for a roller derby team is up for AfD, San Diego Derby Dolls. This would fall under the project banner since roller derby teams are almost always female - I don't think I've ever heard of a team that isn't. The same person who nominated the team page for AfD also nominated its founder as well, Bonnie D.Stroir, so it's likely that they'll try to AfD her as well. I'm not familiar with sports so I don't know if either would pass, but I figured I'd give you all a head's up on this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation templates

Let's take a look at our invitation and hear your thoughts on it. This is a link to the current edit-a-thon's invitation page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/5/invitation. Please weigh in on the invitation's size, shape, wording, bolding, italics, and whatever else. Thank you for your feedback!

Current version; large/green (option#1)

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

Dates: 5 to 15 December 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event Host: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in religion to participate. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and learn more: →here← --Rosiestep (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Small/green (option#2)

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion
	Dates: 5 to 15 December 2015 Details: This is a worldwide/virtual/online edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in religion to participate. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.

Smallest/green (option#3)

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion - Please join us!
	5 - 15 December 2015 Hosted by Women in Red

Gray (option#4)

Please join us!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon Women in Religion 5 to 15 December 2015

• For this one (religion), Option 3 seems fine. If there sponsors or other wikiprojects are involved, it may be better to go for something bigger.--Ipigott (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Another name

I've got another person for you guys, only I'm not entirely sure that she passes. The person in question is Sarah Ann Brock, also known by the pseudonym "Virginia Madison" and also referred to occasionally as Sallie Brock Putnam. Encyclopedia Virginia has covered her and her most well-known book has been republished with a 20-something page foreword through the University of Nebraska Press, although I'm uncertain if that would qualify as an independent source. It's been listed here as a source, if that counts for anything. I did find this mention in a University of Illinois Press analytical bibliography. Other than that, here's what I've found: West Virginia History, extensively sourced in this Oxford University Press book.

Basically, there's enough to where I think she's likely notable but not enough to where I really feel firmly comfortable. I haven't checked the academic databases yet, so there may be more through there. She's not as exciting as the other woman I've recommended earlier, but Brock is interesting from a historical perspective. What do you all think? I'm sort of on the border with this. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• The foreword would be considered reliable and independent because it's an act of scholarship, not something written by (e.g.) the author's best friend. Similarly, the Encyclopedia Viriginia should count as reliable and independent like any other encyclopedic source. The "independent" standard exists (as I see it, and I may be wrong about this, not being an admin) to exclude sites that are either directly under the subject's control or put up by someone with an immediate stake in creating PR and/or disinformation. So while there is a sense in which scholars and journalists are not independent of their subjects (having a vested interest in talking/writing about them), there would be no way to write any Wikipedia page at all if such sources weren't considered independent enough, as well as reliable. I think Brock sounds like a great candidate for a page and am glad you're planning to write her up.Alafarge (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• I hope that you don't mind that I'm dropping names here! In any case, if any of you are wondering what I'm doing research on, it's somewhat for this. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• I also have Lucy Goode Brooks, a freedom fighter. (EV, Style Weekly, historical marker, UVA Press book, U of R article (likely primary, given that it's about a class), LVA). I'm unsure about her as well. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• With Brooks, we could probably justify it by including information about the orphanage, the Friends' Asylum for Colored Orphans, since she was pretty integral to its founding and there's more coverage about it as a whole than really for her. Or we could make an article about the orphanage and include information about her? ([11], [12]) Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Also, the library does have an image for Brooks in the public domain, here. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Tokyogirl79LVA and Rosiestep: I did the article on Brooks, and Rosie did the one on the orphanage. How do we know the photo is in the Pubic Domain? I am never sure how one ascertains that, but we could do a double DKY article with the photo if we could be sure. Rosie, your thoughts? SusunW (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Tokyogirl79LVA and SusunW: I'm not an expert regarding images, but @INeverCry: is and she is a Commons admin so hoping we can get this clarified. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Tokyogirl79LVA, SusunW, and Rosiestep: I was de-sysopped in July on Commons, but that's another matter altogether (I resigned as an admin here in July 2013 after an unblock of Malleus Fatuorum, so I guess July's just not my month... ) The image looks to be circa 1870ish, so I don't see why there'd be any problem uploading it to Commons under {{PD-old-70}} with {{Unknown}} author, and a date of circa 1870. It would be best if the author and exact date of the image was known, but that info can be just about impossible to find sometimes. Copyright specialists on Commons usually view 1885 as a cut-off for {{PD-old-70}} with an unknown author. INeverCry 04:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• @INeverCry: sorry to hear about the July ordeal; didn't know. And thanks for the explanation about the image. We're just starting on a 10 days edit-a-thon, Women in Religion. If you'd like to join in, you are most welcome. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks @INeverCry and Rosiestep: I uploaded it and am going to do the DYK. SusunW (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Another name: Isobel Lamont Stewart Bryan: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], (possible picture we can use). Her big claim to fame was that she was very active in preserving Virginia history. I'm making this a little short since I don't want to take up too much space since I'm going to list multiple names. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a cool project, Tokyogirl79LVA! I think I could get a list started with your names if you'd like. Also, I could fold them into existing redlists... if you have any African American women, for example, we could add them to the Black history list which I think we're doing in Feb... Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can find! Offhand, I think I found my main motivation as a future librarian: Sarah Poage Caldwell Butler. The DVB has an entry on her, although it's not on the Internet from what I can see. The author of the DBV piece also wrote this for Virginia Tech. There's also this newspaper article, which just makes her the coolest person ever in my opinion. Long story short, she tried to get a library launched in Roanoke. City officials didn't think there was any need for one (!) and came up with an idea to get her to go away - they asked her to raise a substantial amount of money... which she did in about a week's time. Needless to say, she got her library. It's pretty inspiring stuff.

I'm game for starting a list. If this all goes according to plan, hopefully there's going to be a nice big beautiful monument that can be used to argue for additional notability for these women! Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• And oh yeah, there are definitely some black women on this list! Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'll start up a list in my userpage and post it here. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Here's the start. I'm going to have to go back through the earliest part of my list to see which ones would have enough sourcing for an article, which is going to take some time given the amount of names I have. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Love this project. It is amazing how it mushrooms :) SusunW (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• The LVA was pretty excited when I told them what we were all doing here. They also said it's OK to basically explain the project, which is still in progress. Basically, there's a movement to create a monument to women who have impacted Virginia's history. It's going to include life size statues and a wall containing the names of various women. (The mockup looks amazing.) We're still compiling names and I'm helping to write out short bios for each of the names we currently have. (In other words, if you know any Virginia women who should be on the list, nominate away! A lot of these women have Dictionary of Virginia Biography and I can help work to provide copies of those, if necessary. Like you said, Susun, it's kind of awesome how this mushrooms. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• @Tokyogirl79LVA:, I made a link on the Project page to your list. I added one of my redlinks, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Totally! I like the idea of one big list of women who need to be added to Wikipedia or could likely be merged in somewhere. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oh good grief. I added this name to my list but I'm adding this here because this is sort of what this whole WP is about. Mary Frances Clarke looks to be wildly notable as she has a college named after her, but her article is pretty pathetic. From what I can see she does have sourcing out there about her. Maybe there really isn't anything out there, but it definitely needs some TLC. ([18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]) Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79LVA I expanded the stub. It's more than 5x and I think I can nominate her for DYK. She fits right in with this month's editathon on women in Religion. SusunW (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Another request, if I can continue to impose on you guys. This is one that I really, really can't create myself but I definitely want made. Sandra Treadway is the State Librarian and State Archivist of Virginia. As such, she runs the LVA and this would pose a huge COI on my part (since I volunteer here and would, admittedly, like to eventually be hired as a paid employee), enough to where I don't entirely feel comfortable writing her article - although I would certainly be in a position to take a photograph of her to put on Wikimedia Commons. She's definitely notable and I've included her on the list, along with a bunch of sources. Some of them are primary, but there's enough non-primary stuff that should, along with her position on the state level, should have her pass notability guidelines. While I do think that I could write a neutral article, there's just so much desire on my part to want to impress her that I'd just feel better if one of you guys wrote the article just to be on the safe side. I figured I'd highlight this one since there's such a strong COI here, unlike the other names so far on the list. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Also, I suppose I should just join in - I visit this page quite regularly... (grins) Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79LVA: Hope you join in!! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Does she prefer Sandra Treadway or Sandra Gioia Treadway? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think that she likes either - She does seem to be listed quite a lot under her full name, so I'd go with the full one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2016

Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2016 are being accepted 5 Dec 2015 - 9 Jan 2016. Please consider applying! To learn more about Wikimania 2016 scholarships, please visit: https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships To apply for a scholarship, fill out the application form on: https://scholarships.wikimedia.org/apply --Rosiestep (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Rosiestep: Any recommendations on what to say or fill out? Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Recommendations regarding the Wikimania scholarship application
Dear WiR:
First, applying for this scholarship is similar to the GMAT's Analytical Writing Assessment. This is no time to be sloppy or to assume anyone knows anything about you which isn't noted in your application. Be clear and be thorough in each section. This is about differentiating yourself from the X number of other applicants. So do a great job in explaining: 'why you?'. Second, I became a Wikipedian in 2007, but didn't apply for a Wikimania scholarship (and thankfully I received it) until 2015 because I suffered from Impostor syndrome. I thank AdaCamp and my wiki friends for helping me deal with this demon. Do not let IS silence you. Get over it. You are deserving. Apply! (P.S. As a member of the Wikimania 2016 Scholarship Committee, I will recuse myself from reviewing those scholarship applications where I would have a personal bias.) --Rosiestep (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting link. IS who knew it even had a name? If our plans go as scheduled, we will be in Europe at that time, but not able to attend the conference, as will be in another part of the continent. SusunW (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Members

Why has no one joined this project since September?--Ipigott (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I ever officially joined; I can try today, if you want me to test it out.Penny Richards (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I tried to join on Nov. 3 (according to my edit history) but never saw my name appear in the list.Alafarge (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I joined on December 2nd - here's my project card thing... not sure why it didn't register? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ninafundisha/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject_Women/Women_in_Red Ninafundisha (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This is indeed a problem. Seems that the sign up feature has been an issue from the beginning. @Ipigott, Harej, and Rosiestep: how do we fix it? SusunW (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Same here - I signed up since September and got my profile card but never showed up on the member list. how about changing the sign up procedure to allow members to add their own names to the list? Minor4th 19:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I manually invoked the update. The list should be updated. Why it was not covered by the automatic runs, I don't know. Also, I now have the membership lists updating every 5 minutes (was running every 30 before). Harej (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggested some time back that there was a problem with the membership feature. Can't we just revert to the normal registration procedure we use for all our editathons. That works. I would estimate our membership would have doubled by now if we hadn't been faced with these problems.--Ipigott (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Another point in favor of manual additions to list: If we wanted to change our "works on"/"needs help with" flags, it would be easier. I have no idea how one would do it under present system.Alafarge (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Harej for fixing the problem. But, as you can see, there are still issues. Do the membership list updates also move people from that "inactive" tab back to "active" automatically if someone edits? SusunW (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, SusunW, it should. Harej (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Harej: the "membership feature" has been an issue with some WiR editors since WiR's early days. It was important for Project X and for WiR to give the feature a chance and to see how it works over a period of time. But 4.5 months have lapsed and we're still having conversations about it. So, WiR is asking to opt out of the "membership feature" and allow editors to manually sign up. I'd recommend placing the "Meet our Members!" section (with names only and no photos as some editors may not be joining if they don't want to deal with images or comments about what they like to edit) between "Announcements" and "Events". Also, please remove the "Challenge" section as we've gone in a different direction and it's become superfluous. If making these changes would harm the programming you have in place, please let us know, but I'm hopeful WikiProject X can accommodate this request. As usual, thank you, James+team. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I have added edit buttons by each profile, and have checked each edit link and it works. You can see it in action on the members list. This is a quick fix; we are also working on a longer term solution that will allow signing up by hand while also reaping the benefits of the existing system (such as keeping the list up to date as people become active/inactive). Thank you all for your feedback. Harej (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Shortcomings of Wikidata

I have just been reading the excellent Signpost article "Whither Wikidata" by Andreas Kolbe on a host of problems associated with Wikidata. As many of us are constantly being urged to include key biographical details in boxes so that they can be included in Wikidata, I think it would be useful for you all to read about the associated risks. I am particularly concerned that once the data reach Wikidata, although they may be tagged as coming from Wikipedia, there is no longer any clear reference to sources. While I do not usually add boxes to the articles I create myself, I frequently check those in articles created by others. Over the past couple of months, I would guess that I have corrected 20 or 30 errors in the boxes included in our biographies. Many result from people simply copying boxes from one article to another without checking that all the fields have been corrected. At worst, the result can be that one person's name is substituted for another's, or one nationality for another, but there are also frequently errors in the dates of birth and death (sometimes just typos) or in the occupations, places of study, etc. Once data from a box is automatically picked up by bots for Wikidata, it becomes public domain and can be used freely by Google, Microsoft and anyone else. There are cases where even the most blatant errors remain without detection. It seems to me there should be additional safeguards both to protect the sourcing and to allow editors to double-check the information transferred and correct any mistakes (but that would no doubt require substantial reprogramming and reorganization). Anyway, even if you don't have time to read Kolbe's article from beginning to end, please have a quick look at the introduction. And in future, please make sure all the information in your boxes is correct.--Ipigott (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ipigott This has always been an issue and will always continue. Humans make errors. Available information changes. Data without the sourcing to double check it is pretty useless, IMO. And the whole discussion on vandalism is another aspect. Beyond my understanding. SusunW (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

SusunW You may be right in some respects but we don't need to take a defeatist attitude. Wikipedia has certainly benefited from more careful attention to sourcing. This should not simply be abandoned in the case of Wikidata. Errare humanum est is indeed the age-old refrain but it goes on "perseverare autem diabolicum" (to continue, however, is diabolical). We should therefore do what we can to undertake improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ipigott I totally agree. My comments were more on the sarcastic side, why would they even think of creating something that did not have controls and rechecks? I repeatedly find that even though I am quite obsessive about detail, that I read what I thought I wrote, rather than what I actually said. Read, re-read, read again is my motto. ;) SusunW (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

SusunW While I don't think just the two of us should dominate this discussion, if you read Kolbe's article in full, you will probably conclude, like me, that the reason Wikidata got off the ground so quickly was that it received substantial financial support from both Google and Microsoft. Kolbe believes Wikidata has brought about significant bottom line improvements for both companies and deplores the dual role of one of the key players who influences decision making not only on Wikidata but primarily on Google. What more needs to be said? Make the whole thing public domain and snatch up everything you can! Drive as many searches as you can away from Wikipedia to Google itself. Sad but true.--Ipigott (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Charles Matthews has done a lot of great work on wikidata.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks. I know Andreas, have talked to him at some length in a Cambridge pub, and believe I know where he is coming from. He has done some research on Wikidata, and replied to a rather fulsome op-ed that preceded this one in the Signpost. We call this "journalism". Innumerable pieces in this general vein have appeared down the years about Wikipedia, on average rather worse researched than this, and with a few grains of truth in them. Now we have one about Wikidata.

I have replied in the Signpost comments, to the effect that the Google etc. omigod stuff is overcooked. Google have now retired their Freebase, so that is an exit strategy rather than anything else.

The referencing issue is the thing worth discussing. One of the things I have been busy with on Wikidata is items for Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB) items: so that there are now over 58,000 items with links to the ODNB. One outcome of the project was an estimate, around 2,300, for women with ODNB identifiers who are not covered here in the English Wikipedia. Lists can be generated, the items contain info that can be checked (by those with ODNB access) via the external link on the item.

This for me explains what it is all about. Asking about these women was a natural question, given that the old Dictionary of National Biography women are now well covered here (found a missing one recently). Wikidata is the right place for these investigations, since it consolidates so much biographical data. The naysaying is what wikis go through, because they are work in progress. Heard a lot of it down the years.

Charles Matthews (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Charles Matthews for these useful comments and for contributing to better sourcing of data about women covered by ODNB. What worries me is that Wikidata seems to be rapidly evolving into some kind of authority file, although it is in fact being compiled essentially by ever more sophisticated bots. As there is no requirement for the data to be accurately sourced, there must be a real danger data from articles in any of the many languages covered by Wikipedia (particularly details from infoboxes) will be recorded in Wikidata and reused in other languages including English. Until now, we have all taken great care to verify sources. With Wikidata we may well be trapped into accepting unsourced data which at worst may simply be based on personal opinions or guesswork. Would it not be sensible to introduce features in Wikidata (e.g. colour-coding) which would allow users to distinguish between sourced and unsourced data?--Ipigott (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There are many dedicated Wikidata folks (@Magnus Manske comes to mind immediately, but there are others) working on the Wikidata issues. The sourcing issue won't be resolved over night, but the SP article was important as it's drawn attention to it. Remember, too, that Wikidata is young and it's evolving. It wants to get things right, just needs more hands and more brains working on all the moving pieces. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to help to get things right too but I have enormous difficulty in editing the site. That might be one of the reasons the referencing is so poor. Are any stats available on the number of Wikipedia editors who actually work on Wikidata? What is needed is a simplified interface allowing Wikipedian's to transfer their carefully sourced facts over to Wikidata. Adding such information to Commons is for some reason much simpler.--Ipigott (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be quite hard to define, that is actual work on Wikidata. I think Andy is quite active there. Anyway, there is project chat, where you can find those, who are really active at Wikidata. If you have some specific questions, I may answer them, maybe. Or you can ask them at the pointed project chat page. You can always play at sandbox. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for Women in Science

Hey, wanted to drop a recommendation from my Virginia Women list. The woman is Thelma Brumfield Dunn, a pathologist and medical researcher. She wrote The Unseen Fight Against Cancer, which was published in the 70s and is still used as a reference. Searching is unsurprisingly slow for her because she was pre-Internet (and let's be honest, there's a bias in coverage of women everywhere), but here's what I've found: Entry in this book, review in American Scientist. She seems to be widely considered an authority from what I can see. You might have to play around with her name to find everything, but here's what I found in a quick glance. I'm not overly familiar with where to search for medical related matter, so others may be able to find more. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll add her to the science list. Thanks! And feel free to add to the lists yourself if you wish. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)