This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
All: I am so sorry for the typo in this invitation: Clacissists vs. Classicists. Unfortunately, I don't know how to fix it once the MassMessage has been sent.
I think it's time to improve the process regarding sending out the monthly invitation -- we need more people to review it (plus the newly-created meetup pages and talkpage templates) than just the ones who have bookmarked the Women in Red schedule planning page, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#Firming up for February. Starting next month, one of us will put the request for review on this talkpage so that typos, etc. can be fixed early on. Having more eyes and hands involved with gnomish tasks such as this will really be helpful. Again, sorry; I feel really bad about the typo. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
No big deal, Rosie. Maybe the misspelling came from me. It wouldn't be the first time I've made the mistake.--Ipigott (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree, not a big deal. Thank you for sending out the message. The typo got by me too. I'm gonna fix it within the received message on my own talk page in an I am Spartacus kind of way. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Mea culpa. I saw it was indeed my mistake and that you actually corrected it in several of the clickables. So I'm really sorry for leading the project into elementary spelling errors. The problem is, once an error of this kind occurs, it can be copied around without further checking. Let's just hope that we'll see lots of classicists sign up as participants.--Ipigott (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I've fixed it on the overall edit-a-thon template and also on the #191 project page, as well as in the above message.--Oronsay (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Rosiestep My contribution was minimal compared with that of Ser Amantio di Nicolao who I thank for his great work on the typo fix in the February newsletter on all WIR members' Talk pages. Oronsay (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Thanks also from me for saving me any further embarassment - or should that be embarrassment? It's amazing what you can do with AWB. Tutto è bene quel che finisce bene, as you would say.--Ipigott (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ipigott:Ma certo - AWB is very useful for small fixes like this. No need to be embarrassed - I have often said that the chief reason my own edit count is as high as it is is because I'm constantly correcting my own typos and other errors. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
What has happened to our membership list?
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Rosiestep, Victuallers, Megalibrarygirl: The membership list Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Members normally accessible from our main WiR page has been transformed into lists of those who have participated in various editathons. Can anyone help to restore access to the basic membership list as I rely on this to monitor the addition of new members, etc.? As far as I can see, until it is restored, new members will not be able to register on the project.--Ipigott (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe this is a problem related to Project X. If so, MarioGom may be able to help out.--Ipigott (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott, this was a problem with a change at {{WPX participants box}} that broke its usage at WiR, WP:SOCIALISM and possibly other projects. I have restored a behavior similar to the previous one. SMcCandlish: I see your point for the change, and I have avoided to revert it completely, I have tried to do the minimum possible change to avoid breaking current WikiProject home pages. I think this is a change that needs to be agreed with people using this template in WikiProjects so that we can avoid generalized breakage. --MarioGom (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Didn't break where I tested it, but sure, let's patch it up so it works right. The goal was to have it look for /Participants before /Members and default to the former as a redlink if both are missing. In the course of this, I've also discovered that the code cannot handle usernames that start with "*", and am working on a fix for it. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Username bug patched with {{urlencode}}, so User:*Yseut229* will now show up properly. I'm in touch with MarioGom in user talk about other stuff and avoiding glitches. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@MarioGom and SMcCandlish: Thank you both for the quick fix and other improvements. Everything now seems to be back to normal.--Ipigott (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
"India fifth largest market; focussed on meeting language needs, enhancing ease of access: Wikipedia"
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
In that article there a link to Wikipedia's 20th birthday on YouTube. If you were in any doubt that Wikipedia is not a project for women, just look at the presentations -- seven of eleven of them were made by women. And you'll also see from the birthday greetings at the end that Wikipedia's world language is definitively Spanish! I was really pleased to see that the event was hosted very professionally by Emna Mizouni, known to us as Emnamizouni, whose biography I created in August 2019.--Ipigott (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Gratitude
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Hi all, I have been editing for about a year and recently joined this project. Really want to give a public shout out to ipigott who has been just beyond amazing in helping me learn to navigate and giving feedback, and also to Megalibrarygirl and SusunW who have been very welcoming and who have sent a lot of interesting resources my way (all just this morning!).
As I am learning the ropes, I would be really grateful to hear ideas/feedback on how to make stronger initial showing for articles covering women in countries with limited online profiles. For the past week or two I have been writing about women for Papua New Guinea, since a page I wrote on the Westpac Outstanding Women Award has just entered its second week of debate after being nominated as an AfD. For example, many influential print magazines in PNG host their online presence on Facebook, or even Tripod, Angelfire, etc. Westpac also gives awards to women in other Pacific countries, and I find they really do identify seriously notable individuals. If I work off of their award lists, I am likely to keep needing domestic sources for these nations. However, I want to make sure any additions are really strong from the outset. Open to ideas! Thanks, Oughtta Be Otters (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Oughtta Be Otters As someone who focuses on the Caribbean (and Latin America) I totally agree that there is a general lack of understanding from WP editors about available sourcing, limited distribution of published material, limited on-line presence, or even how to determine if someone is a reliable expert even if the format in which they are communicating is substandard. (Last week someone removed an academic citation from an article because it was carried in wordpress. There was no understanding from the person who removed the citation that it is a hosting site and that one doesn't toss the source without evaluating it simply because the host often carries uncurated materials.) In many areas, there just are not funds to produce standardized materials that meet WP sourcing specifications. I have argued for years that we use the most reliable sources as identified by the communities, rather than a blanket one-size-fits-all definition.
I am not an advocate for doing away with sourcing, or even using uncurated sourcing, but rather looking at the context and assessing available sourcing relative to the place and the people involved. Academia has not focused on people who make up the bulk of the world in their collection of history and historical people and events. Thus, the same kinds of material are unlikely to be found for say Papua New Guineans and Brits or Americans. Doesn't mean there aren't sources, which are reliable, just that they are different. Fortunately, in some instances, like blogs or wordpress, you can use WP:RSSELF, which says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." In other words, cite your ref and at the end add a field like this "|postscript= . Self published source; however author has published [link to worldcat or google scholar, etc. "articles"] in curated publications on similar subject matter." SusunW (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Impressed by your Keep vote in that AfD, Oughtta Be Otters! I haven't worked a great deal outside developed countries, but was quite surprised recently to find I had to confirm when adding a blogspot site; in that case it was the official website of the (British) entity. If I were an inexperienced editor, I'd probably have backed off. SusunW's tip for using the postscript field is a good one. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe we have too many gray areas here in Wikipedia and it is too hard for new editors to know the what and where. They can't properly defend what they don't know and the encyclopedia is woefully inept in being able to point them to the proper places. If nothing is concrete and everything is in a constant state of flux then how do we know what standard to follow? It's why I think everything should, first, follow one set of rules. It can be different for different language wiki's but everything should follow those rules and those rules should be simple, concise and precise and not be allowed to contradict themselves in what it allows and doesn't allow. Only then can you properly evaluate where the issues are and can address them with meaningful changes that will allow for growth and inclusion. When we have to go to five different pages and one says this but the other says something different and a third contradicts the other two and four and five say next to nothing valuable then you have editors either giving up because they can't learn the convoluted processes, or as one experienced editor called "the unwritten rules" here or they simply don't care and write whatever ignoring the rules and plowing ahead with no concern for sourcing or they get beat down every time they see an article go to AfD and some pass and some fail on the same merits because there is no set standard and no hope of getting one and no real tangible way to defend or prosecute an article. Everything becomes whimsical. --ARoseWolf 21:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
It's funny to think but there is one rule where I live...treat everything as if it is trying to kill you. LoL It seems like a very dark way to go through life but it really isn't. It's precisely the truth and very liberating. It allows for me to see the beauty in what is around me and have a very deep and healthy respect for land and animal and the spirit within each. Precise and concise rules give you the ability to see what direction you need to move in. It sets a bar by which you can tell where you are versus where you want to be. Btw, today was a successful day. I am still here. LoL --ARoseWolf 21:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Like it or not, Tsistunagiska, the encyclopedia works by consensus interpretation of a complex, overlapping and at times even contradictory set of guidelines, where every editor uses their best judgement. Sometimes it works out well, other times not so much. It would be impossible to codify in any concise set of rules. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
As someone once said, "You can't change the whole world overnight!", but you can progress bit by bit. Discussions like this indicate we are moving in the right direction. In any case, I'm pleased to see that Westpac Outstanding Women Award and related articles are probably here to stay.--Ipigott (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Espresso Addict We will have to agree to disagree on that. I know we can be concise and we can follow it we just don't have the will to follow anything concrete because it may mean not having or removing subjects we like, even if temporarily so we can actually have a better gauge of where we need to improve. Without that measure we are fumbling around in the dark hoping we are actually making a difference but with no real gauge we don't really know how much of an impact we are having and where we need to shift more emphasis to. There should never be "unwritten rules" when dealing with something as important as this encyclopedia. I take this very serious and want it to improve but we have no baseline by which to gauge it because the rules are a constantly moving target. --ARoseWolf 16:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Talk:Bralessness, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. gnu57 20:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
A reminder for Holocaust Day
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Good to see they are now all blue. Thanks, Nattes à chat for arranging this successful event.--Ipigott (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Edit-a-Thon on the 27 th of January
Latest comment: 3 years ago25 comments4 people in discussion
Hi, On the occasion of the international Holocaust Remembrance Day on 27 January 2021, ELC, Queer Code and les sans pagEs are pleased to invite you to join them for an edith-a-thon with a special focus on 'Lesbians in the Holocaust', Jewish, Resistance fighters, asocials, Roma, Jehova Witnesses, people with disabilities, communists, anarchists and other categories of people persecuted by the Nazi regime.'
See here for more details https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Les_sans_pagEs/Lesbians*_during_the_Holocaust.
Hoping some people will join. Kind regards, --Nattes à chat (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
If some people are interested in setting up a en-Wiki page for the event please go ahead :)
Nattes à chat, This looks brilliant. Really looking forward to participating! Thank you for posting it here. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Lajmmoore:, I am looking for ressources for newbies to paste on the page on meta. Is there a efficient Women in red editathon page I can get inspired from? @Rosiestep: if you could help I would be extremely grateful. I have to run the training on thursday, and I usually do it in French :pNattes à chat (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Megalibrarygirl: pinging you too for help on this one (a "model" editathin or project page for newbies in english with a focus on gender gap of course} Nattes à chat (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Nattes à chat and thanks for stopping by. I saw this event being promoted on FB and thought it was a great idea. Can you clarify the scope? You mention "Lesbians in the Holocaust", but subsquentely, you mention many other categories "Jewish, Resistance fighters, asocials, Roma, Jehova Witnesses, people with disabilities, communists, anarchists and other categories of people persecuted by the Nazi regime". Once the scope is clearer, we might be able to pull togetheer additional resources. Also, thank you, Ipigott for finding those names on the New York Public Library website.
Thank you for all your responses! @Ipigott: I am adding the names i dont allready have on the working list. The scope is lesbians and jewish lesbians (in which we are including bisexual women, trans and non binary persons which were not mentionned at the time in these exact words). We have added the other categories because being a victim of the "Holocaust" is what we are targeting more broadly (some people may prefer to contribute on larger subjetcs and we wanted to make it clear that they can the focus of the day beinf Holocaust and LGBTIQ). I made a few SPARQL queries using these wikidata properties but came with virtually no results because it seems the data is not yet entered on wikidata. So I have started to get e few results.
https://w.wiki/vNd list of women victim of the Holocaust with place of detention and displaying sexual orientation when available
https://w.wiki/vNf list of women victims of the nazi regime dipsaying place of detention and sexual orientation when available
And @Rosiestep: thanks for the ressources! I am adding all this to the project page. Feel free to come and say hello I will send the zoomlink prerably over telegram or by mail to join the event. Nattes à chat (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Nattes à chat, I signed up and will watch for the Zoom link. I'll join/participate as time permits, e.g. time zone differences but certainly want to give my support. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Nattes à chat, for sharing these queries. From what I can see, most of these names have been covered on the EN wiki but Mary Punjer (covered as Mary Pünjer in French) and Elli Smula (well covered in German) both need articles in English. (I also see Henny Schermann needs an article in English.) Over the years, I have created quite a number of articles about women who were persecuted by the nazis or who died in concentration camps. Although I am not very keen about participating in Zoom events, I would be happy to help out by expanding on the articles created and perhaps creating one or two myself. Just drop me a line if you need assistance. I have not been able to find your list of redlinks. Perhaps you could provide us with a link or simply list those missing for English here. We should make sure that any remaining red links are added to appropriate redlists. Ilse Totzke (see [2]) looks as if she might be included.--Ipigott (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Ipigott: Than you again! I have made a table at the bottom of the project page where all articles arre listed on meta in different languages here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Les_sans_pagEs/Lesbians*_during_the_Holocaust#General_working_list_%28in_the_making%29.Given the short notice (less than 2 weeks I preferred to centralize on meta, the idea being each group can then set up a project page in their own languages. Peharps someone could set upo a en-wiki page (could we have it under women in red and have WIR participating?) like we did in french? That ould help a lot :). I'm adding your proposition and Henny Scherman on the list that I forgot Nattes à chat (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The table listing all articles is in theot section "General working list (in the making)"Nattes à chat (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott I can put you up on the dashboard and you dont need to connec to Zoom if you dont want to and maybe follo the articles created, correct them? Of course you can join if you wish (there will be a presentation from Queer code, it is a wonderful French association doing a work on women who loved women during WW2 see here (in French...). Anyway please feel free to add ressources on meta or to create an english page . Nattes à chat (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Nattes à chat: That's a really well presented list you have at the bottom of the page (although I am surprised to see it includes Anne Frank). Maybe it would be a good idea to add a list of redlinked women in each of the three language sections on your meta page. It looks to me as if the ones for English are Ruth Jacobsen, Mary Pünjer, Margarete Rosenberg (see [3]), Henny Schermann, Elli Smula, Ilse Totzke and Krystyna Zaorska. They could be entered as en:Ruth Jacobsen, etc., then people would see the red links which have turned blue.
Rather than creating a meetup page on the EN wiki, I think the best solution would be to announce the event on our main WiR page (done) and include a new item on this page on 26 January. Hope you agree with this approach.--Ipigott (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Great! Thank you! Nattes à chat (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)|
Hi @Ipigott: I cant show the redlinks because this list is generated from a script and pulling data from wikidata (so the red links in english are in fact "black links" as the list points to existing articles).For each received suggestions I created a wikidata entry, maiking sure the information about being a victtim of the Holocaust appears. Anne Frank is said to have beem atttracted to girls according to entries in her journal (it is referenced on the wikidata item as you have to source wikidata for sexual orientations). Her father, Otto Frank in the first edition omitted virttually all the sexual entries of her diary. Quite similar to Charlotte Salomon's father omitting the pages where she spoke about poisonning herr grand father (a story revealed by the New Yorker). Some women on that list are not jew, but suffered from repression (I tried to separate them and did not add "lesbian" in the wikidata desc). Nattes à chat (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Nattes à chat: They'll show up as redlinks here where most people will find them. I'll add them to the English section of your meta page, explaining that they'll change from black to blue when the biographies have been created. Thanks for the explanations on Anne Frank. I stand corrected. I don't think those passages were included in the version of her diaries I read about 60 years ago and they weren't publicized in the Anne Frank Museum in Amsterdam. I'm actually now working on an article about a non-Jewish Danish prisoner at Stutthof, Ragnhild Nikoline Andersen (1907–1990), whose crime was that she was a communist. Together with about a dozen other Danish women, she survived the war and subsequently wrote extensively about her experiences in Vi blev reddet denne gang]. Unfortunately for you it's all in Danish. There were many such non-Jews taken by the nazis but most of them are not widely recognized as most of them they did not become "victims" despite their dreadful treatment. They are therefore not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia! Even Ragnhild Andersen might run into deletion problems on the EN version but I'll try to include as many valid sources as possible. I fully support your efforts to get at least a few more included and will follow developments on the 27th with great interest.--Ipigott (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
That is why precisely we will not stop to "jewish lesbians" but have included people who suffered from the nazi regime. This article could be translated too, I guess.As well as tthis one 2 and all articles in this category : 1Nattes à chat (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi I want to thank all the persons from Women in red who actively helped yesterday and made this event a success! Particurlarly @Lajmmoore, Rosiestep, and Ipigott: who helped a lot before and during the event ! You rocked! There are two pages that need reviewing before being published if anyone can help further Draft:Ovida Delect and User:Platywiki/sandbox from @Platywiki and Fifthcoastbobcat: (thanks to them also for their engagement yesterday!). Nattes à chat (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Nattes à chat, Rosiestep, Ipigott Hi All! It was such a fun event! The page for Ovida Delect got accidentally published by Fifthcoastbobcat, so it the last few seconds of the editing session I moved it to draftspace Draft:Ovida Delect, since I didn't know if you could move things back to sandbox. (I know it's not "right" but I panicked a bit!) They are really keen to keep working on it, so I thought I'd send them an email with suggestions to get it ready to be in the mainspace as it does need quite a lot of work. Thanks all! I really enjoyed the event and have my eye on a couple of pages to continue working on over the weekend. Let me know if you need support again and I'll be prepared! Lajmmoore (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Nattes à chat for encouraging us all to help you along with this. It was quite something to have 50 listed participants (although from what I can see there were considerably more). I see you and your colleagues created an extensive version of Ruth Jacobsen in French which I will use as a basis for expanding the EN version. And thanks to our new contributor Haggeluh, we also have Krystyna Zaorska. Over the course of the next few days, I'll try to make a start on the remaining redlinks in English. I started to work on Draft:Ovida Delect but it needs a lot more attention to sourcing and in-line referencing and about half the text looks like a machine translation. I'll try to get back to it later. Please let me know if I can help with anything else.--Ipigott (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott, Nattes à chat I've added pages for Henny Schermann and Mary Pünjer now! I'm also working on a page for Le convoi des 31000 Draft:Convoy of 31000 but I think I might have bitten off more than I can chew - primarily I'm not a french speaker and I'm not sure how the convoy would be referred to in English? If you could help with that I'd be very grateful. Thanks! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Lajmmoore, that's all a great help. We generally call them "deportation convoys" or simply "deportations". See, for example, [4]. As I'm fluent in French (and other European languages), just let me know if you need any further assistance. For the title in English, I suggest you either keep "Convoi des 31000" or call it "Nazi deportation convoy of the 31000s".--Ipigott (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott, Thanks very much - I'll use Convoi des 31000 - when I was looking at sources it seems like English sources use that too. Cheers Lajmmoore (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello Ipigott would you be able to take a look at the convoy article Draft:Convoi des 31000 at some time and just double check it reads OK? I'm not as experienced in writing about the Holocaust as many others, and I was working from a machine translation from the French article. I think it's OK, but if possible a second look would be very kind to make sure I've not made any major mistakes. Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Lajmmoore: Yes, of course. I'll look at it tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Prolific translator. Hard to tell if she's notable because a WP:REFBOMB went off. Can someone try to identify the WP:THREE best sources? ~Kvng (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The article looks rather suspicious to me. It is all the creator has ever worked on.--Ipigott (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
There's only a single ref which looks half-decent, being CM Palaniswami presents literary awards to Tamil scholars, in which she along with ~10 others receives a regional government annual award. There's a very short interview in another link. The rest reference her book work &c. It's clearly a very highly promotional article, about to be declined again. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Tagishsimon, thanks for taking a look. It has not been resubmitted so it is headed to WP:G13 not a decline. ~Kvng (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I've resubmitted it. It is worth at least keeping around. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Shirley Toulson
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
A relative of Shirley Toulson suggested her as an article subject at the Teahouse. I got curious and hacked together this draft. She seems clearly notable but I cannot find much beyond the Guardian and Telegraph obituaries. The Guardian called her "a highly regarded poet and an innovative writer about Britain’s walks, ancient tracks and traditions." If anyone can find more sourcing it is appreciated. Possibly (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
This book has a chapter discussing her work, if someone can get access to it beyond the snippets from Google books. Ecofeminism in DialogueIdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
added a ref to that discussion of Toulson. Since the discussion there is confined to one short story, I didn't unbalance the page with much detail. Dsp13 (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone have a copy of The Feminist Companion to Literature in English (ISBN9780713458480)? The Wikidata item for Toulson (Shirley Toulson (Q20886720)) cites page 1088 for some biographical details about her. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Is anyone able to turn up one more source to help establish notability for this subject? See Draft talk:Elizabeth Waterhouse for details and current status. ~Kvng (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Lots of Dead Links due to Library of Congress http->https change in permalink
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have been working on dead links and I noticed that there are a lot related to a change made at the Library of Congress where they switched to HTTPS from HTTP. Is this the right place to ask if someone could make a simple bot to automate the fixing of this? They are marked as dead links, and are trivial to fix. They have the form [5]. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
@IdRatherBeAtTheBeach: The link works fine for me, just redirecting to the HTTPS version. Unless the links are failing for you, or they're being tagged with{{dead link}}, there's no real need to mass-fix them. If you do want to mass-fix them, you can ask Bender235 to have Bender the Bot migrate them. Vahurzpu (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Vahurzpu. Yes, these links are tagged as dead, and the articles are showing-up on the dead-link clean-up list. Probably not the highest priority, but it would be nice to get it taken care of, if it's a fairly easy thing to do. Thank you for the pointer to someone who might help. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Did you know that...
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
...with 71 articles about women, by 19 January 2021 DYK had more of them than in any full month in 2020?--Ipigott (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Woo! And I count at least seven more in the prep/queue that will post before the end of the month. Off to a strong start for 2021—thanks for this good news Ipigott! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Innisfree987,Ipigott Whoa! That's really cool! I wonder if we can top that for Women's History Month in March. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
A good opportunity to say that if anyone wants help preparing a DYK, I’m happy to lend a hand! (It’s easier than it looks at first glance.) Innisfree987 (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
On the 27th, we reached 100! An all time record.--Ipigott (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hooray! Wow. It must be partly due to the new 12-hour windows but still this is great to have so much new, high-quality content! And for it to get a day in the sun! Innisfree987 (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Also come to think of it, moving to 12-hour windows is the result of so many good contributions. Well done all! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
In the end, the total for January was 116, almost twice as many as the monthly average for 2020. We've had 12-hour windows in past years Innisfree987, but they have never had such a beneficial effect as now. If people keep submitting to DYK, then there's a good chance they'll be maintained.--Ipigott (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you!
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello all! A lovely surprise happened and I was nominated Editor of the week, and the very kind nomination by Alarichall references the volunteering to I do for this project. I just wanted to say a big thank you because I'm certain that without the community this project creates, I wouldn't have stayed on editing and I certainly wouldn't have found it as straight forward as I have to include women from around the world in my edits. So thanks very much everybody! Lajmmoore (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Well deserved! And yes, the community here is a very sustaining thing. Thanks to all those who put in effort to keep WiR going. Dsp13 (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
And in the middle of it all, Lajmmoore, you ambitiously created the lengthy, detailed Convoi des 31000 on the basis of the French version, not to mention new articles on the Holocaust lesbians and resistance fighters Mary Pünjer, Henny Schermann and Louise Magadur, as well as the biographies of Dania Ben Sassi, Mervat Seif el-Din and Nthabiseng Mokoena (archaeologist) in just the past few days. Looking at [6], I see you have created almost 200 women's biographies over the past 15 months, most of them Start, C or B class. And just look at all those DYKs on your talk page! Quite astonishing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
wiki-women-design
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! No idea if this project was already mentioned here? It is aimed at the Dutch-language Wikipedia, but perhaps it is of interest here as well. Wiki-women-design aims to improve wiki-coverage of important but overlooked female Flemish designers. It has been in the news a few times, including this weekend [7] and two weeks ago [8]. Fram (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Towards the end of each month, two or three of us work quite intensively on firming up our priorities for the following month. These are based above all on the suggestions made on our Ideas page or on contacts with other initiatives. In preparing for February, there were practically no new suggestions with the result that our present priorities are based on the project's history and Classicists, a suggestion I made myself after seeing the enthusiasm of editors working on the topic. Once our priorities have been agreed, we then need to create the meetup pages with the corresponding banner templates, adapt the "clickables" on relevant pages, and add the new priorities to the Women in Red template and our Events page. This is not difficult but it requires time and great attention to detail. Recently we have experienced banner templates pointing to the wrong item and even spelling mistakes. It would certainly help if more enthusiasts were involved in all this: suggesting ideas for future priorities, including general improvements to our project; preparing the meetup pages, and above all checking things through before invitations are sent out.
It would be useful if those interested in assisting with these tasks could let us know here, explaining which aspects they think they could help with. On the basis of responses, we could then put together a few user names to be systematically included in relevant communications. It looks to me that if we could have a dependable group of six or seven, things could be significantly improved. We are of course always happy to welcome more contributors to our Ideas page, especially if they can come up with interesting suggestions. (cc Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl)--Ipigott (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy to volunteer as an extra pair of eyes to check things through before they go out. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
IdRatherBeAtTheBeach, Ipigott I'd be happy to help with any of the above! I'm not especially good at new ideas, but I'd be happy to help with pages, etc. if someone can talk me through what to do Lajmmoore (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello,
As a community liaison of Wikimedia Switzerland for English language participants, I'd like to inform you and invite you to an editathon centered on women scientists that EPFL will be holding on February 11th, 2021, from 2PM to 7PM (time of Bern). Non-beginners can pop in from 3:15PM on. Here is the project page (on meta)
As the date corresponds to the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, I understand the participants to this WikiProject are likely to be busy already, but we would be happy to have them join us if they would like to.--Flor WMCH (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Board Ratification of Universal Code of Conduct
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
m:User:María Sefidari, chair of the WMF Board of Trustees, announced today that it has unanimously approved a Universal Code of Conduct for the Wikimedia projects and movement. The announcement has info regarding enforcement planning, etc., and ends with "Today, we celebrate this milestone in making our movement a safer space for contribution for all." --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
High-Impact Topics and Content Gaps
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The WMF Movement Strategy core team will be facilitating a call -a conversation starter- this Friday regarding "High-Impact Topics and Content Gaps". As this topic aligns with the scope of Women in Red, it may interest several of you. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Brief description: cross-cutting cluster of initiatives prioritized by many communities and affiliates as a way to identify high-impact topics and address content gaps that exist in the movement.
Agenda: thinking of objectives for the year ahead; interested people; needed resources
Thanks for keeping us informed, Rosiestep, but with your involvement together with the participants from WikiDonne, it looks as if the need for more action on covering women is well represented. I was interested to see WMF has plans to employ reference librarians, some with language knowledge, to help with sourcing. Some of our members might be interested.--Ipigott (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Actually, it would be better if the Women in Red community spreads out the workload and gets involved with this. New perspectives and new energy are welcome and needed. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Mulher 500 Anos Atrás dos Panos
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Found this site while looking for something else: a list of the women covered by the project is here, if I understand the Portuguese correctly. There appears to be at least a brief biography for each one listed. Cursory searching turns up at least a handful in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Regardless, it appears interesting, and looks like it could be quite useful. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Muito obrigado! As an initial step I'll start adding some of these names to Wikidata if they're not there already. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
"The Women of Wikipedia Are Writing Themselves Into History"
Latest comment: 3 years ago20 comments11 people in discussion
Very cool! Mathglot (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Great article. I like the picture of the four of you together. I hope it encourages more women to join. Two things that hit me though: the statement that the percentage of women editors is stagnant (when the time period under examination was between 2017 and 2018) and that Encarta was bulky (on a DVD???). I think one of these days, it might be worthwhile examining what proportion of the members of Women in Red are women and what proportion of its articles are created by women editors. My impression is that our women members are becoming increasingly active. I also keep seeing that many articles (like this one) in connection with Women in Red refer to the fact that the majority of Wikipedia editors are not only men but white (as if that is some kind of crime). It makes me feel increasingly guilty and no doubt worries other keen contributors. It might be useful to point out to those who have not followed its history that Women in Red was the result of a proposal of one such white male and that ever since it started, white males have been among its most enthusiastic supporters and contributors. But that's not to say I am not in favour of more women participants and contributors: every day, my first priority is to encourage more and more of them to join up.--Ipigott (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I do wonder whether that 90% male editors figure is correct; I know several women on the 'pedia (including myself) edit under gender-neutral pseuds and don't formally state that they are women. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been confused by that figure as well. I've seen it in a few places but … how was it arrived at? Very few editors disclose their gender, and those that do do not often do it in a machine-readable way. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I was also curious; here’s the 2018 Community Insights survey/study at Meta. I see no obvious red flags that make me doubt the findings—at first I thought they were using editor pronouns, but it seems they did a survey with reasonable good methods. I do note the slightly depressing empty space left where the “Next steps” section was meant to go... Innisfree987 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Innisfree987. I notice that the %age at en-wiki was higher (13.6%) but only 88 respondents: not the largest of samples! Espresso Addict (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Well spotted. And especially for things like year over year changes, I don’t think it’s sensitive enough to capture difference. But, given en-wiki’s % is reasonably close to overall findings, I would not guess a larger sample would be radically different—but it’s true that’s just a guess. I wish I could see an easy way to set up an informal poll, but without the assistance of WMF, everything I can think of is too easily manipulable. Love to hear ideas if others can see a good way to get more data though. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
There have been a great number of attempts to fix a gender % over the years, using somewhat different methods, but all imperfect, and the results have all fallen into the rough 87% to 92% range, so 90% is an ok figure to use. There are arguments that proportionately edits by women are more likely to add text than those by men (fiddling with formats etc), but that's another story. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I recall seeing 15% for en-wiki, but I may have seen 13% and rounded it up in my head. My impression, as a woman who's edited around here for coming up 15 years now, is that content-producing editors and perhaps admins fall a tad above that level, but I might be mistaken. In the early days (pre-rollback) there was, as I recall, a bit of a division between content producers and vandal fighters, with the latter being skewed male. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes - these days it's short descriptions, citations, geolocation, and (with the exception of User:Jane023) Wikidata, whose users I'd bet are even more hugely male. There may have been a 15% figure somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Indeed! I'd add debating in project space which imo is dominated by male-sounding voices. I do wonder if some conflict-averse editors, perhaps enriched for women, contribute content because, paradoxically, it's a relatively quiet backwater where hardly anyone bothers you very much. That's certainly been my experience – delete an article/decline to do so, edit the main page, pop one's head up in a debate, and suddenly one can't concentrate for notifications; but add new articles on relatively unpopular topics and no-one so much as notices... Espresso Addict (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Thanks for the ping, and yes I would agree Wikidata is slightly more skewed male than Wikipedia, but not by much. I work on paintings and that overlaps with Commons where lots of heritage institution contributors skew female, so I think I see a slightly higher balance of females to males just in my immediate circle of known Wikidata contributors. That said, many female Wikidata editors tend to be the "upload once and forget about it" types, and it's still a mystery to me why I myself stuck around all these years, despite insults and threats on talkpages. For some reason I have never felt truly threatened, but I did grow up with four brothers, so maybe I have always been skeptical of all verbal or written threats. Jane (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we'll every really know the % because surveys are inherently flawed. For example, there's the 2018 Community Insights survey mentioned erlier. Did every Women in Red member receive the survey link? Did everyone who received the survey link complete the survey? Did everyone who completed the survey answer the "gender" question (which may have been "optional" rather than mandatory)? Did everyone who answered the "gender" question respond truthfully, e.g. outing themselves? I've heard Katherine multiple times refer to higher numbers, 15-20%, and that might actually be more accurate. But again, we will never know the real % because so many women/nonbinary editors don't want to out themselves. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Identification of women editors on WiR
This has been an interesting discussion. As a footnote, I would like to suggest that if we can find the time over the next month or two, it might be useful to monitor the proportion of women vs men who have become active members of Women in Red over the years. I am pretty convinced the proportion of women has been rapidly increasing over the past year or two, thanks in part to many new user groups, wikiprojects and similar initiatives with an emphasis on women. In particular, women seem to be far more active in creating new articles and adding content than was previously the case. I fully understand why so many women have chosen user names which do not reveal their gender but since the threat of harassment has now significantly dropped, more and more seem simply to be registering with their own names or variations thereof. Many even include photographs on their user pages or on the WiR membership list. It would certainly help if more women editors could identify their gender on their user pages with Category:Female Wikipedians (and related subcats) or by including suitable user boxes. Maybe the reason there are not more of these is that new users have never been specifically invited to add such categories. Perhaps it's time to initiate a "MeToo" approach to Women in Red, not just for LGBT but for female vs male? What do you think?--Ipigott (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I've added it, though I don't believe I've ever been a formal member of WiR. I'd comment that the blinding pink of the userboxen is more than a bit off-putting. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Current WMF measurement
"Hot dang! Our preliminary data show that participants who identify as women in @Wikipedia increased by 30% this past year. Still far too low, but really promising!" - Katherine Maher
"The latest data says 15%, but we're still crunching confidence intervals. Still, statistically and directionally significant!" - ditto
Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Is this photo of Madame Sul-Te-Wan a good candidate for restoration? I stumbled across it while leafing through The Negro Trail-Blazers of California, an excellent public domain resource for Black American biographies. I don't know what's involved in restoring photos, but this one seemed to be of excellent quality already so I thought I'd ask. There are a few more scans of the book online which might give better versions of the photo. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Great find! I can (and would be very happy to) remove the specks on the image, but if the hope is to improve on the lightened area on her right jawline and neck, that is a real challenge (and maybe original to the negative). Maybe there is a professional art restorer at the image workshop who’s able though? After that, there’s not a great deal more to do, since it is in such good shape to start. Did you see a better version AleatoryPonderings? Yours was the best one I could find. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Innisfree987, I think you're right that the one I (picked at random and) uploaded to Commons is probably the best; other OK versions are [9] (high contrast and dark) and [10] (pretty washed out). As for the restoration: honestly, I've just seen references to the process around the wiki, but am not super sure what it involves. I'd welcome the removal of any imperfections that could be taken out without too much trouble. Unfortunately, unless the negative is preserved in some archive somewhere, I think we're stuck with an image of a reprint … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I hadn’t seen Adam’s work until Tagishsimon’s ping, but the results are really impressive (click over to their user page to enjoy). I could improve the image somewhat but I’d be curious to see what Adam is able to do, if it’s not inconvenient. (But also I’m happy to do what I can.) Innisfree987 (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Madame Sul-Te-Wan - Negro Trail Blazers of California restore2 Ok Adam’s work inspired me to take a pass at it—I don’t have my full complement of tools so it’s not everything I’d hope but a draft, for what it’s worth. I remain interested to see what Adam could do, if different enough to warrant spending the time. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
IMO very good; much better than it was. I see detail which previously was washed out. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The biggest issue as things stand is probably the quality of the original scan; Archive.org seem to use pretty heavy compression on images and always look all smeared to me. If we can find a different book scan on a different site, we might end up better off. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 10:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I fear it may be lost to history, but the title page of Negro Trail-Blazers says that it's based on records in the Bancroft Library. It looks like a photo that would have been produced by her film studio, but perhaps the original negative found its way there? An email to their archivist might turn something up. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I’d guess that outside a book or exhibition project, a new print from a historic negative is probably very long odds, but the library probably knows if they have the original print and, if we happen on the right person, maybe a high-quality reproduction of that? I’m not sure—others here probably know how things roll in rare books libraries better than I do. At minimum it couldn’t hurt to ask about it in case such a reproduction already exists. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Millie Bailey, a trailblazing centenarian, World War II veteran, civil servant, and community volunteer turned 103 today! I started the article in October, as part of the BLM/Anti-discrimination editathon. Happy Black History Month! TJMSmith (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Hi folks, I made an article for the academic Francesca Coppa, trying out doing references in a list at the bottom (and incidentally not using reference templates, because I am so tired of people fiddling around with them), and it looked fine in my sandbox but now has a great "Cite error: A list-defined reference has no name (see the help page)" at the bottom which I cannot fathom. Can anyone see what I'm missing? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the one after "coppa_muhlenburg" isn't named. PamD 06:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
{{Broken ref}} is designed to not show in the User namespace which is probably why it looked deceptively fine in the sandbox. DanCherek (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, PamD, DanCherek -- I think sometimes one gets to the point one just can't see it for looking at it. I hadn't realised that the error checking didn't operate in user sandboxes; I wonder why not? I can't be the only person who still uses them for article development. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Team Sandbox here too! Apparently it's been debated over the years and they've gone back and forth, with some people getting confused about ref errors popping up on their non-sandbox user pages... DanCherek (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the link DanCherek; I wonder if there's any way of running it only on userpages named sandbox or something similar. I've been recommending newbies draft in their sandbox for years now (to avoid the terror of G13) without realising that there was a big drawback. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: I think that's a great idea, though I have no idea about the technical aspects. And would something like that go through WP:VPR first? Best, DanCherek (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@DanCherek: Me neither on whether it's technically feasible. I think it would have to be proposed the Pump, yes. What do others here think? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, plenty of userspace drafts are under names other than "Sandbox": If I'm drafting in userspace myself I'll create a new subpage for it, rather than use the sandbox. That way if I decide to move the page to mainspace rather than copy-and-paste it (eg if someone else has found there way there and made a constructive edit, or if for some other reason the edit history seems interesting and worth preserving), it won't have the entire history of the sandbox behind it. I only draft in userspace if I feel like getting on with one of next month's WiR topics and don't want to put it into mainspace till the first of the month: otherwise I like to create a well-sourced notability-establishing single sentence stub in mainspace right at the start with an {{under construction}} template, just in case someone else happens to start work on the same topic (or indeed an ambiguous title) while mine is in userspace. But yes, having the help of the reference-checking thing in userspace would be beneficial. PamD 09:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I always just move my drafts, which doesn't seem to preserve the old history (possibly because I can move without leaving a redirect?), but yes, a lot of people do give userspace drafts descriptive titles. I used to start in mainspace but retreated to avoid getting tagged or edit conflicting with bots and to allow myself to add things I still need to find sources for; I don't think I've ever been pipped (and some of my drafts have languished for 2 or 3 years!) but I don't work from the redlink lists and a lot of my topics are pretty obscure.
I'm mainly thinking it would benefit complete newbies who I've often directed to just clicking on their "sandbox" link. Perhaps an opt-in might work for things that aren't obviously drafts? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sandbox Organiser
A place to help you organise your work
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially for people who write new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
@Rosiestep: an important reminder and... "Wikipedia at 25: How Women in Red succeeded in closing the gap!" – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Interesting presentation. I've added it to our Press page. Maybe you could involve the authors more closely in our future planning. Do they have Wikipedia user names? There's a link to announcements about their last editathon here and further background here. But apparently it was cancelled. Theredproject helped to organize earlier editathons.--Ipigott (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott, I wasn't involved with the story, and I don't have a relationship with the folks at the Rochester Institute of Technology, but (from a video I saw recently) I think at least one of the RIT folks belongs to Wikimedia New York City. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
As the article was originally published in The Conversation, I've updated the Press page accordingly. In fact, it was first published in 2018 and updated 14 January 2021. Please revert if this is not helpful. Oronsay (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Oronsay: Thanks for adding this detail. It would be interesting to find the original article but I have not been able to. The title has no doubt been updated too.--Ipigott (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Oronsay: On further investigation, I found that the article was originally titled "Why Wikipedia often overlooks stories of women in history". That title is still listed on our Press page for March 2018. Unfortunately the version from The Conversation has now been updated to reflect the new version but the original text can still be found on Yes! as Why Wikipedia often overlooks stories of women in history.--Ipigott (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: at the time the article was first published, women were 17.5%. Now they are 18.71%. (That's clearly not the only measure of progress we can imagine, but it's a simple and generally understandable one, and I appreciate its ongoing visibility on this page.)Dsp13 (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
It's great that they're doing this work, but I'm concerned that the article says "An obituary in a paper of record is often a criterion for inclusion as a biographical entry in Wikipedia." Where would that myth about notability criteria have come from? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
One obit probably wouldn't do it, but two or more obits, especially if either or both is in a paper of record, seems a fine metric for passing GNG. Doesn't look like a myth to me. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think my interpretation of the statement is different from yours. From the context, given what the rest of the paragraph says, it doesn't sound to me as if they mean "an obituary is one type of source you can use". It sounds to me as if they mean "an obituary in a paper of record is required." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
First women in parliament
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Hello. I've spent the last year researching a list of the first female members of parliament by country (plus writing around 400 of the linked bios). I had hoped to publish it as a complete list, but after exhausting various channels (including national WikiProjects), have admitted defeat (not helped by not having access to libraries for the last eleven months) and moved the list into article space.
I have got the list to a point where there are 18 countries with no entry (as both the year and names are unknown) and 19 listed with partial information (year and some or no names). If anyone is able to assist, I have listed the status of the incomplete entries on the talk page. I came across much conflicting information while doing the research (I think four different people were reported to be the first woman MP in the Cook Islands), but there is one case that still has me puzzled: São Tomé. An election was held in July 1975, in which one woman (Maria Augusta da Silva) was elected. However, the only source I have found stating who the first women MPs in the country were lists six women who were appointed to parliament five months later. It may be that the body elected in July was not a legislature – it was just for writing a constitution, or it might be that she was overlooked (the book frequently omits women elected to legislatures prior to independence). Anyway, if anyone is able to assist in completing the missing names and dates, that would be great. Cheers, Number57 20:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Number 57: Thanks for the tremendous effort you've put into this but just looking at Denmark, I think some adjustments will be necessary.--Ipigott (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what the issue is with Denmark. Nine women were elected in 1918 according to the source used and the Danish parliament website, and they're all listed. Number57 22:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Number 57: Only four were elected to the national parliament or Folketing on 22 April 1918: Karen Ankersted, Helga Larsen, Elna Munch and Mathilde Malling Hauschultz. These four were therefore the first. The others you list, Kirsten Marie Christensen, Nina Bang, Marie Hjelmer, Olga Knudsen and Inger Gautier Schmidt, were elected on 11 May 1918 to the Landsting or upper house. Perhaps you could include them under Notes. I could not access your source but you could perhaps draw on this from the reliable Kvinfo site. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Thanks for the explanation. The date of election is not the relevant definer in the list – it's when they took office and actually became an MP (there are a few examples of people being elected but not taking their seat (who are excluded from the main part of the list), or being elected in one year and being seated the next, who are listed in the year they took office). If the members Folketing was sworn in before the Landsting, then I agree only those four should be listed though, but if the whole parliament was sworn in on the same day, I think all nine should be listed. Cheers, Number57 13:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Whether or not we agree with your choice in this matter it would be sensible to explain in the article that the list is predicated on the date they took office, rather than the date on which they were elected. What may be obvious to you is not obvious to the reader in the current version. Given Ipigott's point, perhaps the large empty cell to the right of the list of Denmark people could be used to explain that four of them were elected before the other five. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I was going to suggest exactly the same thing. But to answer Number 57's query, the parliament - then known as Rigsdagen consisting of the Folketing and the Landsting - was officially opened by King Christian X on 28 May 1918, i.e. after both elections. See [11]. So there is indeed a case for listing all nine even though only four of them are generally considered to be the first to be elected to the Folketing (which still exists today while the Landsting was abolished in 1953).--Ipigott (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks both, I have added notes to this effect. Number57 14:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi everyone! I started an article for Julia Chinn, who an enslaved woman owned by Richard Mentor Johnson, who became Vice President. However sources report that he treated her as his legal wife and treated their daughters the same. I'd appreciate it if a couple of people could a) take a look at it for netutrality and b) perhaps add it to their watch lists - there's just been an article in the Washington Post about her (which I am struggling to access) and its clear from the reversions that feelings might be running a bit high. Thanks in advance. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Lajmmoore, I’ll email you the article. I think it will be helpful/clarifying, as it comes down decisively on the side of, “As an enslaved woman, Chinn could not consent to a relationship.” Very interesting subject! Innisfree987 (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A friend asked me a few weeks ago if an author she knew, Lauren Fox, was notable enough for a Wikipedia article. My friend had asked me since she knew I was active on Wikipedia, so I looked around a bit online and responded to her with a "probably not". The thing is, most of my work here is improving existing articles, not creating more, so I am not proficiently familiar with the notability guidelines. I was wondering if anyone could agree with or refute my conclusion, here are some sources she's mentioned in: [12], [13], [14], [15]. You can see her books at Penguin [16]. Any insight would be appreciated. Best - Aza24 (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
As a novelist, the most likely path would be WP:AUTHOR and newspaper or genre-magazine reviews of her novels. My usual standard is that there should be multiple books with multiple publisher reviews. In her case, both publishersweekly.com and kirkusreviews.com have reviews, probably enough although they're both pretty indiscriminate. But a Google News search for her name (as an exact phrase) finds enough more to be convincing, including the NYT one you also linked (nearly enough by itself). So yes, she's notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Lillian Michelson
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I recently started an article for Hollywood reserch librarian Lillian Michelson. She is in the news recently for donating her incredibly important library to the Internet Archive. She has a fascinating life story! Thriley (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@Thriley: I put some effort in to expand it out. I hope that helps. :) Hmm...I wonder if this counts as expanding a stub despite being made two days prior. SilverserenC 05:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
For DYK you mean? I checked and yes you did 5x it, but it’s also new enough that you could still nominate as a new article with you both as authors. Just did that after a merge of Deborah Archer and Deborah N. Archer. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Anne Feeney, folk musician and activist, died yesterday. Her entry looks like it won’t be too hard to bring up to standard but I’m a bit flummoxed by the infobox image; I’m not finding anything hi-res enough to replace it but I’m not sure it can stay as is. Any thoughts? Thank you! Innisfree987 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
FWIW Innisfree987, I prefer the photo of her playing the guitar and think that looks better than the current infobox image. Both appear to be PD. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both, I really appreciate the input—I wasn’t sure whether it was an acceptable tradeoff but I’m glad to hear you both do and I agree, especially for a musician, it makes sense to show her playing the guitar. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I've swapped them. Looks much better. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all. The article needed a lot more work than I originally anticipated but she was on Main Page for about 10 hours last night and definitely the current picture is a great illustration of who she was! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wilson, one of the founding members of The Supremes, recently passed away and the entry needs a lot of sourcing but the available material on her shouldn’t be hard to come by. I am flagging a bit having done two RD entries already this week, so I’m throwing this one out in case someone summons the energy before I do! It should be a fun one to work on, I’m just sleepy! Innisfree987 (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Christine Muschik
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It looks like she may meet WP:PROF based on citation counts (multiple papers cited over 100 times) plus her Sloan and other academic fellowship awards. TJMSmith (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Another newly-created article on someone recently deceased, almost immediately thereafter tagged for notability, if anyone would like to have a look. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Image help?
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I've tried posting this on the Graphics lab on both en.WP and commons but the first request was archived without anyone taking it and the commons request has had no response in a week. I'm wondering if there is anyone involved in the project that can help create this GIF for a new featured article that is scheduled to run on the main page for March 8th? I think no one here will question that I don't have the technical skill to create what I'd like to have, but I'm hoping someone here does. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I can give it a shot later. I'll let you know how it goes! Best, DanCherek (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks DanCherek. Totally appreciate the help. SusunW (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Representative Women of New England
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In case you haven't come across it, a nice biographical dictionary in the public domain: Representative Women of New England. I was proofing a few pages on Wikisource and found at least one name I'm hoping to turn into an article; perhaps others will find some inspiration as well. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it possible to automatically add a list of references used in Wikidata to the Wikidata generated redlist tables?
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Hi all
I'm working on something that might help document many additional women on Wikidata, I've previously help collect data and added over 1000 new Icelandic women to Wikidata and I've been looking at the the list that is generated for Women in Red from this Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Iceland.
Looking at this list there are a lot of names, some of which are similar to each other and its hard to know who to prioritise to write new articles about. I think that having an extra column on the list which listed all the references used on Wikidata could really help people to prioritise people to write about and also know where to start looking for information. Is this possible? Is it easy to do? Maybe just as 1, 2, 3, 4 rather than bare URL to save space?
I think maybe Emijrp is the right person to ask but not really sure
@John Cummings: colour me unconvinced. I've implemented this in the Iceland list, albeit I'm too stupid/lazy to get the ref numbers to increment. Helpful at all? --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Tagishsimon: Yes this is super helpful for me at least, thanks very much. The numbers not going up is neither here nor there for me. I guess what it does is help prioritise creating new articles based on potential notability which could be useful especially in larger lists. John Cummings (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I really really like this! Dsp13 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
On a sample of 1, it takes about 2.5 times as long to run the with-refs report as to run the without. So it's not universally applicable b/c we have 60 seconds of processing time ... reports taking, err, 24s or more will fail if we implement this on them. I suspect there's scope for some beautification. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This is an interesting venture, particularly for me as I frequently write biographies of women from Iceland. Unfortunately, the vast majority of references point to Ísmús, a database of music history and ethnography, which in most cases simply lists the name of the individual with details of address and telephone number. In a few cases, there are also links to useful sources such as newspapers and magazines. When I write about Icelandic women, I nearly always find an Ísmús item but it does not usually assist with notability. It's rather a pity it's been used so widely in Wikidata but I suppose for many of those listed it's an easy source.--Ipigott (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
AfC: Draft:Dolaana Khovalyg
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! As my draft was denied in the AfC review, I am looking for advice how to make the article on Dolaana Khovalyg better, in order to get it through the review. Many thanks for helping with that! Kind regards, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
"Wikipedia at 25: How Women in Red succeeded in closing the gap!" – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
