Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 77

Archive 70

←

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

April 2020 at Women in Red

April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162 April offerings at Women in Red. Online events: New: Gender studies / Dance / Geofocus: Caucasus Photo and image campaign: #VisibleWikiWomen Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Editor feedback: Schedule planning at the Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

User:MrClog/sandbox3

Hello everyone. I've written a draft on Maria van Pallaes, a Dutch philantropist. I want to move it into the mainspace and turn it into a GA, so any feedback before I do so would be appreciated! --MrClog (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, MrClog. You have made a good start on this interesting article. I suggest you move it to mainspace now so that other editors can contribute to improvements. I'm happy to hear you are aiming for GA. The article still needs further improvement to reach that ranking. You could perhaps first look for other pertinent sources, for example by making a search of relevant Dutch and English literature. You could add more illustrations, e.g. File:Het hofje van de Kameren van Maria van Pallaes te Utrecht Centraal Museum 4366.jpg. I see you have drawn on this source but there seem to be additional details which you could include. The lead also needs to be expanded, summarizing all the essentials of the article. Then it should be carefully copy-edited by a native English speaker. Let us know when you have moved the article to mainspace and we'll try to help with further improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thanks for the feedback! I will move it to the mainspace in just a second. I have found out that the Utrecht Archives have at least two books with significant coverage of Van Pallaes. However, I cannot access them at the moment because tha archive's library is closed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Once they open up, I will expand the article's sources based on those books. --MrClog (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

MrClog: this may be of interest if you are good at reading old cursive script. And here is an introduction to her coverage in the Utrecht archives.--Ipigott (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I'm not able to decipher the notarial deed unfortunately. When I visit the Utrecht archives to use the books on Van Pallaes (once they open up again), I'll make sure to pre-arrange an appointment to look at the Foundation's records as well (of which you sent the introduction). --MrClog (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Healthcare

I know it’s been a while since we’ve done a Women in Healthcare meetup, but shouldn’t another be done with the current global pandemic taking place? I realize nurses can be lowly regarded as notable in the Wikiworld, but they really are holding the health of the world in their hands, and even those professionals listed here and here. — Wyliepedia @ 15:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I was pondering a similar idea, as reading Ōyama Sutematsu's bio. I wish we could acknowledge those professionals who support us when we feel most vulnerable, who know how to bridge the gap we face with medical terms and procedures we need to decide yes/no esp when we are so confused and scared.

Have you heard of flying nurses? About ten entries on wikidata. --Omotecho (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@CAWylie and Omotecho: Thanks for your interest in this important topic. We are probably going to focus on Coronavirus in May or June but in the meantime we would welcome new biographies of deserving women in healthcare. They can be listed under #1day1woman at any time. You can also help by expanding our crowd-sourced redlists on medicine and nurses.--Ipigott (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiGap Challenge – women active in human rights

Hi all! Maybe you have noticed the WikiGap Challenge we are running this year? Creating and improving upon articles on women is the goal, and the first prize is to go to Geneva and visit OHCHR in June. OHCHR has also proposed a list of names of women active in human rights, that will yield bonus points. Many of these women lack articles also on English language Wikipedia, which might make it interesting for some of you?

I would also like to hear what you think, do you like the idea of asking for curated lists in this way, of articles that are missing? Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Eric Luth (WMSE): Thanks for drawing our attention to the contest. It's good to see the Swedes are also supporting better coverage of women. Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks to me as if all the articles created or improved on Women on Red between now and 8 April could be submitted. The list of names suggested by OHCHR looks useful. I'll certainly try to add articles in English about some of them and hope others will too. You might find our own Redlists useful for the contest. If you are particularly interested in human rights, you'll probably find quite a few candidates in the lists of Activists and Feminists. As the contest is multilingual, you might also consider bringing it to the attention of those who collaborate with us on other language versions of Wikipedia. You will find them listed under "Languages" in the left-hand column on our main Women in Red page. Please keep us informed of any further developments, including lists of names.--Ipigott (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott: No, you can add all articles created or improved on Women in Red between now and 8 April! Thanks for your input, I'll add the lists you mentioned, and reach out to the other language communities! Would be great if you created a few of the articles on the OHCHR list! Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Eric Luth (WMSE): I'm working on the biography of Maria Verónica Reina but I see that her entry on Wikidata is incorrectly presented (without the accent on the O in Verónica). I have brought this to the attention of a Wikidata expert and expect the entry will be changed. I hope this does not cause problems with your contest.--Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott: I have just changed Wikidata label and moved without accent version to Also known as. Oronsay (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott, Oronsay Great, well done both of you! Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi again! A few drafts have been created on English Language Wikipedia from the OHCHR list, that are in draft mode on English language Wikipedia. It would be great if you could help looking into them, especially since many are translating the English language article into other languages. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Draft:Ros_Sopheap
• Draft:Salena_Rocky_Malone
• Draft:Islam Bibi
• Reem_Frainah (not in draft mode)
• Hadja Saran Daraba

Onze Tooneelspelers

Someone over on Commons has uploaded a number of portraits, male and female, from this source, dating to 1899. Looks like there are a number of Dutch actresses in there without articles, if anyone would like to tackle them? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

How to differentiate a blog from a informational website

Hi, I am new to wikipedia and i figured out that some of the external links are pointing to blogs and not to informational websites. Is there a way to find what is blog and what is not? I am very confused. --Great Indian Artist (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hard to know Great Indian Artist. You can see if there is an article on the website name on WP which may tell you or you can google the site name. For the most part, blogs are not usable for our purposes, as there is no editorial review of the material they present. If there is an editorial board (usually you can find this out on the "about" page), it may be okay to use blog material. The only other option is to prove that the writer has published on the topic in academic journals which were editorially reviewed. SusunW (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Short term access to a resource

I saw the announcement about the National Emergency Library here.

I started browsing and see one of the books is:

The Biographical cyclopaedia of American women link

My guess is that this book is available in some physical libraries, but perhaps not easily accessible online. The next month or so might be a good chance to check it out for information.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Can't understand why access is restricted. It was published in 1925. If anyone can find a fully accessible version, it should be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Resources/Fully_accessible_biographical_dictionaries under Women's biographical dictionaries: United States.--Ipigott (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Good q. I've asked: https://twitter.com/Tagishsimon/status/1242735508658290691 --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I borrowed The women's sports encyclopedia and used it to make several modest additions to a few articles. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

American Women Historians, 1700s-1990s: A Biographical Dictionary

Long ago and far away, I dug up a copy of this book in the library over at George Mason University and compiled a list of entries, which I've now ported over to project space here. It's extremely rudimentary - I haven't had the time to check all the blue links to make sure they're correct - but it's available for anyone who would like to take a crack at filling it out. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I went through the list, edited a couple of entries, and created redirects for some others. They should all be pointing to the correct names now. Nick Number (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Number: Thanks very much for that - fewer redlinks than I expected. Still, there are a few to mop up, at least. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: @Nick Number: I made a Wikidata list based on your work. Need to tweak the SPARQL a little and create items in Wikidata for 13 women from the book. Gamaliel (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I believe the correct response is, "that's awesome you're awesome". Thanks kindly. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Agreed! Got all of them in Wikidata now but Mary Evelyn Townsend and Mary Young, I can't be 100% sure I've found the right person without access to the book. Gamaliel (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Women's University Settlement

The draft on Draft:Blackfriars Settlement covers the history of the Women's University Settlement. But for some reason hasn't been approved. I would be glad to have help on it and think it's quite an interesting organization. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy There's a lot of "independent information" about the organization in archive.org.[1] (If you want to check out or "borrow", just create a free sign in. Also, I'm curious. You've written over 1,000 articles. Why are you submitting them to AFC? That review is not designed to help you get your article written, it is designed to help it survive deletion. Better to post queries here if you are trying to create something and simply move them to article space if you are confident of the notability. SusunW (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thans User:SusunW. Those look like some good sources. Unfortunately, I have an editing restriction. FloridaArmy (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

WIRED

For your convenience Wikipedia:WIRED (and WP:WIRED) now redirect to the project; and WT:WIRED to this talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

So now we've really been WIRED.--Ipigott (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of women's footballer / soccer player articles

An editor is nominating numerous articles about women footballers / soccer players who have played in top leagues in France and Sweden. The leagues most likely were included on WP:NFOOTY unbalanced list of notable leagues at the time of creation - but have since been removed and that's probably irrelevant here. Basically, many of the articles need improved referencing to meet WP:GNG.

Good article nominees

• 03 Nov 2024 – Beth Mead (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Spiderone (t · c); start discussion

Requested moves

• 15 Nov 2024 – Érika (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Érika (footballer) by 162 etc. (t · c); see discussion
• 08 Oct 2024 – Turkish Women's Football Super League (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Women's Football Super League by Beshogur (t · c); see discussion
• 16 Nov 2024 – Erika Vázquez (talk · edit · hist) move request to Erika Vázquez (Spanish footballer) by 162 etc. (t · c) was withdrawn; see discussion
• 16 Nov 2024 – Erika Vásquez (talk · edit · hist) move request to Erika Vásquez (Ecuadorian footballer) by 162 etc. (t · c) was withdrawn; see discussion

Articles for creation

• 29 Aug 2023 – Draft:Sarah Jackson (soccer) (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by Paul Vaurie (t · c) was declined by Ca (t · c) on 13 Nov 2024

Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This is actually an extremely serious problem for our attempts to cover women's team sport going forward: WP:NFOOTY is operating, at the moment, in a way that is overtly sexist and deems career top-tier women players not notable and men who played one game in some short-lived professional league somewhere in 1971 indisputably notable. These kinds of issues appearing in subject-specific notability guidelines is something this project is going to need to engage with going forward or risk seeing these kinds of mass deletion sprees more often. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment (I've nominated dozens of men's footballers who as their career highlight played one game in a fully-professional league, yet received only routine coverage - and almost all of them have been deleted at AfD), but I do worry that the time it will take to bring the nominated articles in compliance with the GNG is more than the week afforded by PROD or AfD when such a large amount are nominated at once. I've worked on a few of these articles over the past 2 days, but they need a lot of work, and there are many more than those listed above. Jogurney (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altay Kahraman (2nd nomination) is the most recent example, but you can find dozens and dozens of them if you go through the WP:FOOTY archives. Jogurney (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I have done the same re: male players, and that has not been my experience of AfD. It shouldn't be on Wikipedians to have to do tons of work to improve these articles on an editor's whim: they're career top-tier players, most of those that were nominated have plenty of source coverage, we unquestionably would not be having these conversations if they were men (even if they had 1/6 of the coverage these women do), and that we're having to have the argument (and the demands that we do the work) because they're women is A Problem. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems like at a bare minimum, there should be a hard limit on how many articles an editor can nominate for deletion during a specified period of time. This allows other editors adequate time to review and improve the articles. Hmlarson (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Editors tend to sometimes narrowly focus on their area of interest. It's possibly worth exploring if this editor is over-doing it on women athletes. But the outcome of such a discussion should happen at WP:ANI for any kind of solution. — Maile (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion - and not a new one, but I think it may be time to revisit the notability requirements for women. I realize that some may look at it as "lowering the bar" when that isn't the case at all. Consider it handicapping to level the notability field. An excellent case to review is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanwal Ameen. It's a long AfD but chock full of information we should consider. Montanabw included this link in one of her responses. Perhaps it would serve the project well if we'd collaborate in an effort to improve the chances of more women being included in WP based on notability relevant to their circumstances. To achieve the latter, perhaps we should eliminate or at least modify some of our long standing expectations for notability, including the requirements needed to pass GNG & N. They don't give enough consideration to the underlying circumstances and obstacles women had to deal with and overcome over the centuries - in fact, it could be viewed as raising the bar, depending on one's perspective. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've been looking through the AfDs once again and see that they are now nearly all liable to be deleted. I looked at Charlotte Voll is some detail and found that there are literally hundreds of German and French press articles who mention her, many in some detail. These are simply dismissed as TOO SOON. So it looks to me as if there is little chance of saving any of them.--Ipigott (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think that's a fair assessment. Voll has made a total of 3 appearances in the German top division, and almost all of the online coverage of her career is routine (it's entirely appropriate to invoke TOOSOON until she has an established career and receives the kind of coverage necessary to write a decent biography). I take this same position on all sportspeople biographies, men or women. Jogurney (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Jogurney: Thanks for responding but if a footballer, whatever his or her league status, proves to be interesting enough to be mentioned in hundreds of press articles, often in some detail, then that's a clear case of GNG. General notability always takes precedence over more specialized assessments. In this case, she has raised considerable interest in both France and Germany. Furthermore, the majority of newspapers in these countries no longer display their articles on the internet -- so in fact there are certainly hundreds more sources that could be picked up by those who subscribe to them. --Ipigott (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Baltimore, I've created a table with two sources in it that I believe contribute to GNG. If anyone has other sources that they think contribute to GNG, feel free to ping me and I'll add it to the table. --MrClog (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

New category: American women scientists by century

I just started Category:American women scientists by century with two subcats for the 20th and 21st centuries. TJMSmith (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Always give links please! You want us to type it out? Are these supposed to be diffusing or non-diffusing categories? Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry! Category:20th-century American women scientists Category:21st-century American women scientists. The diffusing/non-diffusing part confuses me but I am guessing people in this category can also be included in the broader American scientist by century categories.TJMSmith (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, you're removing them from the global by century cat, but leaving them in the American ones, which I think is the best approach. Ideally add notices to the cats. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• TJMSmith: This looks like a good idea but if these categories are going to be useful, they should be populated with all applicable candidates. I see there are 790 in Category:American women scientists, nearly all of whom are from the 20th or 21st centuries, if not both. So there's a lot of work to do. If I have time, I'll try to help you along. Perhaps those listed under the 21st century will attract more interest as most of them are probably still living. For comparison, you'll see there are 332 in the category Category:20th-century Indian women scientists and 116 in Category:21st-century Indian women scientists. All these are now correctly qualified as non-diffusing categories which means that the names they contain should continue to be mentioned in the equivalent diffusing categories.--Ipigott (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott:, @TJMSmith: This is a great candidate for WP:AWB. I'm in the middle of another task with it, but once that's done I can fill these categories out fairly easily. Tonight or tomorrow. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: That would be fantastic! I am also creating Category:20th-century American women physicians and Category:21st-century American women physicians. This will consolidate the number of categories I routinely add (20th-century American physicians, American women physicians, 20th-century women physicians) TJMSmith (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@TJMSmith: I can fill those out, too. Worse comes to worst, I won't get to it until the weekend at the very latest. I might also consider creating the 19th-century categories as well - wouldn't hurt. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No rush! I created the categories (including 19th-century). Thanks again, TJMSmith (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Thanks for offering your assistance. We also have Category:19th-century American women scientists, which you could include in your AWBing, but you don't need to bother with Category:18th-century American women scientists as I've also added the handful of names which belong there.--Ipigott (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

All categories are now filled out. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Question: does anyone know if there is some sort of tool available that could be used for cases like these instead of fully manual editing, using Wikidata values? E.g. adding it to every page with a Wikidata item that has values sex:female, occupation:scientist, birth date: 1/1/1900-12/31/1999? DemonDays64 (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Articles about portraits of women

A pet peeve of mine on Wikidata is the number of portraits of women that have the name of the woman as the title. I find this upsetting (it's the same for men btw). An example is Mrs Annie Murdoch. I propose a project to catch these, change the titles to "Portrait of XXX", such as Portrait of Mrs Annie Murdoch and to create items on Wikidata for the women. Alternatively, make the article about the woman, and create an item for the painting. Does anyone share my annoyance or am I just too deep in paintings and I shouldn't care so much? Jane (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Jane023: Are there really so many of these? If you look at Category:20th-century portraits or Category:19th-century portraits, there are actually very few that could be confused with biographical articles. I don't think it would take very long to move the ambiguous cases to "Portrait of..." but at the same time, for some of them, it might be worthwhile creating an additional biographical article. Maybe Wikidata could be used in this connection.--Ipigott (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

There are a ton of these (on Wikidata, for all people, for popular pets, and several other named things, like churches). If we made items for all the women who have 5 or more portraits, then probably their items would be worth an article just based on the importance of the painters who painted them (very ironic somehow, because I am sure these women never imagined the painter who painted them would be more notable than themselves). Jane (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen a long discussion somewhere about titles of articles about statues, busts, paintings etc. On phone right now, not easy to find, will look when next on laptop. PamD 14:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That led to this addition tp MOS:VAMOS & is on the talk page there. Only applied to scultures, which were rather more of a problem for Washington, Gandhi etc etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Surely "Portrait of Mrs Annie Murdoch" is inaccurate. Really it should be "Digital reproduction of scan of portrait of Mrs Annie Murdoch". (See also.) —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you're referring to the monkey selfie lawsuit issue, but I don't think we have any portraits of women that fit that particular category (yet). Jane (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Found it, now I'm back on the laptop: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Works of art about choosing article titles for works of art. There's also a lot of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 56#Article names of statues of people (October 2018) and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Naming conventions for public statues (July 2019). Most of ths is about statues rather than 2D portraits, but a lot is relevant. PamD 19:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• And I've made a dab page at Annie Murdoch (previously a red link) to link to the person, the painting, and another person. This won't always be an available option, as the portrait sitter may not always be notable (or redirect/dab-worthy at least). PamD 19:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Works of art contradicts Jane's preference, telling us to "Avoid "Portrait of Fred Foo" titles, if the individual is named – just use "Fred Foo", with disambiguation as necessary" -- although I think it makes it easier for normal users if the title itself clarifies whether it is a biography or a painting. Italics help but not in searches.--Ipigott (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Browsing through the categories I get the impression that "Portrait of Fred Foo" is commonly used. I'd almost be inclined to IAR and name the article "Portrait of ...", while taking care to provide a redirect from the subject's name (or dab page entry if there is some other page to which it's reasonable to link or redirect the name). I just looked at Portrait of Adèle Besson and found there was no link from Adèle Besson, nor any mention of her in her husband's article! Now fixed: creating a dab page would have seemed over the top so in this case I redirected to hubby, having mentioned her and linked the portrait there and also given her joint credit for the collection donation. And added them both to Besson (surname). PamD 08:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I must admit the reason I dropped it here is because I stumbled on this one and it was the proverbial last drop. On Wikidata I am pretty good about creating items for the women and then changing the title of the painting to "Portrait of XXX" with "XXX" as the alias. I will add a "Portrait of XXX" or even "Portrait of YYY" to the alias if the painting is held in a collection that mentions something about the title (like maybe it's NOT a portrait of XXX after all, and might be of YYY). Jane (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

That manual of style that dares to say "Avoid "Portrait of Fred Foo" titles, if the individual is named – just use "Fred Foo", with disambiguation as necessary, even if the museum uses "Portrait". " without any background reasoning seems highly misleading to me. What about the case where we have an article about Fred Foo and multiple notable paintings? Of course if there is just one article it might be OK, but even then it helps to see in the title that you are referring to a work and not a person. Jane (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Only just seen this section. Generally, Fred Foo (Gainsborough) is greatly preferable to "Portrait of Fred Foo", especially for people with multiple portraits. The WP:VAMOS discussion Pam referred to, which I'm linking above, only covered statues etc, actually far more of a problem (see the 32 in Category:Statues of Abraham Lincoln etc). If you think MOS:VAMOS should be changed, the place to raise that is on talk there. Do you mean "misleading", or just that you don't like it? For people who really are best/only known as the subject of a portrait, it makes sense to combine the two articles - Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Rate of creation of articles about women vs. articles about men

Hi again. I am curious, what is the difference in the rate of creation of biographies of women and biographies of men? At the current rate, what will the numbers of articles about women versus about men be in the next few years? Does it look like there is some sort of predictable trend towards a limit where articles about women will stay? Unfortunately, because of gender bias throughout history and in writing, there simply are far more men who could be shown to be notable, so personally I doubt that the two numbers will become very close, but some projections would be interesting if there are any. Thanks and happy editing, DemonDays64 (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

DemonDays64: I think you will find some of the answers to your questions if you go through the charts on Denelezh — Gender Gap in Wikipedia. Under "Gender Gap by year of birth", you will see that for people born in 2000–09, 40.3% of the biographies are about women. You will note that for women born in certain countries, irrespective of the year, the percentage can be over 30%. You can also find interesting statistics on WHGI. Finally, the main WiR page has consistently presented statistics at least twice a month on the number and percentage of female biographies for the EN wiki from Wikidata. By comparing different versions of the statistics, e.g. going back one year, you will see that since March 2019 there have been 76,432 new biographies, of which 23,565 were on women. The remaining 52,867 were therefore male or, for a very small proportion, non-binary. To answer your question, 30.8% of the new biographies on the EN Wikipedia over the past year have been about women. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as above. On the whole, it makes sense to concentrate on living people, as little can be done about the historical "patriarchy gap" in mass terms. The ratio for all living people bios is 23%, vs 18% for all bios. One of the most revealing discussions we have had here (using the denelzeh figures above) surprised many of us by revealing what a colossal (and ridiculous) % of bios are about sports figures, where women still do much worse (see a few sections up). If sports people are excluded, the female % of BLPs is already 29%, which is already in the same ballpark as many easily countable groups (elected politicians, CEOs, new fellows of national academies etc). The % of females in BLPs increases with reducing age, btw, & I think for those now in their teens females are a narrow majority (presumably sports, pop, models, & the odd Greta Thunberg). There is a lag in that we can easily count "living" parliamentarians etc, rather than current ones, so very many people elected decades ago are included, reflecting different gender ratios in those days. Plus for obscure people like sports figures, we no doubt fail to capture many deaths (even before the current situation). Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree about the living people point, but only to a point. It makes it even more important that we write about women we do know of in this case, IMO. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup of Adella M. Parker

Hi! A few months ago I started my first biography article, for Adella M. Parker, a state representative in Washington in the 1930s. Could some people who are more experienced with biographies on Wikipedia please take a look at it and see what needs to be fixed, and maybe add some sources if they exist?

Something that would be nice would be to have results and info about the elections she was in; I found this page but the results are weird, showing her getting 24% to A. Lou Cohen getting 26% in the election that sources say she won, and the page not having any data about the primaries. There is probably an explanation of this but with my skills I cannot find it. Also I can't find a consistent spelling of her name, so I am not really sure what to call the article; I just used the one on Wikidata but my two good sources use different spellings.

Thanks, this is a great project! DemonDays64 (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

@DemonDays64: Nice work! Would you be ok if I shifted some of the inline refs to a reflist? It might make it a bit easier to copyedit. An example is here. I’m fine if you say no, the original author is the one who sets the initial style of citations, so I’m cool if you don’t want me to make that change and will still help review the article. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock: yes, definitely! I had never thought about the fact that you could do that; that's a lot more convenient actually! DemonDays64 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

European Woman Innovator of the Year

I recently created Michela Magas, about the winner of the 2017 European Woman Innovator of the Year award. It seems to me that the runners up, and winners from other years, are likely also notable. I have, unfortunately, been able to find a single list of them. The relevant sources in the former article are from the Internet Archive; it seems that the European Commission maintain a single page, updated as they go. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing: The European Institutions still have a habit of doing everything in French. You'll find the announcement here. In addition to Michela Magas, we have Petra Wadström and Claudia Gärtner. There's a Swedish article on Wadström and a German one on Gärtner. Kristina Tsvetanova from Bulgaria received the new Rising Innnovator Award. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I see the French wiki has Prix de l'Union européenne pour les femmes innovatrices with the relevant names.--Ipigott (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing is there an interlanguage page that lists the winners? We could use {{ill}} to wikilink to the winners interlanguage pages. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Chris.sherlock I've now created European Woman Innovator of the Year - have at it! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Women Pioneers in Video Game Music

So, I recently watched this video about some of the most iconic women composers in video game history and decided to check if they all had pages. A good half of them do, with standout impressive articles belonging to the likes of Yoko Shimomura and Michiru Yamane, but there were plenty more that did not. Especially among the earliest, though most iconic, games. Therefore, I wanted to let everyone know about those missing and i'll probably be tackling some myself as well soon.

• Yuriko Keino (1 2)
• Junko Ozawa (goes to the footballer, not the composer) (1 2)
• Tamayo Kawamoto (Prodded, made into Draft:Tamayo Kawamoto) (Huge amount of pseudonyms at Capcom to search through: Kuwachan, Tmayochan, Golden Tamayo, Tamayan, Tamatama, Tamaya, Tama, Tamaya Koubou) (1)
• Mari Yamaguchi (1 2)
• Yuki Iwai (formerly Yuki Satomura) (1)
• Minako Hamano (1 2 3)
• Satoe Terashima (1 2)
• Soyo Oka (1 2)
• Yuka Kitamura (1 2 3)
• Minako Adachi (1 2 3)
• Manaka Kataoka (formerly Manaka Tominaga) (1 2 3

You can find all their names all across Wikipedia already thanks to all the games they've been a part of. So there definitely won't be an issue of orphan articles. From what I can tell, both Google Books and then searches using their Japanese kanji names would be the best bet for sources. I've included a couple already above from a cursory search myself. Also, several of the women above have articles on Japanese Wikipedia, so sources might be found there. Silverseren^C 23:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Great find! Thanks a bunch for sharing. I'm going to try to help out with some of these as well. - Whisperjanes (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Silver seren: and @Whisperjanes: There's also this, which I mentioned some while ago, in case it might be of interest to you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Awesome, thanks for the heads up! Right off the bat, a few of these women (like Tina Amini) look like they might be good candidates for Wiki articles.

@Silver seren: By the way, I started updating Draft:Tamayo Kawamoto with new sources. If someone has some time to do some cleanup, that would be great! Some of the information that is currently unsourced and left over from the start of the draft might have to be scrapped, since I'm not sure where it originated from and I can't find verifiable sources for it. And some citations like IMDB probably need to be weeded out too. But there are a lot of mentions in Japanese sources, and in some English sources, so I've added them. - Whisperjanes (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Whisperjanes: can you translate those Japanese titles in the citations? It might be best to also move the citations to a reflist like this, it makes it easier to see and fix the references. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock: Thank you for the suggestions! I moved the citations to the bottom, and am having another user (who understands Japanese better than my own attempts with Google translate) to help double check the translated facts and provide titles. - Whisperjanes (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The 50,000 Destubbing Challenge

Hi, I've set this up to launch in April. It will be launched with articles done for the British and Irish destubathon. It's a big target but one which I think is a necessary framework to try to ramp up people working on existing quality long term. I hope to get people to run destubathons for different areas and not just me doing it. As part of this I'm setting a goal of 5000 women bios destubbed long term. That can feature as a sub challenge. Destubbed articles can be submitted for both the regional world challenges and the destubbing one. Hopefully this will also encourage people to improve our existing content long term as well. If you support the idea sign up on the page. Nobody is under any obligation to very regularly contribute, but I hope it provides some form of incentive and makes doing it more enjoyable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm really enjoying destubbing this month, @Dr. Blofeld:, thank you for the current destubathon and any future ones. It's like getting a running start, when the article's basic scaffolding is already in place, and you can just concentrate on adding/updating details and references and links. Penny Richards (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Penny Richards. I see systematic bias against women biographies all of the time on here, articles on some really notable women which should be decent but are stubs. I know the priority here is increasing the percentage of women biographies but ideally eventually we want to see every article as decent as the new ones being created. With an open challenge people can destub articles whenever they feel like it and not feel obligated to have to do it for a contest. I hope it makes expanding existing stubs more enjoyable and gives us something to aim for long term with that as well as creating! 5000 women bios destubbed by 2030 is about 500 a year, is that reasonable? About 1.5 articles a day needed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Destubbing women's biographical articles also, often, brings more very eligible redlinks to light, and keeps other new articles from being orphans, so to me it's all part of the same project. Penny Richards (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed! I found some red links to Australian women-based organisations. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

We should be able to do a lot more than that. For now I’ve been focusing on ensuring articles about Australian women are created, but there are plenty of Australians who I’m sure would rise to the challenge to destub articles. The State Libraries of Australian have all been working with Wikipedia one way or another, perhaps they can help? Have you considered reaching out to other libraries? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds interesting! It gives me something else to do besides article creation ;) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• It's always good to see improvements in the quality of our biographies and this contest will be an excellent incentive for us. But in fact the situation looks far less bleak here than in the overall assessment given in the introduction to the new contest (i.e. " that well over half of all Wikipedia articles are stubs"). If we take wp:Women's History, only 10,445 of the 46,804 articles (22.32%) are stubs. It's not so good for wp:Women but even there, only 28,277 of the 65,200 articles (43.37%) are stubs. If we take wp:Women artists, 4,029 out of 13,117 (30.72) are stubs, for wp:Women writers, it's 11,238 out of 36,216 (31.03%). Impressively, for wp:Feminism, only 768 out of 6,823 (11.26%) are stubs and for wp:Women scientists, only 2,024 out of 11,234 (18.02%). It will be interesting to see how these figures evolve over the next year. Perhaps we should start by upgrading those assessed as stumps which have actually already reached Start or higher. I always try to re-assess them when I come across them.--Ipigott (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree we should do reassessments along with de-stubbing. I have the tool set up so it's easy for me to see the ORES predicted score but, of course, I use my own sensibilities to make a decision re the rating. --Rosiestep (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the percentage of stubs for women bios is considerably lower than the overall average on here. But there's still tens of thousands of stubs regardless. @Chris.sherlock: if there was the interest we could always run a Wikipedia:The Great Britain and Ireland Destubathon contest for Australia. Nearly 1000 articles expanded for the UK now. Cover every county of Australia and give a prize for women bios destubbed. Perhaps the Australian wiki chapter would be interested in putting up a prize?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Technical help

In the last 2 days I have repeatedly had this show up and don't know the technical way to fix it. I am hoping someone can tell me how. I know that when someone has an article on another WP language version {{ill|English article name|2 digit language code|foreign article name}} will link those other language versions. But what template lets me do that to Wikidata? For example, I found a photograph (it's on the Image Campaign editathon page) for Hilda Ormsby but did not know how to link to the Wikidata page. Same holds true for a link to Essie Conway in the stub I am expanding on Lynda Grier. Conway has a Wikidata item Q18783639, but I don't know how to link it. Anyone know how to do this? SusunW (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

SusunW The template's documentation is at Template:Interlanguage link, which gives the example {{ill|Jokery|WD=Q131138}}; so you want {{ill|Essie Conway|WD=Q18783639}}, to render as: Essie Conway. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Pigsonthewing! I love learning things and this one is one I really needed to know. Perhaps it will also be helpful to someone else. SusunW (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Great Women Mystery Writers: Classic to Contemporary

Another day, another redlist, here. As always, please take a look and make sure I've not missed something in the checking...I'm sure I have, I usually do. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

A redlist largely blue! That’s a nice change for once... - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock: Easy for you to say...you're not the one who spent 40 minutes transcribing the list only to find that we already have articles on the vast majority of 'em. *grumble grumble*

(In case anyone needs the assurance, I'm not entirely serious, here...) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

lol! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Biographical Dictionary of Georgia

For those who might be interested in writing about Georgian topics (an area of particular interest for me) during this month's Caucasus geofocus, I would direct your attention to the Biographical Dictionary of Georgia, put out by the Georgian Parliament. It's probably the best general-interest source for Georgian biographical material I have found on the internet to date. It has limitations - articles cannot be sorted by gender, for one thing. And a lot of the articles are in Georgian only, although Google Translate helps with that to an extent (Google Translate isn't very good for Georgian as of yet, but it has its uses.) But even a cursory glance has shown me some very interesting material that may be worth pursuing. Although I also have my own list of Georgian topics to work on... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems to contain useful basic biographical information but I see that searches have to be made in Georgian.--Ipigott (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao: For translating from Georgian, you should try Yandex.--Ipigott (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thanks for the tip - not a site I'm familiar with. It should make my life considerably easier for the next month. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Annie Lowrey

Has been PRODded. My gut says she meets the notability criteria, but I'm throwing it up here for a second opinion. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree and have unprodded. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Excellent, thanks. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Wende Museum's Virtual Editathon (April 3)

The Wende Museum in Culver City, California, is having a Virtual Editathon on April 3 to mark what would have been the closing of their current show, The Medea Insurrection: Radical Women Artists Behind the Iron Curtain . The list of featured artists includes the following who either don't have articles on enwiki, or have stub articles on enwiki, if anyone wants to join in:

• Annemirl Bauer
• Erfurt Women Artists' Group
• Else Gabriel
• Judit Kele
• Christa Jeitner
• Christine Schlegel
• Gabriele Stötzer
• Hanne Wandtke
• Angela Hampel (stub)
• Magdalena Jetelová (stub)
• Alena Kučerová (stub)
• Zofia Kulik (stub)
• Ana Lupaș (stub)

I don't know if any of these fit with our current themes, but several already have articles in German, and some have images too, if that makes it more interesting. Penny Richards (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Penny Richards: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Many of the ratings on their list of available articles were incorrect. I've now updated them but I don't know if there's any way to update their list.--Ipigott (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Cannabis-related redlinks

The ongoing "420 collaboration", a campaign to create and improve cannabis-related content on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, runs during April.

There are cannabis-related redlinks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Cannabis, if project members want to help turn links blue.

Happy editing, and stay safe, --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

GirlsDoPorn

Hi! I know this isn't traditional Women in Red material, but it's an article on a women's issue which I've recently expanded and want to take to DYK and GA. The article is GirlsDoPorn, about a pornography company whose central figures have been charged with sex trafficking by force, fraud and coercion. (Content warning for some very, very nasty graphic sexual content.) I'm looking for any kind of feedback or help (and the DYK nomination is here), but I've got a couple of specific questions too:

I'm wondering how the article should discuss information from the lawsuit. Initially I've gone with use of "alleged", "reported" or "according to X" wherever a potentially legally damaging claim is made, to make sure I'm complying with WP:BLP. However, I'd like to be using the minimal amount of qualifiers that is appropriate, because I think such qualifiers can undermine the fact of the situation and the realities of what the women involved experienced. What can we say on Wikipedia of claims made by plaintiffs in a case that was found in favour of them? Or is there a better way to phrase some of the content?

I'm also looking for help with the "Legal action" section because I'm not too familiar with the American legal system and I want everything to be correct. I don't know if there are legal sources rather than mainstream media sources that we could use here. Any edits or comments would be appreciated! — Bilorv (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Australian Dictionary of Biography - missing colonial women

I’m not sure if people know about this, but the Australian Dictionary of Biography is attempting to remedy their own systemic bias issues and are calling on people to submit suggestions for another 1,500 entries about Australian colonial women who have been missed out of the ADB. Thought it might be of interest! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock: I just saw that page mentions a project called Recovered Lives of Australian women not mentioned in the ADB as well. Maybe you'd be interested as well?? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333 nice! I have added this to User:Chris.sherlock/Australian Women In Red/Resources. — Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Marion Roach

Marion Roach was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Roach. Concerns were raised that she is not notable. Marion Roach is a non-fiction writer. The article says, "Roach's writing has also been published in the New York Times Magazine, Vogue, Good Housekeeping, Discover, Prevention, and Newsday. She also works as a professor of a memoir course at the Arts Center of the Capital Region, New York; and works as a commentator on National Public Radio on the show "All Things Considered." She previously had a spot on Martha Stewart Living Radio Sirius 112 called "The Naturalist's Datebook"."

Can anyone find more sources about her? Cunard (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Cunard, I have added some citations and a bit more information to the article. I hope the changes will help to avoid deletion. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your significant improvements to the article, Teblick (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm glad that I could help. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

update: WiR on jawp

Just an update: translated WiR on jawp at last. Not sure yet how it will turn out, but at least Art+Feminism has fairly good attention and regulars, so thought a common place for people to come to would be needed. Cheers, --Omotecho (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not comfortable writing in Japanese at the level needed for a WP article, but please let me know if there's anything I can do to help. ありがとうございます！ Mcampany (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Good work, Omotecho. Hope it will be effective.--Ipigott (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Omotecho. Would you please add a link for the ja-wp page here on Wikidata so that it's linked to all the other language versions of Women in Red? Thanks again. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration in action

I know that many here are used to collaborating with others, so what I'm about to say will have a "well,duh" reaction from some, but my experience hasn't included a lot of collaboration, with some rare counterexamples. I have spent time trying to improve articles about women's basketball, and occasionally have reached out to some others to see if we could work together. My typical outreach was to a non-editor, hoping to entice them to become an editor, but that has rarely worked.

I recently decided to work on some women's volleyball articles, and when I looked at the list of editors who signed up for WIR, I saw one who expressed interest in volleyball articles. I reached out to @Pedeshtrian:, and I am very pleased to see how much they have improved Kathryn Plummer and especially Krista Vansant. The latter article has almost tripled in size, and yes, I know size isn't the only or even the best metric, but it is a nice improvement.S Philbrick(Talk) 19:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: That's cool! The only times that has happened to me is when someone beats me to an article while I was making it, and I merge my draft info to the existing article. :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Patsy Mink DYK hook needs to be approved

Anyone available to approve the ALT2 hook for DYK nomination Patsy Mink? Thanks in advance to whoever can do that. — Maile (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Charlotte Figi and WikiProject Cannabis' 420 Collaboration

Hello, all. I'm sad to read about the death of Charlotte Figi. I was wondering if WikiProject Women in Red members might be interested in collaborating on the article about this young woman, who has died from COVID-19.

Related, WikiProject Cannabis hosts a 420 Collaboration each April. The goal is to create and improve cannabis-relater articles on Wikipedia, among other tasks. WikiProject Women in Red has a page dedicated to women in cannabis: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Cannabis. Would any project members care to help make some of the red links blue?

All are invited. Thanks in advance. Stay healthy, --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, I just wanted to thank you for posting this here (because you posted here, I was able to see this article and contribute). It seems like she was notable even back in 2014, so even though the circumstances are incredibly sad, I'm glad that there is finally a Wiki page about her so that more can learn about her. - Whisperjanes (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination

2 things remarkable about Zofia Nehringowa: She was a Polish speed skater who set all the individual world records. Also she competed at the 1932 European Speed Skating Championships for Men. Newspapers wrote about this conspicuity (a woman riding at the men's championship) and an Austrian skater even withdrew demonstratively from the championship, refusing to compete at the same time against a woman.

Interested enough to nominate her for a DYK, See and give your comment at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on April 9 SportsOlympic (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Article for Julia Miles?

Julia Miles, who died a couple of weeks ago, doesn't have a separate article (her name currently redirects to the Women's Project Theater, which she founded). I wanted to bring this up if anyone is interested in creating an article on her, and also because I wanted to get a second opinion -- should she have a separate article? My opinion is yes. Here are some sources on her: NYTimes, Playbill, Ms. Magazine, Junctures in Women's Leadership: The Arts

She's best known for her work with the Women's Project. But it seems she was also the assistant director of The American Place Theater in the mid-1970s and produced plays in the late 1950s with Theater Current, a company she co-founded. She also was a founding member and first chair of the League of Professional Theatre Women in 1986. All in all, she seemed to be a huge activist, theater director, and mentor for supporting women in theater. - Whisperjanes (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Serbia's edit-a-thon in honor of International Romani Day 2020

Wikimedia Serbia is organizing a 6-day, online, global edit-a-thon in honor of International Romani Day. It starts tomorrow, on the 7th and goes until the 12th. Please come join the edit-a-thon and improve the coverage of Roma women across the wikiprojects! -Yupik (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 

Wow that is really cool to hear about :) Mujinga (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Yupik, working on Alba Molina.--Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm super excited about this edit-a-thon and I'll try to get some of the Finnish stuff translated into English so it's easier for people to translate into other languages too :) -Yupik (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed there were a few in Finnish but I could not find any good sources other than those in Finnish.--Ipigott (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I've spent more time untangling the mess on wd in order to translate these than I have spent translating them. There's still today and tomorrow though! :) -Yupik (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Peacock feathered dress of Queen Kapiʻolani

Seeking someone to help create a start article about the peacock feathered dress of Queen Kapiʻolani which she wore on the occasion of the 1887 Golden Jubilee of Queen Victoria and was designed by her servant James Washington Lonoikauoalii McGuire.

Sources: [2] [3] KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Melanie Perkins and Draft:Alex Depledge

Would someone review Draft:Melanie Perkins and Draft:Alex Depledge?

The sequence of events are as follows.

For Draft:Alex Depledge:

1. At 00:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC), Zaynha (talk · contribs) moved Alex Depledge to Draft:Alex Depledge.
2. At 03:53, 7 April 2020‎ (UTC), I moved Draft:Alex Depledge back to Alex Depledge with the edit summary "reverted unexplained move to draftspace of an article kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Depledge".
3. At 15:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC), Zaynha moved Alex Depledge to Draft:Alex Depledge.

For Draft:Melanie Perkins:

1. At 00:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC), Zaynha (talk · contribs) moved Melanie Perkins to Draft:Melanie Perkins
2. At 03:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC), I moved Draft:Melanie Perkins back to Melanie Perkins with the edit summary "reverted unexplained move to draftspace".
3. At 15:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC), Zayna moved Melanie Perkins to Draft:Melanie Perkins.

When I asked Zayna not to do to this, Zayna wrote, "2 upe articles, will have to go through AfC. I will be happy to email you with evidence."

I am an editor who has no conflict of interest with Melanie Perkins and Alex Depledge. I read the articles and consider them suitable for mainspace because they pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and are not overly promotional. But my opinion is considered insufficient.

I do not want to engage in a page move war. Would an editor review the drafts? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that these contested moves mark Zaynha's only edits in 2 years, with the last ones in April 2018 also being contested page moves. The articles seem fine, also. I have no idea why Zaynha is doing that. Kingsif (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, Cunard: I see that Rhea Nawar was mentioned as a possible paid editor on Conflict of interest last October by ReaderofthePack. Rhea Nawar was notified by ThatMontrealIP on 15 October 2019 and has not edited since. The editing history of Draft:Alex Depledge seems to indicate a conflict of interest as there is no evidence that the article was developed in the normal way by Rhea Nawar. Most of the text of Draft:Melanie Perkins was added by an ip editor and also seems suspect. I tend to agree with Zaynha that there has indeed been an undeclared conflict of interest here.--Ipigott (talk) 06:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point, Kingsif (talk · contribs), I do not know why Zaynha (talk · contribs) chose to move these two articles in their first edits in two years.

Ipigott (talk · contribs), I do not have a conflict of interest with Melanie Perkins or Alex Depledge. I reviewed the articles and considered them suitable for mainspace even in spite of the creators' possible undeclared conflict of interest. The core question I have is: why is my saying "as an editor with no conflict of interest, I believe these two articles are suitable for mainspace because they pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and are not overly promotional" considered insufficient? Why do these articles have "to go through AfC"? Cunard (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Cunard: Above I was simply trying to explain the background and the reason why Zaynha chose to move the articles to draft space. It could be argued that as many other editors have contributed to the improvement of each of these articles, they could now be considered worthy of mainspace. Perhaps TonyBallioni can help us out on this. We certainly don't want to start an edit war with Zaynha.--Ipigott (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I asked the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Depledge for help. Cunard (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Notable Bolognese women

There's an intriguing mention in the article on Bettisia Gozzadini about a series of twelve busts of notable Bolognese women, including one of her, that were crafted for the Salone d'Onore of Palazzo Fibbia Fabbri in Bologna in the 17th century. I've finally found a list of the twelve, and we don't appear to have articles about all of them. These are the missing ones (taken from this page):

• Ippolita Paleotti
• Giovanna Bianchetti Bonsignori
• Bettina Calderini
• Maddalena Bianchetti Bonsignori
• Costanza Bocchi
• Cornelia Zambeccari

Could be some interesting fodder for pursuit - it seems an arena that would welcome further study. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I see in BEIC materials that we have a Gabriele Paleotti bishop in Bologna, a preface by Francesco Bocchi to Giovanni Della Casa, letters of Pellegrino Zambeccari, Zambeccari weddings in Bologna from poets of the 18th century. Some of these may produce useful references or leads. Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Federico Leva (BEIC): Thanks very much - I'll try to start digging into the sources and see what I can turn up. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

New Jersey Women's Heritage Trail

This entry has several redlinks, including on women, that would be great to develop. Some might be okay to redirect or work into merged entries on broader subjects. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 at the Virtual ideas Cafe

A friendly reminder that there are still a few days left before we finalize our scheduled events for May. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Hattie King Reavis

I would love to have some help getting this draft approved to acticlespace. Haunting voice. You can listen to hersongs on Youtube. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Visible Wiki Women book

I saw Visible Wiki Women at the Signpost and remembered Jon698 requested on Discord an image from An Album of Representative Prohibitionists; Half-Tone Portraits and Brief Pen Sketches of One Hundred and Twenty-Six Men and Women, Forerunners and Champions of the Prohibition Movement. Admittedly the image they wanted was to illustrate James Black, however the book contains both prominent women and men. It looks like for stained copies it runs around $65 and for pristine copies closer to $175. For the highest quality images, if the project has funds available a copy could be purchased and destructively scanned.

Otherwise, Worldcat has copies available, including one at the Los Angeles Public Library. Perhaps when public health conditions approve a local member such as Rosiestep could make a visit and perform some scans? It seems like a good source for the Visible Wiki Women initiative. Kees08 (Talk) 17:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Kees08, it looks like a really interesting book. It would be great -when things are back to normal- if the LA County Library or any of the libraries who are holding it would scan it for Internet Archive so that a digitized copy would be available for everyone. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Do you have contacts there to communicate that request? We can wait until the pandemic is over, though it might be useful to contact earlier to hold a place in line. Kees08 (Talk) 19:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to make this happen. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The easiest way would be to just buy the book and send it to IA. I think they have quite a backlog though. Gamaliel (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I will see if I can make an arrangement with the LA library or others that hold it. Otherwise, I will request funding through..somewhere..not sure where, to buy the book and have an archival service digitize it (which would also cost money). Kees08 (Talk) 19:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Do you have any suggestions in how I contact the LA library for this request? Kees08 (Talk) 17:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kees08: you might want to try their ask a librarian page. I know that my library is still monitoring requests from patrons on our own ask a librarian page. Ask a librarian at LAPL. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Thank you, I have made a request. Kees08 (Talk) 18:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Lida Larrimore Thomas

I would be happy to have help getting this author and playwright approved for mainspace. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I've rearranged the material a bit, and added a couple of refs.Dsp13 (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Wonderful work User:Dsp13! Thanks so much for your help. I have submitted it for review. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Betty Shor

Firstly, thanks for this magnificent project!

I've just been working on the new article George G. Shor and I realized that his spouse "Elizabeth (Betty) Noble Shor", most often just Betty Shor, may warrant an article on her own. But I am unsure of a course of action. George Shor was a marine geophysicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography - he and Betty were fixtures at Scripps. They seem to me to have been a power couple. While George pursued his career, Betty got involved with stuff as much as she could, and she became a historian of Scripps. Wrote a few books, I believe. I am unsure how to approach an article on Betty alone, and then it occurred to me that perhaps, since they were such a power couple, the George Shore article ought to be expanded to include both biographies. With, e.g., a Betty Shor redirect to George G. Shor. I recognize there are nuances here that I would not be sensitive to. So I post for discussion. Bdushaw (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

People here will, almost by definition prefer two articles, though you might get a different answer elsewhere. The American oceanographer's wife who really needs fuller coverage, imo, is Betsy Bang who more or less proved that birds could smell. I see she now has a stub article at least. Johnbod (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Well there's certainly enough to build on here, whether as an addition to George G. Shor or as a separate article.--Ipigott (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ipigott, see here (p. 9), here (if you don't have access ask the Resource Exchange, and here; also fair use photo for starters. SusunW (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend a separate article. They can be mentioned in each other's articles as warranted. TJMSmith (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the advice and suggestions. I think I will start an article for Betty in the next few days (its a lot of work getting an article up and running!). The issue of scientist+spouse is a curious one, and difficult to get all the nuances right. For example the articles Walter Munk and Judith Munk... I recognize that spouses have an independent life that deserves recognition and respect, but the Judith Munk article takes it a bit too far...reducing Walter's role in Judith's life to a footnote! That was not the case...Judy was a very active player in Walter's life; she traveled about everywhere he did, and they were a design team in their construction efforts. Power couple indeed. Bdushaw (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The first order of business is the best name to use. I've settled on Elizabeth Noble Shor, with a redirect from other names, such as the commonly used "Betty Shor". Noble is her maiden name, I believe; there is wikidata for Elizabeth Noble Shor. Shor used Elizabeth Noble Shor as her name on the books she wrote (per Amazon). I'll likely start the article tomorrow; happy to hear comments!  :) Bdushaw (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I present Elizabeth Noble Shor...its still pretty thin, particularly in what she was doing at Scripps, but a beachhead has been established :). I'll continue to poke at it, getting the fair use photo for example, but I am done for the day. Thanks again to you all. I remember Betty Shor; I used to see her quite often at Scripps - I wish I could talk to her now that I know something about her; such is the way of life. Bdushaw (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW - I was not able to find her birth date. She was born in 1930, but not of the citations I had gave a particular date. ??? Thx Bdushaw (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Bdushaw Her marriage announcement shows her father was James Alexander Noble, School records in South Dakota show only 1 Betty Lou Noble, daughter of James A. who was born on 21 April 1930. (To access, you might need to sign up for a free account). This birthday party notice confirms that date. SusunW (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks...that's amazing. "Betty Lou" eh...I suspect she was not particularly pleased with that name; it is not seen after the wedding notice! Bdushaw (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

De nada. SusunW (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, according to her father's biography its actually "Elizabeth Louise" :) Taking it all to the biography talkpage now...hasta Bdushaw (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Can I just chime in to say that this is a really awesome article, and to thank you for writing it! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Review request https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hattie_Hasan

Could this article be reviewed for moving to mainspace. Comments and improvements would be very welcome. Thanks TealTortoise (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the support from Chris.sherlock and Oronsay for their contributons and DCG for accepting the article TealTortoise (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Khristen Sellers

I am not a harassment expert, but this woman definitely deserves a Wikipedia page. Notability shouldn't be a problem since the case in question was extensively covered back in 2012. Here is a redo of the original interview by Jessica Lussenhop for This American Life and here is the original BBC story from 2018 A woman's choice - sexual favours or lose her home. Jane (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

OK I did the journalist (I know how to do those!) here: Jessica Lussenhop. Jane (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Submitted AfCs sorted by topic

Articles for Creation submissions are now sorted by topic (see WP:AFCS). And editors can now find all biographies of women drafts that have been submitted at AfC. Here's the specific biographies of women sorting page, if you want to check it out. It's really cool and shares the number of past declines, length of article, when it was created, etc.

I've personally been using it to work on AfC drafts about women, although I don't think that is its intended use :) - Whisperjanes (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Whisperjanes, this is very useful. It should speed up the processing of AfC drafts.--Ipigott (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Seeing this made me wonder how often people create new bios on individuals where an article exists in draft. Before I start an article, I search Wikidata and Wikipedia mainspace but, until now, hadn't thought to search for Draft:person's name. It would be frustrating to endure the long wait at AfC for nothing. I guess that's why we generally use the redlink method for new article creation. Oronsay (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Effie Conley and Draft:Alyce Mills

I would be happy to have help getting these drafts approved to mainspace. Thank you kindly to anyone so inclined. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Draft:Jean Sothern is another one. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Pauline Johnson

Draft:Pauline Johnson, a biography of a woman scientist, needs some eyes on it to move it into article space. Not sure of all the background, but a student editor started it as an assignment. They got reported at ANI, I think because of misunderstanding. Everyone agrees the subject seems notable, but refs and independent editing are required. If someone wants to take a shot at doing that and moving it to article space, that would be a good thing, methinks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: Has now been moved to article space but could still use eyes.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)