Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 131

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red
Latest comment: 1 year ago by MrsSnoozyTurtle in topic Susan Lyons draft
Archive 125←Archive 129Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132Archive 133→Archive 135

Automatic DYK listings

Latest comment: 1 year ago22 comments5 people in discussion

@PamD and Ipigott: from our previous discussion, see

Automated listing
Manual listing
  1. Bertha McNeill - 26 March
  2. Eugénie Hamer - 22 March
  3. Cora Slocomb di Brazza - 22 March
  4. Helene Scheu-Riesz - 20 March
  5. Kae Miller - 11 March
  6. Erna P. Harris - 18 February

It didn't pick up Bertha McNeill because it's not tagged with {{WIR-251}}, but it picked up Helene Lecher because it is. No idea if Abby Day Slocomb should be tagged or not. Likewise it removed María Pérez Rabaza from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/276#Did You Know features since it's not tagged with {{WIR-276}}.

I'm open to feedback/tweaks on this feature. I find the blurb listing more interesting than just the plain list personally, but if a plain list is desired, that is doable too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  • I don't understand this at all, and as we all know WP technology is difficult for me. Bertha McNeill is tagged 251 on the talk now and was when the talk page was created. Abby Day Slocumb is tagged as 260 and was a dual hook with Cora Slocomb di Brazza which was tagged 251, so yes, both should appear with the respective DYK for those events. SusunW (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @SusunW: Sorry, that was a bit of a brainfart, I read the automated list too fast. It did pick up Bertha McNeill. Anyway, my general question is to ask your feedback how how things looks, if the blurbs are desired/an improvement over the bare lists. If you're happy with it, this can easily be rolled out to all events, and have DYK blurb lists automatically generated, and save people the hassle of maintaining them beyond tagging articles with banners like {{WIR-251}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  • No worries, Headbomb, you more than many get how many times I am confused by technology, so in a way a tiny mistake makes you seem less wizardy and more human  . I personally like the blurbs because you get a small taste of who the people were, but others may just want a list. I love that you can automate this. SusunW (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone else? I'd like to deploy this in the near future. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The automated version looks great to me! Would it be possible to have it for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green as well? Mujinga (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Very easily so. It can work for any project. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
They'll be on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green/DYK next time the bot runs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Now I see the code, cool :) Mujinga (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@Mujinga: WiG DYKs are finally sorted out. There were so many it caused issues and the bot needed a new way of handlings things. See WP:WIG/DYK for the results. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Start of the rollout

I've added automated DYK updates to Meetups 1 through 10 as a small test run.

JL-Bot should run on these today/tomorrow. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

These are now out. Feedback welcome. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
It's good to see the actual hook rather than just the article title as before. But as far as I can see, the date is now missing and your additions seem to have overwritten the dated lists which were already there. It's now necessary to go back over the page's history to see the original listings, some of which appear to be rather longer than yours but I really haven't had time to compare them in detail. To re-establish the full listings, it seems necessary to modify the corresponding article talk pages with the precise WIR event rather than just a mention of WIR. That will no doubt require a fair amount of additional work. I also think it would have been more productive to start with out current events. But maybe I am not the best person to comment on these as I have been systematically listing them manually for years.--Ipigott (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The dates are at the end of the blurbs. If there are differences between the lists, it's because those pages weren't tagged with the relevant {{WIR}} templates. For example Katherine Cutler Ficken and Rosamind Julius were removed from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/3#Did You Know? articles because they don't have {{WIR-3}} on their talk page. If they belong, it's a simple matter of adding the template on the relevant talk page, and they'll be back on the listings with the next update. It also removed some duplication Corinne Bennett was listed twice on two different dates. The only listings that seems to have significantly less than before is Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/8#Did You Know? articles (again, tagging them from the big table list would be pretty easy if that's desired). Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/9#Did You Know? articles has many more. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/10 has about the same number, but the composition of the list is pretty different. As for "That will no doubt require a fair amount of additional work", this isn't false, but the amount of work really amounts to loading the WIR articles from 'outcomes' into AWB and tagging them with the banner. It's tedious, but not that tedious. I could take care of Meetups 1-10 in an hour or so for example. And once I have AWB setup, I can easily share the settings so others can contribute. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Comparison table

Meetup Diff Lost Gained Notes
{{WIR-1}} [1] — All No previous listing
{{WIR-2}} [2] — All No previous listing
{{WIR-3}} [3] Corinne Bennett was duplicated on the original
{{WIR-4}} [4]
{{WIR-5}} [5]
{{WIR-6}} [6] Wu Zuguang mentionned in the Xin Fengxia DYK. Doesn't need to be tagged.
{{WIR-7}} [7] Friends' Asylum for Colored Orphans mentioned in the Lucy Goode Brooks DYK. Might be tagged. Might not.
Merikins mentionned in the Althea McNish DYK. Doesn't need to be tagged.
{{WIR-8}} [8] 101 articles This was done in conjuction with another edithathon, so I don't know if those 101 should be tagged with WIR-8 or not. Presumably some should.

Buhe (politician) mentioned in the Bu Xiaolin DKY. Doesn't need to be tagged.

{{WIR-9}} [9] Kitty O'Brien Joyner (2019) is also listed in both.
{{WIR-10}} [10]

I've put the years of some DYKs that occurred well before/after the even ran. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ipigott: no movement on those with this week's update. Should the 'lost' column be tagged with the relevant WIR banner? What about the gained ones? Were those overlooked, or were they excluded on purpose? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Headbomb: We can't expect any week-to-week changes on these old lists. I wouldn't bother making any adjustments to the Lost lists. In the early days, we might well have included articles about women which were not specifically tagged with a WIR banner. In any case, you'll be glad to see that for the time being at least, there will be no "merges" of the WIR banners.--Ipigott (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
What I meant by that was that no one updated anything, which lead me to question what, if anything, should be done. If the automated lists are fine, I'll continue the rollout to the others. It'll take some time, since automating the lists is a bit of a manual process, but it should make your life easier in the long run. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I would suggest you start with the most recent and the others for 2023. I see it's already running successfully on WIR-251 but you should also cover WIR-252 which has more page views than any of the others. I'm not too sure how useful it will be to cover the other years but that's up to you. I see that whenever you add your routine, you need to make quite a number of other adjustments. Pity there have been no other reactions on this. I'm really not too happy about being the only one to comment.--Ipigott (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm still getting my head around how the behind the curtain tech magic works, but this all seems like yet another clear-cut justification for the existence of the event-specific WIR wrappers (if that topic ever resurfaces). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
@Cl3phact0: the tech is pretty straightforward. It looks at all articles tagged with {{WIR-1}}, then looks on their talk page for a dyk entry (usually from {{DYK talk|entry=...}} or {{article history|dyk1entry=...}} and then just compiles those DYK entries for the WIR-1 list.
@Ipigott: the number of adjustments should be much smaller now that I've figured out the format. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ipigott: alright, rolled out from 250 to 276. I've skipped 274 since that one looks a bit weird. We can come back to it later. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

WMF Community Insights 2023 Report

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The WMF's latest survey findings state that, basically, there is no change: 13% of editors self-identify as women. In addition to gender, other information about movement participants is also available here: Community Insights 2023 Report. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this with us, Rosie. It was also interesting to see that no less than 40% of active editors are below 35 years of age. By contrast, my age group (75 to 84) has only 3%. It looks to me as if these figures apply to all language versions of Wikipedia. Do you happen to know if any information is available specifically on the EN wiki? Maybe we should try to encourage more women contributors to identify as woman. I see that 4,274 are now categorized as women but I don't know how many of these are active. I keep coming across user pages which clearly show the subject is a women but many (if not most) of them do not add one of the applicable user boxes or specify their name following the instructions given under Category:Female Wikipedians. It might be worthwhile persuading them to do so. Maybe you or others have some suggestions on how we could go forward with this. It might also be interesting to find out if those who have identified as female on the user page have suffered any positive or negative reactions as a result.--Ipigott (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Thinking out loud... if there's a campaign for women editors to identify as female... then whatever increase in the percentage won't really reflect an increase in women participating. Which might be give a false impression of progress or whatever. At the same time, there might be benefits (and drawbacks) to having more people be open about being women on Wikipedia.
Anyway, just food for though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't have any identifying gender on my pages. Although I would say of every characteristic that has shaped me, being a woman is the most foundational, I avoid calling attention to my gender because of negative drama. It is obvious to anyone who looks at my article creation list or my discussions, but specifically identifying myself seems risky. A lifetime of experience has taught me it is better to avoid calling attention to who I am and focus on the work instead. SusunW (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
The survey figures don't rely on self-id on user pages etc. I can perfectly understand people (all people) not wanting to give much personal info away there - generally there is less of this than when I began editing in 2006, and far fewer photos, especially of women. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the point has been made, but just for clarity: women self-identifying on-wiki regarding their gender, and, survey responders self-identifying as women in a survey... these are not the same.
Personally, I don't encourage editors of any gender to address their gender or any other demographic on-wiki. I tell them to think about it as once they have done so, "you can't unring the bell". --Rosiestep (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
The reluctance of many women to identify as such may well be one of the reasons the percentage in surveys is so low, even if these are supposed to be confidential. I realize of course that there is a difference between the survey and how contributors identify themselves on their talk pages. I fully agree with Rosie that we should avoid exerting any pressure on contributors to identify their gender but many seem not be aware of the user boxes available, particularly those for women. But let's just leave it at that.--Ipigott (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Aileen Getty

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I recently created a draft for Aileen Getty, a member of the Getty family. She is the co-founder of the Climate Emergency Fund which has funded Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil. Thriley (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for help on behavioural scientist Jemma B King

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all, I've completed this draft on the working Australian behavioural scientist: Draft:Jemma B King

I feel like I've provided enough reliable sources to establish general notability, but would be grateful for further input.

Please feel free to change, add, or subtract to improve.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

MatthewDalhousie: How important are awards under the Army Research Scheme? It may be worthwhile creating an article on it and listing other award winners. I see that many of the sources in the biography are primary. It might be useful to see how robust the biography becomes if these are eliminated. In any case, I see the article is already in mainspace as Jemma B. King.--Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Ipigott - that's a great idea, the awards article.
About sources, tried to mostly use news sources. Where I struggled was for generating the lists of publications and papers. Is it okay to use Google Scholar as a source for this? MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
MatthewDalhousie: Yes, Google Scholar is fine.--Ipigott (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Equity lists

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi everyone - I'm excited to share Equity lists with you. This is the project I've been working on that's inspired by Women in red. It's not as comprehensive yet, but the bones are there and I think these lists will be helpful. There's an additional section about connecting this kind of work to Dashboards you may or may not be using. We're hoping these lists will help encourage more editing around people and topics that are currently underrepresented on Wikipedia. If you have any feedback, I'd love to hear it. @Rosiestep @Ipigott Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Will, for these lists. I think "Equity lists"/("redlists") are vital to the work of both of our organizations. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Looks like a great idea to me. It could be developed into an effective new wikiproject. While all five areas deserve attention, I'm particularly interested in Ethnicity which suffers from the lack of adequate use of "Ethnic group" on Wikidata. Disability is also important and deserves increased attention, no doubt in collaboration with WP:WikiProject Disability. Perhaps research into Gender could be combined with Sexual orientation. Should the priority at this stage be to provide better data for improving the listings or is there already a case for creating new biographies for the EN wiki? In any case, Will (Wiki Ed), thank you for the efforts you have devoted to preparing these Equity lists.--Ipigott (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much, @Ipigott! These lists are generated the same way WIR's are - so everyone listed should be notable on other language versions of Wikipedia - they're just lacking an English language article. I share your concern about the inadequate use of some Wikidata properties, but that shouldn't preclude anyone from creating more articles based on what we have. I say if you're inspired to create a bio, go for it! The data in Wikidata will arrive as it can. If you have other thoughts or feedback about these lists, feel free to let me know. I'm hoping I can create more as time permits. Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Rosie! I'm hoping to present about these lists as some upcoming conferences. I'll definitely be plugging WIR, so I hope we can attract some new participants as a result. Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Will! --Rosiestep (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Editting in Edinburgh

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just looked at the dashboard for the editathon in Edinburgh as there is another tomorrow... and I cannot make it. How many articles? 4,000 articles editted! How may images? Sign up here Victuallers (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)  

More sources for Verónica Chen

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion

If you have time/inclination, this Argentine biography needs additional sources: Verónica Chen. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Rosiestep: The Catalan article contains some sources which could be incorporated. Strange that this suddenly comes up after so many years.--Ipigott (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning that, Ipigott. Both of those references were included in the EN-WP article but as bare URLs and didn't show up in the References section. I've done the needful conversion. I also translated more from the Catalan language article; added an image; added a sentence; added a reference; shifted info into an added header. While 7 other language Wikipedias (Arabic, Catalan, Egyptian Arabic, French, Kazakh, Russian, and Spanish) have an article on her, perhaps it's just a fact that this subject just doesn't meet EN-WP policies. We'll have to wait and see. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I'll try to hop into the article to help out in the next couple of weeks. I'm decent at finding source material, but I just need my work life to slow down a bit first... Pumpkinspyce (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I have contributed a Google books source to the discussion. TSventon (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, @Pumpkinspyce and TSventon! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Of course! No worries at all! Pumpkinspyce (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@Rosiestep and @TSventon I just added the IMDB page and a link from Variety Magazine to help out with the Chen page. Also, would one of you be interested in helping with the thread I posted about below yesterday? I'm sure that @Ɱ and @Cielquiparle would appreciate some help with their AfC draft, but obviously, no pressure! Pumpkinspyce (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia Funds grants study programs

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, just a note and maybe you are already aware. Allow me if it's off-topic here.

As the Fiscal year is fresh in July, I found two research projects on Meta-wikimedia※. Those listed below are granted the Wikimedia Research Fund for FY2022-23, or to be carried out July 2023 - July 2024.

I think both are not very distant from our project. Cheers, Omotecho (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, this is relevant to WiR. "Reducing the gender gap" references Tripodi (2021), which was criticised here at the time. TSventon (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Sinéad O’Connor Saturday Night Live performance

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I recently created a draft for the Sinéad O’Connor Saturday Night Live performance using information from the Sinéad O’Connor article. I think there is enough content for a separate article. It takes up a lot of space currently. There’s probably more to add, particularly with all the pieces coming out after her death. Would appreciate any advice or help. Best, Thriley (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

One detail: I'm not sure which ENGVAR the new page should use. Currently it's in British English (monologue, behaviour), but the performance took place in New York and was broadcast live to Americans. pburka (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Since it's all about O’Connor, I'd use Irish/British myself. Up to the editor really. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • A major issue I’ve found is that it appears her intent behind the performance has become muddled over the years. From what I’ve read, her performance was a personal one, related to the abuse she received from her mother, a conservative Catholic. It was her mother’s photo that she tore up. I think interpretations have evolved over the years, but I believe the original intent was not what is commonly believed now. I think there is some source digging required, but someone on the talk page of the article has already found some that were published immediately after it happened. Thriley (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
Women in Red August 2023, Vol 9, Iss 8, Nos 251, 252, 277, 278, 279, 280


Online events:

See also:

  • Wikimania 2023 will be held in Singapore, 16–19 August, and will be facilitated by the
    affiliates in the ESEAP (East/South East/Asia/Pacific) region.

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

  Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

AFD for Arleen McCarty Hynes

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Need others to look at Arleen McCarty Hynes that has been listed at AFD. I think Fortunaa did a pretty good job writing this article. I just went through it and, while I found some minor things that could be attended to, I personally think this is an OK piece of work. I've also been doing a lot of work over at AFD recently, and I see a lot that is just one person's POV vs another. Maybe others could look at this. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

New editor asking for help

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments7 people in discussion

see request: Brittany Chrishawn Moore. Can anyone assist, I avoid BLPs and am concerned about WP:BLP1E, but others may be able to help? SusunW (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  • @Artbytrade: The page is a bit complicated, because it's combining two stories: a biography of Brittany Chrishawn and the arrest and conviction of a police officer, Alejandro Carmona-Fonseca, for crimes (mostly) unrelated to Chrishawn. I think it would make more sense as two articles, one about Chrishawn and one about Carmona-Fonseca, although they might both be of marginal notability. With respect to Chrishawn, the best claim to notability is probably through WP:CREATIVE. If you can show that her documentaries have been the subject of significant coverage (e.g. reviews, not just passing mentions or screenings), then there's a strong case to include her biography in the encyclopedia. pburka (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for this info...makes sense. It's just that it's been reported that Chrishawn's push for justice and her exposing of the officers in her case is what brought about the discoveries of Carmona-Fonseca's corruption. So, I figured it should be a part of her article rather than a standalone. Artbytrade (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I made some formatting changes to the draft and added a link to her IMDb page. I'd recommend including more general biographical details, such as information on her film credits and award nominations, before focusing on her activism and the police brutality incident. Nick Number (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok; thank you. Artbytrade (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I think it is a WP:BLP1E case and in all cases, I would likely send it to Afd should it make mainspace. Police brutality happens every where during every second of the day. The fact it has three seperate subject types in the lede is indicative of non-notability. scope_creepTalk 18:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for this info. I'm not sure what "Afd" means. Can you please explain?
Also, do you think it could be notable since there's rarely a story covered in the media about a police brutality victim who actually survived and lives to tell the tale? Please share your thoughts. I really appreciate it. Artbytrade (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, SusunW, for bringing this to our attention. As the article has now been substantially improved, I've promoted it to mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Artbytrade, "Afd" means Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. TSventon (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Lauren Baltayan

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A user who's only been around for a couple of months seems to have gone on a nomination spree and nominated this article about a notable female athlete for deletion. This was then supported by another user who's only been around for a few days. This athlete is clearly notable - she's won a senior professional tournament in the world tour. That alone makes her notable already. And she's also represented her country. And she's the youngest ever European (male or female!) to win a professional tournament. If this gets deleted it may set a very worrying precedent. Please give your opinion at the AfD page. Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Vogel, thank you for the notification, however please be careful to keep notifications neutral and not Wikipedia:Canvas the project. TSventon (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my comment didn't come across as neutral enough, but someone is trying to delete the biography of a notable female athlete, and that doesn't help to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
You are welcome to hold such opinions, and express them in the AfD, but when you are announcing its existence to other Wikipedia editors you need to keep the opinions out of it so that they can express theirs. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Ines de Ramon nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ines de Ramon has been nominated for deletion. Not sure if this bio subject is notable enough to make it through the AfD process, but wanted to give Women in Red members a heads up in case there are editors in the group who might be able to improve the bio. - 47thPennVols (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Buhle

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An article relevant to this project has been nominated for deletion. CT55555(talk) 01:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible glitch with New pages feed?

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hi. I'm hoping someone who is more tech savvy about Wikipedia's New pages feed than I can provide me with some guidance about a potential glitch with the feed. I just checked the listing on my New pages feed for the Lonnie Nelson bio I posted on July 30. It describes her bio in bright red as "Orphan - previously deleted." This is an error. The bio isn't an orphan; it's linked to and from several pages, including the bio for Jonathan Rosenblum. (Weirdly, it's also described on the New pages feed as "Predicted class: C-class" and "Potential issues: None.") Can anyone tell me how this article got labeled as an orphan when it isn't, and whether or not anything can be done to remove the Orphan wording from the New pages feed? (I'm worried that the bright red orphan label might make the bio a target for AfD.) Thanks in advance for your insights and advice. - 47thPennVols (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I checked the new pages feed and Lonnie Nelson is shown as "Previously deleted" but not "Orphan". Possibly the new pages feed hadn't been updated for the links you added, or possibly it was a glitch. The deletion log confirms that the page was speedily deleted in 2019. TSventon (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I think it's as TSventon just said: WP:NPP doesn't auto-update instantly. So, in order for the article to not be tagged at NPP in bright red as "Orphan" or "No categories" (the article can't escape the "Previously deleted" tag) -even for a short duration- I redlink her somewhere before I create the article, and I include at least one category with my first edit. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
... and these are low level judgements. Its humans who decide and Lonnie Nelson is notable IMO based on just the first four of five refs .... and you include 45! We have article that hang around that have no refs and a passing mention in IMDB. This is a notable woman.... she is a long long way from an AfD and it would just cause laughter if she was nominated. Victuallers (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I have used reference names to merge duplicate references and show there are ten references, which is still plenty. TSventon (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  • My thanks to everyone who checked the feed and bio and for sharing your tech thoughts and tips. (It's amazing how a tiny word like "orphan" can cause mt heart to skip a beat when it appears in red font.) I genuinely appreciate your reassurance about the subject's notability and the bio's quality. My New pages feed is now describing the article as "Previously deleted" and not "Orphan." I'm now working on a new bio of another peace activist.... - 47thPennVols (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

A1 poster: Women in Red at Wikimania 2023 Singapore

Latest comment: 1 year ago27 comments6 people in discussion

There may be an opportunity to have project-related posters hanging in the Concourse space of Wikimania 2023 Singapore. If that's the case, I'm wondering if we have some designers here with experience in creating an A1-size conference-suitable poster so that Women in Red is represented? -- Rosiestep (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a designer, but I am going to Wikimania!!! it would be great to meet other editors too! Lajmmoore (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Lajmmoore, can't wait to meet you in-person! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Hoping still that someone volunteers to create a Women in Red poster for the Wikimania Expo Space. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Rosiestep, Do you need someone to create a poster as a pdf in A1-size that can then be e-mail to someone at the conference to be put in the poster section? Happy to work on the electronic side, but have no way to get a physical poster to Singapore. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
WomenArtistUpdates, yes: A1-size PDF uploaded to c:Category:Wikimania 2023 Posters no later than 30 July 2023. Posters in this catagory will be printed in Singapore and hung up at Wikimania. If you want to work on it in a google doc of some sort, I would be glad to help, at least with suggestions, but I'm not creative enough to take this on myself, ergo, much gratitude if you would do so. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Rosiestep Groovy! Let me know the basic message and preferred graphics ( or point me to something you like) and I will put something together for your feedback. Or vice versa WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I slept on it and have an idea for an effective poster. I will work on it and ask for feedback. I will keep it simple, but will have QR codes to the most relevant pages. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments welcome. I know the QR codes are not quite the same size, but will tweak with the next iteration. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow! Beautiful. Can you add QR codes for the Metrics page, Redlist Index page, and Idea page (where we do the planning)? Also, add somewhere: established 19 July 2015, Wikimania Mexico City (especially relevant as this poster will be hanging at Wikimania Singapore). Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I'll see if all that info fits, but I think the additional QR codes and text will start making the poster crowded. It is designed for maximum readability amongst a sea of posters. Let me give it a try to see how it looks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
They are both now in c:Category:Wikimania 2023 Posters. I am going to sleep on it again. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Rosiestep, I woke up this morning with the realization that I have no idea what the usual format is for conference posters. I started with a general idea of keeping things uncluttered, but maybe that is not the use. "Form follows function". We now have a few elements to play with:

  • Original logo
  • 8th anniversary logo with caption
  • several blocks of text
  • user box and code
  • QR codes for several pages.

Elements can be enlarged or reduced. I will spend some time tidying up the horizontal poster and then will await addition comments. I am about at my limit for creating in the graphic design programs (Elements and Inkscape) and will say if a suggestion is beyond my ability. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I think what you're doing WomenArtistUpdates is lovely and creative; thank you so much! Regarding format for conference posters, here is a link to Wikimania 2019 Stockholm posters.
Some thoughts: (a) maybe remove the Userbox info and our logo be the only image on the page; (b) add at the bottom, our URL (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red) or our Short URL (https://w.wiki/347); (c) use the regular Women in Red image (which is most recognizable) instead of the 8th Anniversary one. Please take these as suggestions and not requirements. Also, hoping others might chime in with their thoughts. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for all your efforts, WomenArtistUpdates. I prefer the vertical version. Maybe you could adapt the text to read "Editing to close the gender gap on Wikipedia since July 2015" (reducing the text size if it runs over two lines). I think adding even more text would be a mistake.--Ipigott (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I also like the clean layout, although conference posters are typically very dense in my experience. But what about adding some graphs? Maybe one showing how WiR has reduced the gender gap over the last 8 year (the improvement from 15.5% to 19.6% is a pretty remarkable achievement) and another with a timeline of editathons? Or maybe someone with good data visualization skills could combine those two things. pburka (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for all the feedback. I will revisit this tomorrow morning, since I seem to do my best thinking when I am asleep. Wow! the examples of posters from Wikimania 2019 Stockholm are dense with text. Do any of you Wiki-maniacs actually read the posters? Just curious. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 
Women in Red poster for Wikimania 2023

Rosiestep Ipigott pburka I hope I have incorporated most fo your concerns. Vertical with the original logo. Rosie, I didn't add a URL because it seems like the folks at wiki-mania would be far more likely to use the QR code. Ipigott, I left the text block "established July 2015 ...Mexico..." because it seemed like a useful factoid. pburka, I wasn't comfortable with creating graphs for the ideas you had, so I just added them to the bullet points in plain English. I hope it doesn't seem to crowded, but is more in line with a conference poster. I did leave in the user box illustration and the code. My thinking was that this is the main way we count new members, and it might be the best way to join. It would be great if the poster resulted in some new members. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, WomenArtistUpdates. Just awesome. Big thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Looks good but if you think it is too crowded you could shorten the text a bit. How about "Our Wikipedia WikiProject focuses on creating content regarding women's biographies, women's works and women's issues in many language versions." and "Metrics - In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. By July 2023, this had risen to 19.61%." But as I say, it looks good as it is, so it's entirely up to you.--Ipigott (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I used the edit for "Metrics - In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. By July 2023, this had risen to 19.61%." which seems to give everything enough breathing space and headroom. Thanks. It is now uploaded as an SVG and a PDF in c:Category:Wikimania 2023 Posters - WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
WomenArtistUpdates for what it's worth, I think it looks great! SusunW (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the follow up. Did you forget "By July 2023, this had risen to 19.61%."--Ipigott (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi WomenArtistUpdates. A friendly FYI... Many of the other Wikimania posters are now uploaded here: c:Category:Wikimania 2023 Posters. If you see anything that inspires you to make any changes to the Women in Red poster, deadline is 2 August. Not suggesting that you should make changes; just giving you (and other poster authors) the opportunity to do so. For example, per this info for poster authors, maybe add more images (e.g., some of the logos you've created for previous events.) --Rosiestep (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Rosiestep. I've looked a the variety of Wikimania posters. I am going to leave our poster as is. The article https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Learning_patterns/Posters_that_work confirms my instinct that less is more for the people wandering through the hall. I hope we see a spike in page views on those pages with QR codes. And I also hope that WiRers will take a photo of themselves by the poster (please!) for our archives. Safe travels. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Idea

Latest comment: 1 year ago21 comments6 people in discussion

What if this project did some work at the Simple English Wikipedia? That site has a similar bad lack of women's biographies, and I think some of you could help. Feel free to tell me if this isn't something the project wants to do. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion, QuicoleJR. I've been looking at what I could find about the project but as far as I can see, there are no lists of priorities for new articles or explanations of which articles deserve to be included. It would be interesting to see which articles have the highest readership. One possibility would be to incorporate basic details from our EN wiki articles about women which are rated FA or GA on WP:Women or WP:Women's History. In the case of Women's History, we could start with those whose importance is listed as Top, High or even Mid. I see from Humaniki that with 21.75% of biographies about women (14,800 out of 68,050), Simple English is doing rather better that the standard English version. Given the relatively small number of biographies, it would not be difficult to improve the statistics.--Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
At the risk of bringing down a rain of anger...is there a computer program that we could run articles through to check for Basic English? I think my articles are pretty doggone simple, so I would be happy to run them through a program that could filter. Minor tweaks and confirmation of references would be a project to get me through get me through this heat wave...which may never end. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
I have not found one, but there are some things that are similar. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
QuicoleJR I see you have taken a look at Mary Nyburg. Do you think the vocabulary is close to Simple English? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
It would need to be a bit simpler for the Simple English wiki, but it is not far off. I could help you with that, if you want. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
* Yes please QuicoleJR. I am about to log off for awhile. Let's meet up on your talk page. Thanks! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
By the way, the Simple English Wikipedia does not allow fair use images, so we would have to take that out of the infobox when we bring it over. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Simple as a project is too small to monitor images, or image use. Anything that's on Commons is fine.. Eptalon (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, QuicoleJR. Maybe you can take care of this and also mention your interest in involving collaboration with Women in Red. Interesting to see that the main contributor Eptalon is a German speaker. As a native English speaker, I may not be qualified to work on Simple English. Those who have learnt English as a foreign language probably have a far better appreciation of how to simplify things.--Ipigott (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello there, don't be afraid to write pages there, it is not as difficult as you think. We do have a pages that helps you start Writing in Simple English. Getting a page to Good or Very Good Article status is a lot of work, and our rules say that it must not be the work of one editor alone. A first step to getting a page noticed is probably to get it accepted for Did you know?. As to being a native English speaker: we do have several contributors that I presume are native English speakers. As the Simple English Wikipedia is a project that is much smaller, we can do without many of the rules that EnWP has.... Eptalon (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I will perhaps propose something different: Let's take 3-5 articles, and Write stubs in Simple English. These should be ones that have a high reach: The women are well-known, or they have been discussed in mainstream media. You then write stubs (of perhaps half a page to a page about them), ideally with a photo, and with references. When you look at these articles in the future, you can see if there's interest, and if some of the project members here are willing to help create articles there. The idea is to get them noticed there, so to get them accepted as DYK hooks (llink above). I don't know enough about this Wikiproject here, so I can't help you pick the articles. I can help with simplifying them, and I am sure, that if you get noticed, other people at Simple are going to help as well. What do you think? Eptalon (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I mentioned this discussion on our main project talk page. See simple:Wikipedia:Simple_talk#English_Wikiproject_wants_to_try_to_move_to_Simple...... Eptalon (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Hi. I'm an admin on Simple English Wikipedia. As far as native speakers vs. EFL speakers, it really depends. EFL speakers sometimes think that because their English isn't as advanced, everything they know must be simple. It may be simpler than what you'd see in general writing, but not necessarily simple enough for Simple English Wikipedia. Similarly, with native speakers, they may think that something they write is a lot simpler than they would usually write, but it still may not be simple enough for the wiki.
There are a couple of things I've seen trip people up with this. One is focussing on simple vocabulary. There are word lists that are used as a starting point, such as simple:Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist. Some of those words have multiple meanings; that makes them problematic, because we try to use words that have only one meaning, or at least as few meanings as possible. Some of the words with multiple meanings are simple in some of their meanings, but not others. An example is cook, along with its various forms. That word is simple when it means to prepare food, but not when you talk about cooking up a scheme. Another example is key. That word is simple when it means something you use to open a lock, but not when it's an adjective that means essential.
The other thing I've seen trip people up is sentence structure. In addition to simple vocabulary, Simple English Wikipedia looks for simple sentence structure. The simplest structure is simple sentences -- one verb/idea per sentence -- but we don't always achieve that. Compound and complex sentences are discouraged, but sometimes people have to learn what those even are before they can stop using them.
Finally, I offer this list I maintain of other things that are different at Simple. It includes things that I and many others have had to have explained over the years. The list is nothing official, but it links to some relevant policies and guidelines. Feel free to contact me with any questions you have about it. I hope to see you at Simple! -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the list Auntof6. Already I have noticed that it is better to write in short sentences. Keeping that in mind helps me. I hadn't realized how much info I had combine into one statement. Terse, does not mean simple. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Eptalon and Auntof6, for this useful feedback. Unfortunately, unless the DYK process on Simple is much less laborious than on the EN wiki, that would be a major constraint for me. On the other hand, it looks as if contributing to the project would certainly help to promote women's achievements, just as the Women in Red approach has been adopted by many other language versions of Wikipedia. If a few of the more active WiR contributors could put together a short biography of one or two outstanding women each month, we may be able to attract further interest in reducing the gender gap.
You may be interested to hear that when I was developing machine translation at the European Commission up to the early 1990s, I became marginally involved with the use of "Multilingual Customized English" by the Xerox Corporation in Rochester, NY. As you can see from this presentation, the use of controlled language for translation purposes seems to reflect many of the ideas you have incorporated into your own use of Simple English.--Ipigott (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
DYK on simple:
  • Minimum 800 characters of text in the article the hook is about
  • The fact cited needs a credible, verifiable source
  • Easy to read
  • Doesn't have one of a few templates, nor does it need them
  • The hook is interesting to read
  • Two people agree the hook is good to go. One of them usually is the nominator
I don't think much can be left out, it's the easiest way to get a page noticed, that's why I proposed it Eptalon (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi, I noticed the article work before seeing the notice on SimpleTalk. I think this is a great idea. I can help out now and then with proofreading and simplification if needed as the articles appear on the New Pages list. Anyone working on this project might be interested in checking out the work of a school teacher, Castilibrary, and her students. They have been steadily adding articles about women with projects such as: Notable Female Activists, Notable Women from 20th Century Social Movements in the US, Notable Women: Found with Inclusive Journalism, and more. All can be found linked here. Thank you for doing this. --Gotanda (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-01/Tips and tricks

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments4 people in discussion

I just wrote this. This is an overview of various citation tools available.

I might make a good addition to your /Resources panel, and people leading edit-a-thons will likely want to have a few of those installed to make their lives easier. But really everyone that's been around for a bit can benefit from this.

If you have comments about the piece, use the article's talk page. But if you have comments about the relevance to WPWIR, make those here! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Headbomb, for all this. I'm afraid it's all a bit too technical for me to make much use of what you propose. What I really regret is the disappearance of the Google books citation tool which for years made it much easier for many of us to include citations from Google books. It used to be accessible from here but was discontinued a year or two ago. There was a suggestion at the time that it had been replaced by another tool but that did not work nearly as well and I can't remember now how to access it. It would be really useful if you could look into this and try to restore the old tool which was really effective and easy to apply. Links to books cited by Google need considerable work for them to meet normal Wikipedia standards as references. I think Rosiestep would also be happy to have the old tool restored. You'll find further background here.--Ipigott (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


You don't need to use everything! Just use the one/two/three things that seem like they would make you editing life better.

As for Google Books, I just tried shoving a url in {{Cite book}} and with the citation expander I got

  • {{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OSdNEAAAQBAJ}}
  • Irving, John (18 October 2022). The Last Chairlift. Scribner UK. ISBN 9781471179105.

Ain't perfect, but it's decent. The main issue seems to be that it's missing the publisher. I'll make a Citation bot request (see User talk:Citation bot#Add publisher to cite book for updates) and see if that can't be improved. publishers now added Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I can see, Headbomb, that I need to explain how the Google tool worked in more detail. If I happen to be writing an article on the German opera singer Hildegard Jachnow, one of the best sources I can find is in the German Großes Sängerlexikon. A search turns up the Google books page https://books.google.dk/books?id=dsfq_5dFeL0C&pg=PA2211&lpg=PA2211&dq=grosses+s%C3%A4ngerlexikon+Johanna+Jachmann-Wagner&source=bl&ots=b0VUydnINr&sig=ACfU3U0N_yjiZ5kAIqFMTi5ycPLe5efnmw&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=grosses%20s%C3%A4ngerlexikon%20Johanna%20Jachmann-Wagner&f=false. In this form it is not suitable to use as a url in a reference. The way the old tool worked was that that you placed the raw Google books url in a box and it was transformed into a properly formatted google.com reference. To reformat it manually takes 10 to 15 minutes and it will probably contain errors. Can you see if the old tool can be restored or rewritten?--Ipigott (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I think that, if you use that long URL, it will work, and eventually citationbot will come along and clean it up. pburka (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, if you shove it in

  • {{cite book |url=https://books.google.dk/books?id=dsfq_5dFeL0C&pg=PA2211&lpg=PA2211&dq=grosses+s%C3%A4ngerlexikon+Johanna+Jachmann-Wagner&source=bl&ots=b0VUydnINr&sig=ACfU3U0N_yjiZ5kAIqFMTi5ycPLe5efnmw&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=grosses%20s%C3%A4ngerlexikon%20Johanna%20Jachmann-Wagner&f=false}}

citation expander will give you

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a rather poor resolution. It fails to cite the page number or the language. See for example Irma Björck for what we need to achieve. I think the Google tool was still working at the time. Furthermore, I am not too happy about a bot coming in later and editing my sources. I would much prefer to be able to add a cleaned up source myself.--Ipigott (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The point is you have a tool that can get you 80-90% of the way there. I'd rather add a missing page number than add the whole thing myself. (See also User talk:Citation bot#Add pages from Googlebooks) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt who frequently draws on the German Sängerlexikon may be able to offer further advice on what we need for citations.--Ipigott (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
It will probably not help you that I just have my citation in my sandbox, and copy, changing only the page no. (in url and page(s)) and the name. We want links to the authors, and a link to the lexicon. I used it last for Teresa Stolz. For url, you don't need all the search baggage once you know the page number, for the above example https://books.google.com/books?id=dsfq_5dFeL0C&pg=PA2211. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
ps: use google.com! not de, not dk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Gerda Arendt: What you use is exactly what we need from a bot for Google books, I generally use google.com. I've noticed for the Sängerlexikon, when I'm in Luxembourg, it responds with google.lu and when in Denamrk with google.dk. I sometimes search on google.dk if I am looking for Danish-language resources as the search responses are not prioritized in the same way. Headbomb: Have you any idea how long it takes the bot to process the raw Google url or whether there is a tool with a box to obtain the same result immediately? I suppose it might be a bit easier to wait for what the bot produces and then make the necessary additions. It would nevertheless help if the old Google books citation tool could be restored. It was particularly useful not just for the Sängerlexikon but for citations from a wide variety of biological dictionaries, encyclopedias, and similar reference works.--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
The above were processed in seconds. If you have more citations on a page, it will take more time. It usually takes anywhere from 15 seconds to 2 minutes depending on article/section length. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Jean Pennycook

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I just created this article about Jean Pennycook, an Antarctic penguin scientist, which was requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Polar women. Any improvements would be welcome. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Festucalex, for this useful contribution. I see you have also created other articles about women but as far as I can see you have not yet registered as a member of Women in Red. You can do so under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Yeah, I just found out about this WikiProject and felt inspired to create an article. I'll certainly sign up. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Just adding a welcome to you @Festucalex - I've worked on some Antarctic women too! Lajmmoore (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@Lajmmoore: Thank you! I'll be working on more WiR articles soon. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@Festucalex, my user page has a list of some highly-cited red-linked women scientists I've come across that might be interesting to you. JoelleJay (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@JoelleJay: Added to my watchlist. Thank you. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Added to Pennycook surname list. PamD 06:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft for Contemporary Novelist, Fiona Davis

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Hey, folks! I'm finally moving on to some other projects after helping with Draft:Dorian Rhea Debussy for the past few days. In my spare time, I've been reading a novel ("The Lions of New York"), and I was super surprised to find that the novelist doesn't have a Wiki page. The novelist is Fiona Davis, and she's a best selling author, which made me even more surprised that she doesn't have a page. I just started work on an article for her -- Draft:Fiona Davis -- and I'd love some help if anyone has some spare time. I've already got the basics for the infobox and some of her major publications worked into the draft, though I'd appreciate some extra personpower in getting through the AfC process. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Pumpkinspyce, did you look for some independent reliable sources before starting the draft? It is a good idea to do that first because an article without independent sources is unlikely to get through AfC or NPP. TSventon (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I found some good interviews, reviews of her book (to ensure she meets the notability standard), etc. I've started plugging in some of those interviews and book reviews into the draft article here: Draft:Fiona Davis Pumpkinspyce (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Should be pretty easy to show she passes WP:NAUTHOR: 8 reviews in Kirkus and another 6 in Publishers Weekly. pburka (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Suggestion, Pumpkinspyce: Instead of "Selected publications", which is much more of a section title and usage for academics and scientists and not novelists, you should format and title that section as a "Bibliography". You can see an example of how to format such a section at Richard Panek. And if you find 3 or more reviews for a single one of Davis' novels, I would suggest using the all-in-one reference formatting method for reviews, as seen on Theresa Pulszky. It makes things look nicer and more condensed. I hope that helps! SilverserenC 21:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Pumpkinspyce, it would be useful to find reviews from a wider range of reliable sources like this from the Washington Post. TSventon (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
For novelists, the section listing the novels should be called "Novels". If there are other books, they should be in a appropriately titled sub-section. Articles you probably can ignore. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the help, folks! I just made that change per you all's suggestion! Very appreciative! Pumpkinspyce (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
There are also some Creative Commons photos of Davis on Flickr that could be used to illustrate the page. pburka (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much for finding that, @Pburka! I haven't yet gotten any experience with uploading photos on Wiki. Can you help point me to a how to page, so I can make sure to do that and format it correctly? Pumpkinspyce (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Since these are freely licensed, you'll want to upload any photos you want to use to Wikimedia Commons, which will allow any Wikipedia project to reuse them. There's an Upload Wizard which will walk you through the steps (there can be quite a few, sometimes). If you look lower down on that page, you'll see an "Share images from Flickr" button which streamlines the workflow for these images, since Flickr is such a rich source of CC images. pburka (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much for letting me know, @Pburka! I went through the upload process and have placed this image into the Wiki page too! Super happy to have learned how to do this too! Pumpkinspyce (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

¡Image request! Fannie Almara Quain, the first female physician from North Dakota

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There are some images of physician Fannie Almara Quain available online. I suspect some might be in the public domain given she died in 1950. Any assistance would be much appreciated! TJMSmith (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done uploaded as fair use. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
@WomenArtistUpdates and TJMSmith: It's from 1899 and by J. F. Rentschler. https://cdm16921.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/uw-ndshs/id/3336 Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 01:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
  Now on Commons. And restored and stuff. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 02:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Preview of my article on finding images

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I was kind of trying to write an article on what not to do when uploading images, and then it kind of grew into... um... literally everything I do when researching, finding, and selecting images. I think it's a little bit overgrown, but if I could beg some feedback, I'd appreciate it.

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/News/August_2023/Op-ed

It's also due to go into The Signpost. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 01:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I skimmed it. Knowing more about your restoration process was very helpful. A couple dropped thought spots: "which is important for making" and "instantly replaced the more". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 07:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
For the copyright section, a link to c:Commons:Hirtle chart for US copyright rules would be very helpful; I reference this chart all the time, it is exceptionally helpful! This could help cut back on some of the bloat in that section, as well. Curbon7 (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Added, simplifying some other text. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 07:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Photo of Sinéad O'Connor at the height of her fame in the early 1990s?

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is there an available photo of Sinéad O'Connor from the early 90s out there? I recently nominated Sinéad O'Connor on Saturday Night Live for DYK. Would be great if there was a photo to go with it. Thriley (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

if there is, I'd suspect the Netherlands Nationaal archief would be the best chance. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 07:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Not quite what you're looking for, but there are some Creative Commons photographs on Flickr of O'Connor performing in 2015 dressed as a priest. e.g. [11]. pburka (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

AFDs

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can anyone here find coverage for the following three Olympic gymnasts for the UK/US?

BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Editing the timeline of women's education

Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments6 people in discussion

Hi all, I am currently editing the timeline of women's education, and will continue to do so over the next few days. While going through it, I found an entry under 2000s, which states:

"2007:the gold coast titans joined the nrl"

The Gold Coast Titans (an all-male rugby team) which joined the National Rugby League.

This is clearly spam, probably by some fan of the team.

While I can remove this immediately, what's the best way to find out who made this edit and flag their account?

Thanks!

UMStellify (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@UMStellify : See dif.
  • .. what's the best way to find out who made this edit..
At article history I suppose there is some tool link. But I do manually by comparing middles of the article history.
  • .. and flag their account? ..
For example this spam insertion seems to be from specially created spam account, such spams can come from IPs too. Unless spamming is persistent from same account, flagging can't be a good option rather Wikipedia is quite dependent on good faith users like us. Who made change searches are useful when we wish to invite them for content discussion or doubt it is persistent from same account to flag the same.
Ordinarily tag citation needed tag immediately. And remove if sure of that being spam.
I hope this helps. Bookku (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@Bookku This is helpful, thank you. Tried finding it through the version histories, but I guess I wasn't thorough enough. UMStellify (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@UMStellify If you look at the article history, one of the "External tools" at the top is "Find addition/removal". Go to that, put some distinctive text in the "search for" box (it needed "gold coast titans", not just "gold coast", to find the specific addition), click "start" below, and wait a while for it to find it. It worked. It isn't always going to be helpful but in a simple case like this it's good.
Beyond that, if I'm looking to find who made a change to an article and there's nothing obvious in the recent page history, I tend to go back through the history and click on a version near 1 Jan in a year a way back, then move forwards and backwards in multiyear steps (halving the interval each time) to pin it down to what year the change was made, then divide that up by looking at 1 July, etc - narrowing down the search in steps. Hope that helps. PamD 07:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
PamD thank you for those very clear instructions. I have never been able to figure out how to do that. I appreciate you sharing your technical skill. SusunW (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
PamD, thank you from me, too, as I never noticed or tried using "Find addition/removal". I've always searched for a particular edit the old-fashioned way that you just described. It might be worthwhile to mention this as one of our monthly "tips". --Rosiestep (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Is it really worth all that trouble? This kind of spam is pretty frequent. I've simply deleted it.--Ipigott (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@Ipigott It depends. Sometimes it's useful to see the detailed history of a page, who introduced a bit of misinformation, etc, and these are the two methods I use to try to track things down.
When I found how the word "bibliometric" had got into Elizabeth Gaskell (I checked up because it literally made no sense - I found it had been changed from "bibliomemoir"), it led me to a whole swathe of dreadful edits by the same non-English-speaking editor who depended too much on their spellchecker, and I cleaned up a lot of other articles they'd mangled, as well as fixing the multiple horrible changes they'd made to Gaskell's article (most of which no-one had noticed for a couple of years).
In this case here, the silly editor who added the titans seems to have stopped at just that one edit, after going to the trouble of creating a username. It's probably worth getting them blocked, in case they decide to come back and play again - will report them. PamD 09:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@UMStellify@Ipigott Are we sure this was false information? There is currently a women's team of the Gold Coast Titans: their page shows it's been going since at least 2019, from the news items, not sure about 2007. I won't report the user, just in case it wasn't actually vandalism. PamD 09:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@PamD The men's team actually joined the NRL in 2007 - says so on their Wikipedia article and in the news. This was either intentional placement of misinformation or someone who read 'timeline' and thought everything goes. The women's team was formed in 2018. UMStellify (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
For confirmation, see here.--Ipigott (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@Ipigott Thanks for deleting it. But I think at least watching the people who might be potential vandals is important, no? UMStellify (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@UMStellify: Looking back over long editing histories takes time and in many cases edits are not true vandalism but rather lack of competence in Wikipedia editing. In my experience, true vandals are usually caught pretty quickly by bots or vandalism experts. If I spot a recent unjustified or bothersome edit, I simply delete it or open a discussion with the contributor. I actually prefer to devote my editing time to helping new contributors, writing articles, or assessing articles in various categories, especially those about women. If you are interested in vandalism, I think you should continue to gain experience but don't stop writing articles. At the beginning of May you were really productive.--Ipigott (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
@Ipigott Thank you for the advice. I do think that that's the best use of time, but with this one edit query I now have a better idea on how to deal with similar situation in the future. And hey, I'm starting again - had a really busy summer between travelling, some family weddings, and whatnot. Settled back again, so going to start contributing more. UMStellify (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
@PamD Thank you so much. This tool will definitely come in handy when editing older articles with lots of edits. I'll remember it for future use. UMStellify (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Newspaperarchive.com (and Newspapers.com)

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Several months back there was a discussion on this page about how newspaper links searched with the Wikipedia library disappear if you don't clip them. JoelleJay, I think asked if you could clip them with the library account. I have always had an individual account with both newspapers.com and newspaperarchives.com, so I didn't know the answer to her question. Last week, I tried to access my newspaperarchives account and found that it wanted me to renew my registration. I messaged Sam Walton, but he didn't answer, so I poked around on the talk page and saw a notation that for newspapers.com when you clip an article you have to change the "www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org" to "newspapers.com" to keep the link from disappearing. Yesterday, when I needed it to find an article, I logged on from the WP library. At first, I was unable to clip the article I found, but when I pushed on the clip icon, it said sign in. I signed in there with my personal account and was able to clip it. So, for those of us who aren't technical.

  • Sign in to the WP Library
  • Scroll down to Newspaperarchives and hit access
  • At the top right are two buttons, press the User login button and sign in with your personal account
  • Search for your topic and find an article
  • Hit the scissors and clip the article.
  • At the top right, is a button "My account", select Favorite pages and you can find your clipping there.
  • To make the clipping accessible to everyone and non-disappearing, change the "http://access-newspaperarchive-c.m.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org" part to "https://newspaperarchive.com" and use that in your article.

So, this answers the question of whether you need a personal login, you do. If it wasn't JoelleJay who asked the question, I apologize for the ping, but by posting it here, my hope is that whoever asked and anyone else will find this helpful. SusunW (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

To speed up the last bullet point, you can use the 5-step process I posted at Wikipedia talk:Newspapers.com#issue converting clipping to citation to create a bookmarklet, i.e. a browser toolbar button. When clicked, it changes the domain in the clipping URL to either newspapers.com or newspaperarchive.com as appropriate. As a bonus, it also submits the clipping to archive.org and archive.today to be crawled immediately. Nick Number (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Every tip helps. It truly takes a village. SusunW (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! I may end up using that for some articles I'm working on... Historyday01 (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that was me, thank you for the update! JoelleJay (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Susan Lyons draft

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Hello. This former director of Rolls Royce is listed at WP:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Engineering#UK, so I thought I'd attempt to start a draft. Is anyone interested to help please?

Regarding notability, does anyone know if receiving an OBE is sufficient for WP:ANYBIO #1 ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor")? If not, then I don't think the current sourcing meets NBIO. I've dug up what I can, so if someone else could have a look, that'd be much appreciated.

Oh... I almost forgot... here's the link :) User:MrsSnoozyTurtle/Susan Lyons (engineer). I'm happy for it to be moved to the normal draftspace, it's only in my User page because that's where the Wizard put it. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@MrsSnoozyTurtle an OBE is definitely WP:ANYBIO#1, but remember that that is about presumed notability, not whether the article should exist as a standalone. If what you have in the draft is all that exists you might have to wait for some historian to write about her, unfortunately. -- asilvering (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
This article might interest Victuallers. Don't know if he has access to additional sources. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I have edited it Rosie, as you must have remembered I used to work there. Sue Lyons is notable. The OBE is a red herring. She led a significant division of a huge hi tech company and there are sufficient newspaper clippings to say so. Publish! Victuallers (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Sounds right - I think there are precedents that an OBE by itself is not enough for notability, though of course it is always for something. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Victuallers, Ipigott, Rosiestep and asilvering for your help. I am pleased to announce that the draft is now published. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_131&oldid=1172301633"