Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 92

Archive 85

←

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

Is there a way to generate 'List of women X profession in X country' Wikipedia articles?

Hi all

In my job I'm doing some work on creating resources for journalists using Wikidata items to identify people to write news articles about (so we can use them as references on Wikipedia). I feel like there are probably a few ways of doing this:

1. A fancy website which is fed off of Wikidata queries where journalists can search for e.g a female biologist from the UK
2. A set of Wikipedia list articles which are just 'List of women biologists in the UK'

I feel like 2 is much more likely to be found and used. I guess I have a few questions about this:

1. Would a compiled list from Wikidata including the references from the Wikidata items be enough to pass notability and fit in with Wikipedia manual of style? The redlist for Icelandic women includes a list of references and would basically be the same information in a slightly different form.
2. Would it be possible to generate draft articles like this using a query/bot of some kind which could then be checked and finished by people to reach Wikipedia rules?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

John Cummings: It might be possible to create lists based in part on Wikidata but only if the sources behind the entries provide real evidence of notability. I frequently draw on items from Wikidata (even those without articles in other versions of Wikipedia) but I'm afraid to say most of the names simply do not have sufficient backing to be accepted on the EN wiki without further research. Those I find most likely to lead to useful Wikipedia articles are those which are based on articles from reputable biographical dictionaries such as Kvinfo for Danish and Svenskt kvinnobiografiskt lexikon (SKBL) for Swedish. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott, reading the notability rules for lists, it does not require every item on the list to be notable enough to have its own article and there is no established criteria for Lists of X of Y (which is what these lists would be I think). Although it does give guidance on lists in general requiring external sources discussing the group as a concept e.g British women biologists. Reading this guidance I think it would be possible to create list articles for these topics through:

1. A query/bot generates a draft article which includes references (excluding where the reference is a Wikipedia article) and a link to articles when available.
2. Checking the existing references and adding a reference to all the people on the list which do not have a reference.
3. Adding at least one (maybe more?) articles which discuss the topic as a whole e.g a news article about British women biologists. If this couldn't be found perhaps a fallback could be simply including all people from that profession in that country eg British biologists if that is discussed as a topic.
4. Adding the references found back into Wikidata to help Wikipedia contributors in other languages etc.

Do you see an issue with this approach to meet notability requirements?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

John Cummings: You could always try it out in user space to see what it looks like but unless the references are really worthwhle, I don't think there's much chance of creating lists like this for main space. There seems to be a strong group of editors who believe lists should be largely based on existing articles rather than references (except perhaps in cases where an article has been deleted for sock puppetry, etc.). What you might consider, is creating a "blue list" from Wikidata, based on names which already have an article in the language version you are addressing, and then manually adding additional names which carry links to worthwhile sources on Wikidata. That would of course create more work than a fully automated process but would be useful for extending coverage to other languages.--Ipigott (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott its strange that they're able to do this given the pretty clear guidance on notability of lists... Do you know what ways it might be possible to create these list articles? Is there a tool I could use? Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

John Cummings: Unfortunately I don't think there's a tool for creating Wikidata lists but one of the first "blue lists" on women was User:Emijrp/Female film directors created in December 2016. If you go into "edit", you'll see the line

|sparql=SELECT ?item WHERE { ?item wdt:P21 wd:Q6581072 . ?item wdt:P106 wd:Q2526255 } limit 10000.

P21 is the property sex or gender and Q6581072 is female; P106 is the property occupation and Q2526255 is film director. So you could create similar lists on any occupation by simply changing the occupation value. If you want to create new lists, I would suggest you adapt the original sequence for creating the list, i.e.

{{Wikidata list

|sparql=SELECT ?item WHERE { ?item wdt:P21 wd:Q6581072 . ?item wdt:P106 wd:Q2526255 } limit 100

|sort=label

|columns=number:#,label:Article,description,p569,p570,p18,item

|thumb=100

}}

End of auto-generated list.

You could also ask for help from one of our real experts on Wikidata. These include Tagishsimon, MarioGom, Gamaliel and Oronsay. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

John Cummings: Wikidata-generated lists are currently not well-received in the main namespace, even if they meet the notability criteria. I'd recommend creating them under your user space (e.g. User:John Cummings/List of X) to spare yourself endless discussions. Or host them under a WikiProject if appropriate. Let me know if you need technical assistance with the Wikidata lists, in particular with the SPARQL queries. --MarioGom (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, MarioGom, for offering to help out. Maybe you could also help me as I've been asking for assistance in creating a Wikidata redlist in connection with our work on classicists. One of the editors involved thought it would be useful to have a redlist of women from the classical period. I have been wondering if this would be possible along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject MedievalWiki/Wikidata Redlist but covering the time period from 500 BC to 400 AD.--Ipigott (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Ipigott, I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by time period/Before 400. I didn't figure out how to check BC dates in SPARQL at the moment, but there are not too many entries before 500 BC. There are some entries about present-day subjects with incorrect dates (e.g. year 1), these need to be fixed on Wikidata. MarioGom (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Good luck with those! I've made a few redirects etc, but someone who can do wikidata should sort out Ignota there (it means "unknown" in the feminine). She has a very complicated family there. Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@MarioGom: thanks so much for the offer, I will certainly come back to you for your help with this. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Jess Wade on Code of Conduct and diversity

The current episode of BBC Radio's Digital Planet starts with an item on Wikipedia's new universal code of conduct including an interview with Jess Wade (Jesswade88).--Ipigott (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear - still stuck in 2013. As usual, the "statistics" (around 11:30) are all wrong. It's a pity she doesn't follow this page. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that for the general public, she expressed the overall situation quite well: "Less than one out of five biographies are about women". But as you say, there has indeed been an improvement of more than "about 0.5%" since she joined in October 2016. Then we were at 16.52% while today we're at 18.72%. When you're being interviewed live, it's not always easy to remember the details. But Jess was quite convincing in calling for more women editors and more diversity. We've still got a long long way to go and she's proving to be an excellent trend-setter.--Ipigott (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

They were certainly more accurate than on her last BBC appearance not long ago, but frankly I don't think she knew and then forgot the details. I imagine she hadn't looked at them for a very long time & didn't bother to get accurate current figures even when she knew she had an interview coming. Which is galling as it was utterly predictable that these exact figures would be discussed, & on a phone interview there's really no reason for not having them in front of you. There were other issues with what she said. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Well said, Ipigott. Thank you, Jesswade88! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the insults, Johnbod. I started editing in 2018, I'm not sure what I got wrong? Jesswade88 (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That was rather my point! Perhaps next time the BBC arrange an interview, you can look up the key facts first. To help you, I'll replay the interview and compile a list, which I'll put on your talk. But not tonight. Actually, as Ipigott said above, you started editing in October 2016. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop John, heckling is not welcome. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Just responding to her query. And I will continue to stand up for accuracy when people choose to go on important public media. It's pity a WMUK never do the same. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I properly started editing in January 2018, I certainly wasn't teaching people to edit or looking at statistics before then. As for Kim Cobb's page, I made it at this event (https://www.rsc.org/news-events/community/2017/aug/wikithon/) in 2017. I can't remember the full details, but I think I copied a different page (for the formatting). Anyway, I did look up the facts before. I wasn't there to talk about statistics on gender balance in biographies, but the new code of conduct. Jesswade88 (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jesswade88: you did a wonderful job in explaining it to a general audience and it helped me catch up with whats happening with it. @Johnbod: heckling someone explaining Code of Conduct is very meta, please don't. John Cummings (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Female husband

Hi all, this has been on my to-do list for a while now, but in looking at it I feel way out of my depth. the concept of traditional woman/woman marriage in Kenya or perhaps Africa in general seems to be kinda widely studied and we don't seem to have an article. Here are some potential sources: [1], [2], ISBN 9780862325954, [3]. Not sure if these are all on the same topic/concept? Any help would be greatly appreciated-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Eddie891, I'd be happy to collaborate on this - but it would probably be later in the month. Would be nice to get something ready to tie in with the Africa challenge! I'll start a draft and ping it to you? Or have you got one underway? Lajmmoore (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Lajmmoore, That's great to hear! I haven't started a draft yet--my hands have been tied up in poetry-related articles lately. Please do ping me to a draft when you get the chance and I'll jump in. No rush. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Coly (company)

The BBC has a nice write-up on Anna and Mizuki Nakajima, whose otome game company, Coly, has just achieved a stellar stock market capitalisation. Anyone up for it? I find no red-links for the game titles mentioned, so nowhere to park the link except here: Justin Harper (4 March 2021). "Twin sisters worth millions thanks to female gamers". BBC News. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Women and Horology

Hello All! I cam across this really interesting blog post and database about women in horology today! A) It was an aspect of women's work I'd never encountered B) I wonder if there are any women on the list who might be notable for us (& how would we work it out?) C) If there were would it make a future theme? Something like "Women & Time"? I've not looked to see if horologist from wikidata comes up with any women already. Food for thought. Happy editing all! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I turned up this list a couple of years ago - not sure how much overlap there is between the two of them. There are a few other articles of interest here, though I don't know if they meet any sort of notability requirements. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Lajmmoore: Certainly an interesting avenue to explore. If I remember correctly, Swiss watchmaking benefited greatly from women immigrants from Italy but apart from all the historical figures, how about Hélène Poulit-Duquesne, Karoline Huber and Carole Forestier-Kasapi [4], and Finnish-born Susan Galvin in Australia [5]? Before we embark on a new item for monthly focus, we need to draw up red lists, possibly in collaboration with your Women and Horology blog. I see Wikidata has both horologist and clockmaker. Of course we could also include them under this month's Art+Activism, as they are/were certainly all specialized artists.--Ipigott (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott & thanks Ser Amantio di Nicolao. I've messaged the blog author, to see if they can help us a bit with notability i.e. there might be some significant women they've come across that they could point us towards. I'll start a crowd-sourced list this week with your suggestion above. Lajmmoore (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

One who might be of particular interest: Candace Roberts. I had meant to write her up a few years ago, but got sidetracked; she was a clockmaker and dial painter, but also a diarist whose diary was used in local Connecticut schools for some time to teach about her era. There's not a super-large amount out there, but enough to cobble something together. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao, ooh thank you! I've added all these names to wikidata and will work on some lists over the weekend. Lajmmoore (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore: Happy to be of help. Women in the decorative arts is a field that interests me - I wrote up a number of women silversmiths a few years ago. Good luck on finding sources - I think this is a field with a great deal of potential. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Horologists --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, Brilliant! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

*Thanks, Tagishsimon, for creating a Wikidata list. Unfortunately it is pretty short at the moment. Nevertheless, it looks to me as if it would not be too difficult to find quite a few more women worthy of articles. I have therefore tentatively suggested it for June on our Ideas page.--Ipigott (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Joanne Braxton

Hi all, I just created a stub on Joanne Braxton, who looks to be a rather notable scholar. Any help in expanding it would be greatly appreciated. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be plenty of info, and a couple of further sources, in ref 1 (the doi didn't work for me, but this link is fine.) PamD 08:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Well done for creating two incoming redirects from "... Margaret ..." and "... M. ...". I've added her to Braxton (surname). PamD 08:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Found a whole lot more info at Braxton Institute page. PamD 10:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added in some details of awards she has won and will see if I can find some more to add in. CharlotteBG87 (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Lexicographical activists

On the basis of the BBC's interesting news item "Italian dictionary Treccani urged to change 'sexist' definition of 'woman'", it looks as if we could well create biographies of Maria Beatrice Giovanardi and Alessandra Perrazzelli, perhaps also expanding our coverage of Imma Battaglia and Laura Boldrini. The original letter [6] contains a long, long list of signatories, some of whom could be candidates for biographies.--Ipigott (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Promo banners on social media for WiR events

WIR-192

WIR-193

This has been on my mind for a long time. This week, I was bold, and just went for it... I created these promo banners for use on our social sites because everyone else seems to be making promo materials for their events -- wiki and otherwise. After uploading them to wikicommons, I posted them to our Twitter and Facebook accounts. I leave it to our other social media admins to post these to our Insta and Pinterest accounts, if they are so inclined. Plus, of course, individual editors can use for their social accounts. Note: I have no design education, no experience with design software, and I used google slides to create these files. Working now on #186. Would appreciate feedback on the idea in general, and/or the layout/colors/images/wording in particular. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Fun! I don't know anything about social media. Are those supposed to be urls in the banners? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates, yes, those are the urls and they are verrrrry long. ;) I think we need to include shortened urls (e.g. shortened url for WiR's mainpage: https://w.wiki/347) in these banners. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Rosiestep: I don't know much about social media either but this looks like a good idea. As you say, You could just include the shortened url for #192 which is https://w.wiki/34Fe. For #193, it's https://w.wiki/34Ff. You can shorten any wiki url at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UrlShortener. Or how about using clickable links for the URLs from the images? For example "Join us here" with a link to #192.--Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for creating those short URLs for #192 and #193, Ipigott. I added them to the meetup pages in one of the boxes on the far right, though I really don't know if that's the best place for them vs. higher up on the page? It would certainly be a good idea to include a clickable link as part of the text message across the social platforms along with the file from WikiCommons. All of this is such good feedback. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Rosiestep: I don't really think there's any need to add them to the meetup pages. I think most people will only be confused. I think it's sufficient to display them on the images. When people use them, they get the standard URL for the page in question.--Ipigott (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Just the same, I'd like to keep them on the meetup pages, not because regular Wikipedians need them, but because they are good for newcomers and the media who don't deal with watchlists. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice initiative Rosie, thanks! I am also not particularly gifted in this department and alas most of my social media followers are not Wikimedians, but hey if it helps point one person in the right direction, I'm all in! I think I already retweeted but now I will try to think more about it for each platform I engage on. Jane (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's my tweet (let me know if you want some specific text for fb)

Jane Darnell

@janedarnell

It's Women's History Month, aka Art&Feminism month, aka Art&Activism month. For me it's still every day, but for those willing to pitch in for a day or two (or the rest of the month), here's your invite! https://w.wiki/34Fe

6 Mar 2021

Hopefully someone will react, and maybe a few of my supercool followers will adapt the idea to their language/community. Thanks again! Jane (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Very cool, Jane023! Thanks! As for 'good' specific text, I'm a bit clueless... still learning like everyone else... but hopefully, someone else might chime in. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I created a shortened URL for #186 and put it on the meetup page in the top/left; don't know if this is better placement than where it's currently sitting for #192 and #193? Also, Lajmmoore and I are working on the promo design for #186. --Rosiestep (talk)

I don't get it

When we have these types of deletion still taking place, how can we hope to change the way women are viewed? To me, that particular deletion is a classic example of the problem women faced historically relative to notability. They are neither seen as part of "the group" that was notable, nor are they given the same considerations as male athletes who simply have to qualify and show up at a pro-game to be included in WP. This particular deletion demonstrates historically how difficult it was for women to be credited for anything, much less taken seriously by media. Perhaps I'm wrong but GNG certainly appears to discriminate against women, inadvertently or otherwise, and until we make changes to our core PAGs, it will continue to be a struggle. Just my nickle's worth. Atsme 💬 📧 11:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Atsme and Mellowdeaous: I fully sympathize with your position. There are indeed many figures who became well known at the end of the 20th century who are simply not immediately accessible on the internet. In some cases, if you are familiar with the local press and pertinent journals, it is possible to find good secondary sources but this requires specialized experience. In some cases, local libraries may be able to help. I spend quite a lot of my editing time writing about Scandinavians. Using the English version of Google, a first search will in many cases not turn up anything worthy of note for Wikipedia. If however you are aware of local lexicographical data bases, biographical dictionaries and specialized journals in the local languages, you can find extensive coverage of their lives and achievements which are fully acceptable even on the English Wikipedia. Most of our English-speaking reviewers are simply not aware of these possibilities and therefore base their deletion decisions on the absence of coverage on their simple Google searches. Fortunately, Wikipedia editors are becoming increasingly aware of what can be uncovered with the right kind of experience and the right search tools. I hope this will be increasingly applied to women from the African countries too. In any case, we need to keep Ateaa Tina in mind for future coverage if she is scheduled to make new releases. This said, the best advice I can give to new contributors is to write about women for whom there are at least three good secondary sources which can be found without difficulty on the internet.--Ipigott (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I've found one of the best ways to establish notability about a subject is to write about someone who is featured in an entry in a reputable encyclopedia - that way if anyone doubts notability one can always point to the scholarly encyclopedia and say otherwise. I know there are still quite a few out there with untapped entries. (I realize that this is, to a point, a matter of knowing one's sources - even so, it's still a rule I follow with some regularity when formulating articles for writing.) The nice thing about that is that when one has written a handful of verifiably notable articles, one then can bank a little more trust from many other editors when choosing topics - I can honestly say that there are two or three articles I've written over the years that I've likely managed to get away with due to my editorial longevity. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Ipigott for your advice and kind thoughts, and Ser Amantio di Nicolao for your suggestions. I bring a little different perspective to the table, and by that I mean it would be nice to see us get ahead of the game and stop getting bogged down in some of our antiquated PAGs that were initially crafted by editors representing a male majority...and that is still pretty much the case to this day, although we have far more WOKE editors, and that is truly a blessing! The type of research described is extremely involved for an humble volunteer and/or editors with time constraints. Wouldn't it be much simpler if our project crafted and proposed some modifications to WP:GNG and WP:SNG in an effort to allow for the very obvious historic gap in media coverage, not to mention the historic misogynistic failures to recognize the accomplishments of women? We do have WP:IAR sitting quietly in the background, so why not make use of it in cases where common sense tells us the person is notable based on corroborated material that is available online today in forms other than what we're accustomed to using? For example, in Ateaa's case, there are multiple YouTube videos along with published material, including local interviews and album covers with her and Daddy Lumba? It satisfies WP:V and we can write about what's verifiable. The hang-up comes in making the common sense determination of notability, and that's where we need to update WP:GNG & WP:SNG. Her notability came during a time in our history where women were used, and basically forgotten because they were treated as inferior to their male counterparts. Ateaa not only represents women of that time, she represents black women. And sadly, that creates a double-whammy against her getting any significant coverage in mainstream media because of her gender and race. Also keep in mind when we first got access to the internet, and when international news became popular. We were lucky to get wide-spread national coverage. I can only imagine how limited coverage might have been where she lived in Africa before moving to Ghana. She was still young - around 18 yo when she joined Daddy Lumba, and was with him until she was around 23 yo. Academics are more readily traceable in the databases that were suggested above, but it is not as likely for someone like Ateaa. Fame and celebrity are not the only measureable factor for notability, and I would very much like to see us update our GNG & SNG to accommodate cases like this one. Atsme 💬 📧 18:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, Atsme, I am very much on the same page as you in this regard. Unfortunately, as a result of my experience over the years on Wikipedia, I am not too optimistic about bringing about any radical changes to criteria for notability over the short term. On the other hand, I think that there is perhaps a chance of moving the bar in favour of accepting more valid references to blogs, the social media and YouTube, etc., especially when items come from recognized authorities or individuals. I have noticed that the comments on some of the sources on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources have been slowly evolving in the right direction. In the meantime, some of the biographies of people which have not been accepted here, might well survive on the Simple English Wikipedia where acceptance criteria tend to be rather more relaxed. Another option for people like Ateaa is to include references to them in more general articles such as Music of Ghana. Perhaps she could also be mentioned in Daddy Lumba. Fortunately, the deleted Wikipedia article will survive on Everybody Wiki. Those searching for information about her should find it there.

Finally, as you are a highly experienced editor with many credits to your name, you might like to try to club together with one or two other women contributors who feel it is time to take social networks, etc., into further consideration for supporting articles about people from the developing countries where "informative secondary sources" are not readily available over the internet. This could perhaps lead to an article for Signpost where you might be able to rally further support and where people from the WMF might take note. Please let me know if you think I could be of any further assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ellie Reed

Ellie Reed (actress) It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: Not notable enough, creates a bloated Wikipedia. I disagree with the not being notable enough and bloating of wikipedia. If she has attracted an audience of millions on Netflix, has magazine/news articles about her. I heard that Wikipedia is the sum of all knowledge, deleting seems to me to be creating the sum of all vacuums, doesn't fit with the creator's wishes. Please comment on the deletion log if like me you want good female actor articles to remain.James Kevin McMahon (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I see that was resolved quickly and easily! Yay!–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Support request: biographies of deaf women from the UK

Hi all! I am part of a small (non wiki) project called "BSL Lives", aiming at adding more biographies of deaf people from the UK. For International Women's Day, I thought I might give it a push and add a bunch of profiles of women. I have drafted the following:

• Draft:Cathy_Heffernan
• Draft:Hermon and Heroda Berhane
• Draft:Carolyn Nabarro
• Draft:Fifi Garfield
• Draft:Donna Williams (Deaf poet)
• Draft:Frances Elton
• Draft:June Smith (Deaf teacher)

I would appreciate any help, from general feedback to editing. I am still a beginner on Wikipedia and the community spirit so far has blown me away. Thanks in advance! Esamiarum (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Esamiarum for seeking our advice on these. It looks to me as if Cathy_Heffernan could easily be promoted to article space, given the extensive coverage in valid secondary sources. I'm not too sure if the others will be considered sufficiently notable for inclusion unless we can find more convincing coverage in books, newspapers or journals. One way of including them all might be to write a more general article about the achievements of deaf British women thanks to sign language.--Ipigott (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott, I will work to improve the drafts and add references. All these are notable and famous people within the deaf community, but as it often happens with linguistic minorities, there are few secondary sources around. I'll consider your strategy as well. --Esamiarum (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I have submitted and accepted Cathy Heffernan based on the recommendation of User:Ipigott (and my own concurrence). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Do the Famous Five (Canada) qualify for a WiR tag?

Hi again, still learning my way around this project. There is an extremely important page about women in Canadian politics, The Famous Five (Canada), about the five women who started the Persons case. It doesn't have a WiR tag on the talk page or categories, probably because it's a very old article - started in 2003! Should a WiR tag or category be added to it? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Good to see you've been improving this one too since the beginning of the month. May I suggest you become an official member of Women in Red by registering on our main page. You can then go ahead and include WiR talk page tags on your improved articles. Hope this seems reasonable.--Ipigott (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Positive stats from WDCM

In the absence of updated stats from WHGI, I'm pleased to inform you all that WDCM reports that the percentage of articles using "female" on the English Wikipedia is 19.08% as of today, 8 March 2021. There are now 347,821 female-coded articles, up from 346,615 on 22 February. We are obviously progressing in the right direction.--Ipigott (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

WOW - everybody give themselves a barnstar. I'll give a metaphoric hug to the delivery person!! Nineteen percent!!! I'm so pleased Victuallers (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Victuallers: If you want more good news for Women's Day, this month we've already been able to welcome 20 newly registered members of Women in Red (apart from several new active participants and contributors who have not yet joined). And they're still coming in today. I think this must be a record.--Ipigott (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Great news Ian - I attended a virtual editathon on Saturday run by Edinburgh Uni - one of four this week. They are on WIR Editathon number 45. You should maybe dial in from "the continent" whilst they are still all virtual. Victuallers (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

IWD

Happy International Women's Day everyone and congrats to @Victuallers: for getting some women-focused DidYouKnows on the frontpage, right now there's Krishna Yadav and Tripunithura Kathakali Kendram Ladies Troupe, amongst others Mujinga (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Mujinga, appreciate the shout out, there have been four today concerning the Nari Shakti Puraskar and good to bring to people's attention today as we should get a new batch today as the awards take place - and they will all deserve an article. Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes looking forward to the new Nari Shakti Puraskar articles :)

Also it escaped my notice before but today's featured article is Women's poll tax repeal movement by SusunW, nice one for that!! Mujinga (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Mujinga. It was definitely a group effort. Lots of help from many editors. SusunW (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

How do I add a new bio of a woman to your list so it's included in the stats?

I'm working on a bio of a woman and want to include it in your stats. How do I do that? Thanks, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, thanks for your work! There are a few ways. May I ask what the entry is? Then I can tell you more specifically. Thanks again! Innisfree987 (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, By placing a tag on the article's talk page (either {{WIR-184}} or {{WIR-00-2021}}) you will include that article in Women In Red metrics. I added that tag to the talk page Talk:Thérèse Casgrain. Also if you add the article to the "Outcomes" section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/184 you will get some more eyes on your addition. I have taken the liberty of adding Thérèse Casgrain to the list for you. Hope that answers your question. You can follow Women in Red, and receive news by signing up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Click on the "Participate" button, and take a look of the on-going, upcoming, and previous events. Thanks! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to note, the automated element of the redlist metrics is based on a) the creation date of the article and b) that the article is sitelinked from a wikidata item having P31/P21 human/female values. The Thérèse Casgrain article was created in 2004, which predates WiR metrics & so does not appear within them. Tags on the talk page have no bearing on inclusion in the automated metrics. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that’s the article I’m working on. It’s a real hodge-podge, without sub-headings, and stuff mixed in at odd places. It also has some text which I’m pretty sure came from a French-language source and then was run through a translation app. I’m mainly tidying it up and trying to add more cites, so it’s not so much a new article as making this one better. Does that qualify for WiR? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It qualifies for WiR. It does not qualify for the metrics, IMO. The automated metrics are a very inexact proxy measure of work within the scope of this project. There are all sorts of things which automated metrics do not include, and faults with what they do include. It is what it is. If, however, we change the basis on which they're compiled, then we lose the ability to compare one period against another. (That, incidently, has always made me think that we really should not ever add anything at all, manually, to the metrics pages b/c that is to introduce an inconsistent variable into the mix, degrading month-by-month comparisons for the sake of conjouring a larger figure than would otherwise be computed.) The article can, as WomenArtistUpdates notes, be added to /meetup/ pages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: If others agree with your suggestion that we should not add anything to the monthly metrrics lists, then I will stop adding new articles on women's works, organizations, events, etc., which we were encouraged to include during the early months of the project. (I see that in February I added 175 of the 2,155 articles listed, i.e. 8.1%.) It would be useful to have feedback on this from Rosiestep and Victuallers who initially pushed for special attention to women's works in addition to biographies. On the other hand, it's always a good idea to add upgraded articles to one of our monthly meetup lists. I'm glad to see WomenArtistUpdates added this one to the all-purpose #184. While this does not affect the metrics, it allows us to monitor the overall progress we are making month by month. And thanks, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, for the substantial improvements you have made to Thérèse Casgrain. I see you have provided lots of detailed coverage of politics in Canada. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to work on more biographies of women policians.--Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. My personal interest tends to be 19th century politics, so sadly there is not a large cadre of women... I will poke around and see if there's more I can do in the 20th century. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Women's works and women organisations are important. As Tagishsimon notes the WIR percentage is an imprecise measure that we use. We could easily get geeky about the definition of gender for instance .... but the important idea is that we have a measure and wikidata is a blunt tool that gives a consistent measure of progress. I have been thinking that the measure is flawed because we will never achieve 50% because of the weight of thousands of years where the people who wrote (and appeared) in history were 9X% blokes. If we were to look for an additional (not replacement) measure then I would plump for all living women... because one day my gggchild will see that measure as ~50%, whereas our WIR measure will only tend towards that figure as dead notable men from before say 1900 will always outnumber dead notable women. The ODNB is seen as the touchstone for UK related biogs and we did every woman that was in the early editions of that publication five years ago and it was a minority despite the fact that we never did all the men). I would call this new living alternate measure the victory measure because its achievable.(and measurable)... although another reason for only including biogs when we started was lack of data. It took quite a long time before we were confident that most of the people were identified as people and with a defined gender. We never knew the % of biogs for some time. Any future measure we may have (in addition) has got to pass the test of being calculable and our current measure is very good at that. HTH. (Happy IWDay!! to all ... other news ... I have two DYKs on the main page NOW and on 22 March I will have done one new article about a woman every day for a year!) Victuallers (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Victuallers: You didn't specifically answer my query. Is is worthwhile to add articles other than biographies to our monthly metrics lists? If you and Rosie (and other active members contributors) have no strong feelings about it, I'll just stop searching for them and adding them. Congratulations on your unrelenting activity on contributions. I think we need a new WiR barnstar/award: something like #1woman1day1year. It could also be posted on Twitter and other social media. As far as I can see, there are three or four other candidates who deserve it. Great stuff! If you (or anyone else) can provide additional names, please do so.--Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding. I thought our metric was devised by wikidata queries. If we/you are talking about the total number of articles that WIR creates then I would regret if we excluded women's organisations and women's creations. And a #1woman1day1year sounds good. I was aware of Rebecca and Jess must have done this too. I have been trying for 15 months or so but it took a while before I realised I needed to do it every day and not do an extra for a holiday the next day. Victuallers (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Victuallers: OK, here's a clarification on the metrics. We actually have two separate systems of measurement. There's WHGI, soon to be updated to humaniki, which is based strictly on stats from Wikidata on women's biographies in the EN Wikipedia. It currently stands at 18.72%. In addition, from the WiR main page "Metrics" icon, you can find month-by-month lists of articles about women. The basic list now comes by bot from Wikidata each day. You may remember that initially we compiled the list manually, including both new biographies and all other articles about women. When the bot took over biographies, some of us continued to add women's works, etc. Apart from the odd addition from other contributors, I believe I am the only one left who systemically goes through new articles, adding the ones I feel are pertinent. Our Wikidata expert Tagishsimon has suggested that these additions distort the stats from Wikidata and should therefore be discontinued. If you agree, I'll just stop adding them. From a quick review of recent months, I don't think the monthly figures will decrease by more than 15% (except perhaps during the Olympics) and for some months, the decrease may be as little as 5%. The alternative would be to encourage more editors to add articles about works to our meetup pages (as Megalibrarygirl and SusunW consistently do anyway). If they are considered really important, we could always list them separately on a month-to-month basis. And by the way, I see you now have four DYKs today.--Ipigott (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The technical side of WP is outside of my comprehension, but I believe that I understand from the above discussion that only biographies are currently counted. If the somewhere around 200 articles that I have committed to working on for the next year or more on women's nationality will not be counted in the metrics it seems bizarre to me, but my focus has always been on quality rather than quantity. Nationality is covering an area in which there is a huge knowledge gap, as most people have no idea that the majority of women in the world had no individual nationality until the mid-20th century. Likewise, women's movements, organizations, works, etc. also fill gaps in our knowledge and I find it odd that there is no way to include them, even if that is a separate set of stats. It seems to me that there ought to be a way to count those as well, but automated and not manual. I had no idea you were still having to do this manually, Ipigott Thank you for all you do. SusunW (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This is indeed a conundrum. WiR states its focus is on women's content -biographies, women's works, women's issues-, but if I were to create an article about a conference convened by women, that article, apparently, won't show up in the WiR statistics/metrics. I think most everyone here would agree that articles related to women's works and women's issues (see SusunW's comment above) are important. In fact, our 2021 year-long initiative focuses on women's rights. So is there a way for a bot -the Humaniki bot or another bot- to provide weekly updates/metrics regarding these articles, too? It seems impossibly tedious to have someone do so by hand, and thank you, Ipigott for your efforts in this regard. Tech folks: please help. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that such articles are important, and have often complained elsewhere that WP's overemphasis (in training etc etc) on biographies is damaging to the project. But trying to divide non-biographical articles (especially retrospectively) into "women's" & "not women's" will inevitably create a mess that we should avoid. Then you end up counting breast cancer (<1% male cases) as the former & pancreatic cancer (c. 52% male cases) as the latter. Or you count almost everything in very wide areas as relevant to "women's issues", which it very often is, but the focus & utility of the figures is greatly reduced. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

*Johnbod I agree with your points but the articles I have been adding to our metrics pages are strictly related to women: books and works of art written or created by women, women's organizations, histories and timelines of women's activities, women's awards. women's sporting events, etc. I was wondering whether on the basis of Rosiestep's suggestions, we could not devise an approach along the lines of AlexNewBot, looking specifically for articles in these areas and perhaps taking account of items such as categories and talk page banners. The outcomes may require human reviewing but it would certainly substantially reduce the work we need to do at the moment. It should not be forgotten that many of the most informative articles created in connection with Women in Red come into these areas rather than biographies. In my opinion, they should not just be left aside because they are liable to distort fully automated statistics.--Ipigott (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

List of 18th-century women printers and publishers

I have been working on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/ANB list and ran across three women publishers and printers from the American colonies / states. So I created the List of 18th-century women printers and publishers and have added the link to:

Publishing#History Category:18th century-related lists Category:Lists of 18th-century people Category:Lists of women

Does anyone have an idea of other articles or categories to add this to?

I am super confused today and have been trying to figure out how to find other 18th-century women printers / publishers through searches or categories. Does anyone have a thought about that as well?

Thanks so much! I have really enjoyed getting to know these amazing, intelligent, pro-active women creating steady reputations is such a volatile time.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I may have figured it out: I am finding 18th century women printers and publishers from the Categories for: Women Printers, 18th-century printers, 18th-century publishers (people).

It's still very much a work in progress, but I am having fun. If anyone wants to jump in with effort or comments, they're welcome.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• CaroleHenson: Thanks for creating this interesting list and thanks Aciram for expanding it.--Ipigott (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Aciram, I sent a "thanks" at the edit level for your edits. I appreciate your edits tidying up the section headings and levels - as well the see also. Thanks Ipiogott.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Though, as I said on the talk page, the article should perhaps be renamed to include women prior to the 18th-century too: there weren't enough to warrant their own list, but enough for this list to look messy when we have to place them in the "See also"-sections: if we just renamed it "before 1800" instead of "18th-century", then all could be placed directly in the list instead. Its easily done. --Aciram (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Aciram I really like the idea of Women printers and publishers before 1800. Great idea!... And, I am working my way through , and picking up wasn't in the articles I had as references at the start.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, I have added all the names of women printers and publishers I know of in English language Wikipedia (I have written several of the articles myself). There are more in other language versions - I know several from France as well as from my own country Sweden - but they haven't been translated yet.--Aciram (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, CaroleHenson for creating List of 18th-century women printers and publishers! This interests me very much as does anything within the scope of WP:WPWW (you might also want to share this message on that WikiProject's talkpage). Ser Amantio di Nicolao is super helpful with populating newly-cretaed categories, so I'm drawing his attention to this conversation. Thanks again! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! I am working my way through the Women printers if you'd like to help out. Then I am going back to search for more early (before 1800) women printers from reliable sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Aciram: Have you considered adding interwiki links to the article as well? That way even if there's no English-language article people can be pointed to something that provides them information. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't thought of that. I'll see if I can ad a few later. --Aciram (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

An IWD blog

Hello all, The local library interviewed me about editing and obviously WIR came up. Here's the post. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Lajmmoore: Thanks for presenting such positive views about Women in Red and sharing them with us. I must say I too sometimes wonder to what extent my upbringing in Britain presents dangers to the way I write about women on Wikipedia. The consolation seems to be that many, if not most, of the articles I have created over the years would probably still be red links if I had not started them. And as you so rightly point out, once an article is there, other editors frequently make additions and other improvements. I have also been greatly encouraged to see what enormous contributions many of our more recent women members have made to our coverage. That certainly creates an increasingly welcoming environment.--Ipigott (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Lajmmoore, this is wonderful! Thank you for such thoughtful comments and ambassadorship of the project! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree987, Ipigott Thanks very much both! Lajmmoore (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Dictionary of Women Worldwide: 25,000 Women Through the Ages

I see reference to this book from time to time in my searches, but have been unable to turn up a copy in any of the local libraries. Material from it seems to have been made available online on Encyclopedia.com, at least...but I'm curious to know who the 25,000 women with entries are. I guarantee a sizeable number of them do not have articles here, and I wonder about the possibility of developing a redlist to work off of. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Just took a look, it is in the Library of Trinity College Dublin (which I have access to), but only as reference, so no use when you can't go in to consult it! Smirkybec (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I can access the full e-book through my institution (via Gale eBooks, it's an online viewer so you can view 2 pages at a time but can't download the whole PDF in one go). Is there an easier way to create a redlist besides typing out each name manually? I'm not familiar with the technical side of things. DanCherek (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

DanCherek, I have found most PDFs these days, even poor quality ones, are legible to digital reading for copy/paste (and thank heavens for it—when I need some Google Translate help, my short term memory for a language I don’t speak well is DREADFUL). If you wanted to send me a two-pager, I’d be happy to test it out. If it works perhaps we could organize something so no one person is exceeding their copyright allowances (and of course we’d need many hands doing copy-pasting too—quicker than typing up but still laborious for 25,000 names!) Innisfree987 (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh maybe I misunderstood. You can see it but it doesn’t let you save it, is that right? Innisfree987 (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree987, it lets me save two pages at a time. I've just sent you a two-page sample via email, it's completely digital so the quality is not an issue at all. I looked up a couple of the first few names. Happily, many already have articles, and for the few I saw that don't, it looks like this could indeed be a valuable resource. I'm happy to start chipping away at this, and see how it goes... DanCherek (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh terrific thank you DanCherek. And yes hadn’t occurred to me that they’d naturally be alpha by last name so some typing is inevitable. But I don’t mind having what I think of as a “knitting” project going so we could open a redlist and start adding to it! Have been doing a bit of redlist minding so I can set that up unless you want to! Innisfree987 (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good! If you could start it off, that would be great as I have zero experience with redlists, but I can pitch in once it's off the ground. Just let me know what's needed or would be most helpful. Best, DanCherek (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Great yes let’s get this set up properly. Ipigott, may I impose on your experience? I have previously only interacted with crowd-sourced lists, but I notice that other reference work lists seem to be done in Wikidata and that does sound sensible for such a large reference work. Is that what you would advise, entering names there? Would be grateful for your input, or others who handle these things! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is a sample entry I just did from what DanCherek sent, so you can see if I am on the right track at all! WD does make it much more of an intensive data entry project as opposed to copy-pasting, so for 25,000 names I could be mistaken about what’s more feasible. But, checking each name in WD ensures no wasted time duplicating names already redlinked. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree987, the names already need to be typed to search Wikidata. If those doing this think it's faster to just copy names into a sandbox pages, others can help later with Wikidata checks and item creation. --MarioGom (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree987: I'm a little bit confused about all this. Dictionary-based entries on Wikidata are usually included because the text of the work is digitized and searchable. As far as I can see from the above discussion, this is not the case with Dictionary of Women Worldwide. As it is a fairly recent publication (2006), I don't think the publishers would be interested in releasing a digitized version free of charge. There may well be a case for compiling a list of names from the work as a starting point to see whether they are sufficiently notable for Wikipedia biographies. So at this stage, it looks to me as if a "crowd-sourced" kind of red list would probably be the right way to go, especially if the entries could be backed up with references to other good sources. The figure of 25,000 may look impressive but remember that we already have 334,000 women's biographies on the EN wiki and 1,658,000 women on Wikidata. May I therefore suggest that before we undertake a comprehensive review of all 25,000 names from the dictionary, we experiment with one or two letters in the alphabet to see how useful the redlinks prove to be. It may in fact be more useful to spend our research time on examining biographical dictionaries which are already accessible, for example some of those listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Resources/Fully accessible biographical dictionaries, especially those devoted to women. Quite a few of these are already on Wikidata with the result that the names appear on our various red lists. It might be useful to undertake more systematic work along these lines in connection with Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to help out with redlink generation/development, if anyone has a copy of a list/table of contents that they could send me. Just tell me what I need to do. (Sorry - been out of the house all day and only just came back.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 07:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Mario Gomez, Ipigott, thank you all for these replies. I did not know how the other reference works ended up in Wikidata; that makes a lot of sense! And yes, maybe it’s just the case that we have enough redlinks to work from. My thought was that it’s a very different kind of task—for myself, sometimes I am in the mood to write, and sometimes in the mood to do something more routine, like work through these. Still, it could be the case that gnoming time is better spent elsewhere.
For a small sample to assess, I’ve pasted the names (and a few identifying details) from the two pages DanCherek kindly sent me into my sandbox. Two pages had originally had 34 names, but about 20% simply referred the reader to a different entry, so I left those off. I’ve now checked the names and it yielded 20% redlinks. The process was far easier than doing WD data entry, though as Mario Gomez suggests, given not many redlinks remain by the end, maybe someone would take an interest in adding those to WD... Anyway I’m a bit muddled at this point, so will welcome fresh eyes on! Innisfree987 (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the actual encyclopedia, there are three indexes at the end that group the names by era (i.e. century), by geography/nationality, and by occupation. Less detail, but they do include years of birth and death. DanCherek (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That would certainly make quicker work of a crowd-sourced list—birth year and occupation should be enough to identify most. Ipigott’s comment does have me wondering how many editors would be able to make use of this, compared with other red lists, since the text isn’t readily available... but maybe it would be a good basis for other research? Ser Amantio di Nicolao, do you want to have a look? Or I can—I’m just curious to know what others think after seeing some of the content. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm of the mindset that redlists such as we're discussing have a great deal of potential. Even if the book itself isn't easily accessible, having a list of redlinks taken from it is a good roadmap of possible articles. If nothing else, it indicates that there is a book which contains entries for these subjects, which helps to establish some sort of notability. And editors can work from the list to find other sources to use to create articles. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao, I feel similarly, and working as a CS list wasn’t too onerous. DanCherek, would you mind sending us some pages from an index, and then hopefully we’ll get a doc in place that folks can add to systematically? (Actually, for momentum’s sake, I’ll start one now from the red links I got, realizing that if we work from the index, it will have a different format. And if in the end, we have to nuke it, not the end of the world.) Innisfree987 (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Innisfree987 and Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I've just emailed you both a link to the entire index, sorted by occupation. It's 236 pages long but should make things relatively easy to work with, hopefully. DanCherek (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

DanCherek, phenomenal, thank you so much! I began Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Dictionary of Women Worldwide, starting at the top of the index with the abolitionists—this way anyone interested with a free moment can go in and check names (redlinking the missing, deleting blue links), and you, Ser or I can keep refreshing as we progress down to zookeeper? Innisfree987 (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

DanCherek Agreed, this is very nice to have, thanks. I'll probably not be able to get to any of it until the weekend, but I'm happy to do what I can to get the ball rolling. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 07:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Innisfree987 Should any existing named articles be outright removed or should I just blue link them on that list page? I feel like the former could be disruptive in not knowing what's been done so far. Silverseren^C 07:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh thanks for asking Silver seren—we’ve just been deleting the ones with existing entries (so the list doesn’t get to be 25,000 names long!!) I’ll try to make the instructions clearer on this, thanks for pointing it out. Innisfree987 (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It's fairly easy, for me anyway, to use excel to turn lists like this into links, so I did. I have not checked that the blue link is the same person as intended so I left the blue links in place. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 11:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Antiqueight, it was amazing how fast you did those—quicker than I could put new names up! Thank you! And leaving them to be checked if you haven’t is a great system. I always double-check blue links before I remove from other CS lists anyway so that’s definitely a task others can do. I’m a bit of a Luddite—do you mind explaining how you used Excel? It’s not obvious to me. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree987 Sure, apologies to the others but I'll leave this here in case it's a help to anyone. Also you can find me on twitter and I'll help there with screen shots etc...- basically, I dump the names into an excel file. Then you need to get it so that first name, surname and the date are in separate columns. That takes a little work. I use Data - Text to Columns. You'll see the details if you go to excel and follow along. I select the column with everything, click on Data, then click on Text to columns. The way will depend on how the data is laid out. Here I started with Fixed width to get rid of the asterisk (I would use search and replace and I could here in the wiki page but in windows asterisk is the default wildcard and so search and replace for asterisk doesn't tend to work). Then I use Delimited. I start with the comma - that separates surname from the rest. Then use Other -"(" that separates out the date. Tidy any weirdness up (I search and replace to remove the other bracket). Then I create a column with the equation =CONCATENATE("*","[[",B1," ",A1,"]]"," ",C1) (In my sheet A is the surname, B is the first name and C is now the date. This gives an output of the links. Dump them into the wiki, clean it up a bit and Ta-Da!. Huge long lists of names can be reordered and made into links as fast as 1 name. Now, that may not make sense so yell with any questions. There are, of course, various other ways to achieve this. This is how I did it this time. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 17:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Antiqueight, wow extremely valuable skills!! This is beyond my immediate abilities— saving these instructions so I can noodle around and try to learn! Another 101 question in the meantime—at the moment we have a 240ish-page pdf of names (which I can send you if simply looking at it is easiest), and when I copy-paste names into WP it doesn’t retain the list structure—example. Is that something your method could sort out or is it helpful if others (as I have been) manually split them into individual lines? (When I dump it into a spreadsheet I still have to manually split up the lines but clearly my Excel use is child’s play!) Innisfree987 (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Antiqueight: Thanks very much for that - I'd meant to ask the same question, but got sidetracked. I'm not much of a dab hand when it comes to Excel, but this is something I've often wondered about, and want to play around a bit to see how I can put it into effect. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

So, Innisfree987 - with that output I'd use Word (I flick between preferred abilities on both - I am certain I could do it in one but ... well... I don't) and replace the final bracket ")" with a carriage return "^l". That would break it into new lines every time there was a ). Then I could copy and paste it into excel and use the instructions above but there is no need to remove the asterisk then as it hasn't been put in. Also I could replace the "(" with a comma and then when I do the Text to Columns and select the comma, it would do both the name and dates into new columns in one go. I have reasonably good excel skills but I am lazy - when I know how to do something I just grind it. There are probably much more elegant solutions but this works for me for now. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 18:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Antiqueight, huge thanks! And this is so enticing, it’s phenomenal to have the whole batch and need only check them. I’ll paste in another page of names in case you or other whizzes has time for more (or if you’re up for it, I could send you the PDF so you’re not waiting on me)—no pressure though, very grateful for how much you’ve done. Will keep me busy checking blue links for a while! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Tip - When concatenating, you can also concatenate in an asterisk so you get a nice bulleted list like this Atelier 17. If you know you have the right name, you can also concatenate in the brackets to create the wikilinks for the blue names.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdatesThat's what I've done above. Innisfree987, anytime I can help with it I'm happy to but I don't want to promise to... :-) ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 19:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Antiqueight, absolutely, really appreciate all you’ve already done as well as skill-building guidance to others! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Antiqueight, Oops. Sorry I need to read twice, type once. I didn't look closely enough at your example. Excuse me. Excel rules. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates, we've all been there! No worries and it does, mostly! ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 11:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I wanted to help out for a bit. Hopefully I don't cause any edit conflicts on the page. Silverseren^C 23:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Antiqueight and Innisfree987: Your list is coming along amazingly well. I see that one of the reasons for redlinks is names with accents. I think I've now corrected them all and see that in most cases we already have articles. I've also made several necessary redirects, mostly on non-English names. Quite a few of the redlinked names have articles in other languages, images on Commons and/or items on Wikidata. I've also discovered that Encyclopedia.com seems to be adding info from the Dictionary of Women Worldwide on the names which are redlinked on the list we are developing. This may be a coincidence but in any case it should be helpful for those who wish to create articles and don't have access to the work. I have found that in most cases, especially for women who are no longer living, there are adequate sources for new articles although in the case of film actresses, we should be careful not to rely too much on IMDb (which seems to have been a key source for the dictionary). On the less positive side, I'm disappointed to see so few of the big names from Germany and Scandinavia - but that's no doubt because the book is intended for English-speaking readers. Please let me know if you need additional assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you so much for having a look through it Ipigott, really appreciate hearing what you make of it. And thanks for all the corrections! Antiqueight’s method has made it far more plausible even if it’s still quite an undertaking. I was also disappointed at how heavily it tilts anglophone (and northern hemisphere) but it is unsurprising. I will be more actively on the lookout for reference works like this but with other geofocus. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

50 Black Women Over 50

This just turned up at NPP. Sounds like a great showcase article for this project .... except I can't find any sources - there's a straight blank in a news search. Can anybody else find anything before the inevitable AfD? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I fear it is indeed inevitable. The effort has a bit of purchase on Instagram (1754 followers) but only a few hundred on Twitter and Facebook. Of course those stats are irrelevant for our purposes but only to say I’m not surprised it hasn’t gotten onto media radar. It’s a bad chicken-and-egg problem—lack of attention is what they (and we, in our countering-systemic-bias efforts) would like to overcome, but in trying, we all run into ... exactly that problem. Frustrating, to say the least. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Promoting recognition of women journalists

Just came across this interesting article by Angilee Shah (Angshah).--Ipigott (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ipigott, thank you for flagging, this is great! And Angshah, do you all have a project page or subpage? I would love to participate—this is one of the main focuses when I write new entries! (Everything you describe about the challenges is so spot-on!) Innisfree987 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Holly Lawford-Smith

Can someone take a look at Holly Lawford-Smith and see whether they think WP:NACADEMIC is met? (Presumably WP:GNG is not.) It's a matter of whether it's worth investing the time to improve neutrality (in particular, #Gender critical work and censorship is one hell of a section title). Ideally someone would also reach out to the creating user, but I'm afraid I've exceeded my daily quota of patience already. — Bilorv (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

She probably does pass GNG for her TERF beliefs and activity - https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/gender/transphobic-website-puts-melbourne-university-academics-at-odds-20210225-p575u4.html --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

She also had a peripheral role in an earlier academic controversy, again taking the TERF side. And her book Not in Their Name: Are Citizens Culpable for Their States’ Actions? (I think on unrelated questions) has multiple published reviews [7] [8] [9]. I'm not convinced either of those things would be enough for notability by itself, but in combination with the Melbourne anti-trans website brouhaha there may be enough for notability, and definitely in enough different directions for WP:BIO1E not to be a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Photo restoration question

Nellah Massey Bailey

I recently uploaded File:Nellah Massey Bailey campaign ad photo.png for the Nellah Massey Bailey article. It's a photograph taken from ads placed by her campaign in multiple newspapers ([10], [11], [12]), so I'm pretty sure it's public domain per c:COM:CB#Advertisement. There is a higher-quality scan here. My upload was the result of an amateurish attempt to improve contrast and reduce some artifacts, but there's obviously still a grid pattern overlay if you look closely. Does anyone with experience in photo restoration think further improvements could be made? Or let me know if there's a better place to ask... DanCherek (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden:? Kingsif (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Innisfree987 has recently also carried out some effective restoration work.--Ipigott (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Flattered to be thought of! Should be doable but lately I haven’t been able to use my full complement of tools and the way I know of for dealing with this does need the desktop photoshop application. Adam would doubtlessly do a terrific job, or you could put the inquiry to the WP:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop? Innisfree987 (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all! I have asked at the Graphics Lab in the meantime. DanCherek (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

New problems with membership list

Once again our WiR membership list has disappeared, no doubt because we have had so many new members over the past few days. I remember MarioGom suggested somewhere that we could invoke a simplified version and explained how but I can't remember where. So I hope, Mario, that you can respond to this. It's really a great pity we keep having problems with these lists, especially during International Women's Month. Also pinging Rosiestep and Victuallers.--Ipigott (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ipigott, I switched the active member list to the simplified version. I'll look at it more in-depth later. Best, MarioGom (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

MarioGom: Thanks for the immediate action. We'll be able to live with this until we find another solution. We're really lucky to have you around.--Ipigott (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I see I can find the "cards" for new users by using Special contributions but I doubt whether anyone else will use this path.--Ipigott (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Osai Ojigho

Hello, Need help with bringing this article: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Osai_Ojigho to standard for the AfC. Not sure what to do next. Subject is a Nigerian lawyer who is currently in charge of Amnesty Intl's Nigerian office. Also very involved in ongoing activism of BBOG and ENDSARS. Appreciate the help. --OtuNwachinemere (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

OtuNwachinemere: Thank you for bringing this problem to our attention and for doing such a good job on your first article. Given Ojigho's considerable achievements, it does of course deserve to be on article space and I have moved it there. If you intend to write more articles about women, you might like to join Women in Red by using the box at the top of our main page. Please let me know if you run into any further difficulties. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ipigott Awesome! I have just joined. --OtuNwachinemere (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

OtuNwachinemere, Welcome to the project! As Ipigott says please let us know if you need some support Lajmmoore (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Femicide

Hi all, in light of recent events concerning the disappearance of Sarah Everard and the list of femicides read out in Parliament [13] and covered in the Guardian[14]. I have drafted a new navigation box template to highlight the femicides that have taken place and the organisations and support groups that exist also. I took my cue from the Black Lives Matter template (so it could cover related pages, legislation, popular culture also) but I wanted to gauge your opinion on the usefulness and appropriateness of the draft template as things stand. The template is here. Stinglehammer (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Ewan. I suggest we centralise discussion on the template's talk page, so those who do not wish to see it do not have to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I added some sentences on that event in Jess Phillips. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I added a sentence about criticism of Philips' feminism too. Lajmmoore (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyedit Luisa Malzone Strina

Hi everyone, I just created this article about a Brazilian gallerist and art collector. Could someone review and copyedit that article? Thanks! User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 17:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done as far as those requests are concerned but this is a great topic for any art folks and/or Portuguese speakers if anyone wants to get into expanding the entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Clare Grady

I recently created an article out of a redirect for peace activist Clare Grady. She is currently in prison for her invovement in the Kings Bay Plowshares action. I think it would be a great morale boost for her if her article were included on DYK. Is it too late to improve her article for inclusion on Saint Patrick's Day (March 17th)? I think something about her action with The Saint Patrick's Day Four would be a great hook. Best, Thriley (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thriley: You could start by upgrading the references in Clare Grady from bare URLs, rather than waiting for someone to come along and do so clumsily using ReFill which often produces poor results. When creating an article, please take the time to format the references properly. Thanks. PamD 11:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And when creating a biography, please add DEFAULTSORT and, if appropriate Category:Living people and/or birth and/or death cats, while you have the information at your fingertips. I've fixed this one using the useful shortcut {{subst:L|||Grady, Clare}} . PamD 11:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I took the liberty of cleaning up most of the references. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 12:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The original question about being a DYK candidate. It seems to me that it's eligible for a DYK after I ran the DYK checker. I have no idea if someone can ask that it appears on a certain date. Timing is usually based upon: 1) the time that it takes to have someone pick up the article for review, 2) how long it takes to have changes made, and 3) when there are slots available.

I personally have an issue of making decisions on Wikipedia based upon how the subject of the article might react. That doesn't feel objective, put perhaps that's me. You could try asking someone on the DYK talk page and see how that goes.

Otherwise, I appreciate all the comments above. They are part of the bare minimum that should be done before nominating it for a DYK.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson:, Thank you for your advice. I think the article is ready for DYK nomination. What do you think? Best, Thriley (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thriley, to join the conversation, you can make special occasion requests but it is probably too late now for the 17th—DYK asks that such noms be made at least a week ahead because the sets of hooks are prepared well in advance (all the sets for the 17th are full already). You can request an exception and sometimes a kindly regular will swap in your special occasion hook, but only after you’ve nominated and been reviewed and I think it’s not likely to happen before the sets have been “locked” by an admin. I’d just nominate as part of regular order and make a note to do it farther in advance next time. You can put the request in the “Comment” section of the nomination (I’ve just asked myself if anything more is necessary, I’ll let you know if I learn more.) Innisfree987 (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Oops I see we were ships passing in the night. Well maybe you’ll get a favorable answer! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I hope so! It would be so much more meaningful if it was posted to DYK on the 17th. Is there anywhere else I should make the request besides the main talk page? Thank you, Thriley (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Ifeoma Malo

This fell on the slush pile this evening. I've added a couple of sources; can anyone else help? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Threw this in [6]--OtuNwachinemere (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Found this too. Added a couple others as well. Do check it out. --OtuNwachinemere (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Ofra Haza Career section deleted

I just noticed that the main "Career" section was deleted from Ofra Haza (one of the most famous Israeli singers) in January because it was lacking citations. (Here is the edit) Could anyone help find citations and restore some of the info?

Unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to get to this any time soon, but I took a quick peak at Google and it looks like there might be book sources that could back up some of the content. - Whisperjanes (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Zella de Milhau

I have been making stubs from the Smithsonian's excellent list of Women artists, and discovered someone incredible in the process: Zella de Milhau. She was (and I'm not exaggerating) a community organizer, an artist whose work is in multiple museums, a wartime ambulance driver and Southampton's first motorcycle policewoman. I've take the article about as far as I can with my limited research skills, so help yourself if interested.--- Possibly (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Possibly, There are some photographs of her in her garden at Laffalot. Do you have a preference? I like the one where she is smiling. Shall I add that to the infobox (as a fair use image)? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates: thanks, I saw those, but I don't think public domain can be established as they are undated and look to be post-1926. Do you think they can be used anyway?--- Possibly (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly I agree, public domain can't be assumed on these images, but we can select one to use only on her page at a small size (300px) under "Fair use". So one and only one can be used. Do you have a preference? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Why not PD? They are old enough and are not works of art.--Ipigott (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ipigott: the garden images look to be 1930s (guessing), and the military image I linked to looks like 1920-1930. I haven't seen exact dates anywhere on images of her.--- Possibly (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to link it. --- Possibly (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)  Done WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, doesn't the copyright belong to the photographer? If we don't know their death date PD can not be determined. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks great.--- Possibly (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it could be in Commons under PD-US-no_notice but it's fine the way it is for EN wiki.--Ipigott (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)