Loading

  • 21 Aug, 2019

  • By, Wikipedia

Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Women In Red
And related projects

What specific efforts is WikiProject Women in Red making to reduce/improve the content gender gap?
  • We maintain lists of blogs, conferences, contests, discussions (Wikipedia; Wikimedia), editathons, Inspire grantees' projects, mailing-lists, meet-ups, newspaper articles, scholarly articles, social media campaigns, workshops, etc. We use Wikidata to manage several aspects of the project because of its size and scope.
  • We hope to collaborate with international festival organizers (example: Litquake).
  • In addition to needing editors to write the articles, several key volunteer positions have been identified: Data Coordinator; Promotions/Events Coordinator; Lead Coordinators for each language.
  • We hope to establish a teaming arrangement with the Wiki Education Foundation as we believe university students are important to this endeavor. We would like to build on the education outreach efforts described by User:Kruusamägi (Wikimania submission: Possibilities for university cooperation: Estonian example) "Every academic year more than 500 articles on Estonian Wikipedia are created as part of local cooperation with universities."
  • Work together with the Wikimedia Chapters
  • Build on Wikimedia's "Address the gender gap/FAQ"
How can I help? Who can join?
Anyone can join! You do not need to have edited Wikipedia before, nor is the project restricted to women. Any help you can give, big or small, is greatly appreciated! To get started read our primer.
Woman of the day: a new one each day from our women's biographies

Shortcuts

Mystery (or perhaps "mistry")

Along the lines of the Artis Henderson discussion above, another article which has not had much success clearing the bar at AfC is Draft:Brittany Spanos. Here too, I'm baffled by why we would NOT want a short article about this person (whose work is cited over a thousand times in this very encyclopaedia).

In this case, I honestly feel like the original AfD may have been a (rather hasty) mistrial of sorts. When I now read Due to the recent AfD discussion that resulted in a consensus to delete based on a lack of notability, this draft must overcome those concerns in order to be accepted, I do wonder if the stain of the previous AfD has introduced an inadvertent prejudice that has led to yet another mistrial.

The history of the draft has been preserved on Talk, if anyone has the heart (or stomach) to take this one on. I did my best – short of simply overriding the reviewer who declined the article via AfC (which may also be an option).

Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cl3phact0:: I see there has been no further work on this since 1 July. While in my opinion the earlier draft met basic notability criteria, the fact that it was deleted on the basis of a discussion will make it difficult to justify unless significant new developments come to light.--Ipigott (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: Yes, that is because my feeling was (and remains) that the reviewer who knocked it back (July 1) didn't actually take much time to consider the history in detail, nor did they acknowledge the fact that I essentially re-worked the whole thing from top to tail before re-submitting (June 30) it was re-submitted, by which time it was already a completely different article from the draft that was deleted (and subsequently draftified) post-AfD – which itself, had been (and was still in the process of being) heavily revised between the initial submission and rather abrupt conclusion of the AfD. Hence my frustration and why I'm rather flummoxed by the whole affair (again, see Talk). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cl3phact0: I'm rather confused about the history of the article and would be interested to see the version that was first refused (with date) as it would be useful to see exactly what changes were made before the draft was again refused on 1 July. I think FormalDude, who is a member of Women in Red and has produced excellent work, may be interested in this discussion and in the details on the draft article's talk page. I think it would also be useful to pick out three or four of the sources which provide informative details of the subject rather than just passing mentions. Reviewers do not have time to look at a long string of sources in detail and sometimes base their decisions on monitoring just a few of the references.--Ipigott (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having already sunk way too much time into this one, I am loathe to escalate this into anything even vaguely resembling a contentious spat. That said, of course FormalDude's take would be welcome. My perspective is simply that I don't think the article ever really got a fair review from the moment it landed at AfD – which is where I first spotted it (I didn't originate it, nor do I particularly care about the subject). Dsp13 (who made the original stub) may also be able to help with context/history. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to help ease any confusion about versions: article sent to AfD (Feb 6); deleted and then draftied (Feb 15); re-submission (May 23); my AFCH comments (June 30). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cl3phact0: In my view, what's played out is a rather normal and routine process of Wikipedia. A topic with borderline notability was discussed by the community at WP:AfD and editors made policy-based arguments in favor of keeping and deleting the article, and it so happened that a consensus emerged in favor of deletion. While I would've voted to keep the article, it's important to understand and accept that other editors are making valid arguments. Maybe you're seeing something in that AfD that I'm not though. If you feel that process was invalid or incorrect, you could open a WP:Deletion review.
I appreciate that you re-worked the article, but its structure was not the reason it was deleted. It was deleted for notability, specifically a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, and therefore it needs more sources to overcome that. Hopefully that will happen in the future and the article can be created then. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to add that the consensus to delete will not permanently impact the topic. Even if it doesn't get more coverage in the future, Wikipedia policy could change such that the topic ends up meeting notability requirements in its current form. And, after enough time has passed, it would probably be fair to reevaluate the topic altogether simply because community consensus can change overtime.
But if an AfC reviewer were to independently approve the draft now, they'd be completely disregarding the consensus of a group of editors that gave their time and effort in evaluating the article at AfD. AfC reviewers do not have that authority, the only way that can be done is with a new consensus developed at a deletion review discussion. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude: Thank you for this. What's odd about the situation (and therefore, perhaps a flaw in the process itself) is that you would've voted to keep the article, Ipigott is of the opinion the earlier draft met basic notability criteria, presumably Dsp13 (who published the original stub) thinks we ought to have an article about Spanos – and obviously I wouldn't expend my time on it if I didn't agree. Furthermore, the references that support some of what I imagine would be fairly uncontestably acceptable criteria to justify her inclusion if this were a brand new, fresh draft hadn't been published when the article went to AfD, and the "Swiftposium" at which Spanos was the keynote speaker (and which is mentioned in the AfD discussion by Oaktree b as a possible decider) hadn't yet happened. (I suspect that we're there with WP:JOURNALIST #1 and possibly #3, and my instinct is that WP:COMMONSENSE applies here too). I had hoped these facts, plus a thorough reworking of the article to make all of this clear, would have gotten us past the initial (hasty, and again, in my view, none too consensual) AfD outcome. I chose to ask the Administrator who closed the AfD and deleted the article to Draftify instead (rather than elevating the whole matter to a process of contestation) as this seemed the least fractious (and therefore best) way to see that the article gets published (which, let's not forget, is our objective here). All of this to say, in response to your thoughtful remarks above: as yours was a new, fresh AfC, I was indeed surprised by the outcome. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Based on the information and points of view laid out here (especially the summary of notability opinions highlighted in the last paragraph), I've re-submitted the draft at AfC with a link to this discussion. Giving it another chance for review seems like the best policy. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Notwithstanding the opinions expressed above (see quotes in green), this unfortunate draft has been declined yet again (ostensibly, due to the deficit expressed in the AfD). At this point, it is nearly impossible (for me) not to see this as a serious flaw in our system. The article, it appears, is tarred with an indelible stain (for what are now inexistent flaws, alas). I hang my head. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rayne Rouce

Does this look ready to submit? Draft:Rayne Rouce Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me, but I think a few more sources would be helpful to strengthen its nobility. Funny enough, the name is almost identical to o Rayne Royce, a fictional character I am making an article on! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I added a few more sources. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer said my tone was too admiring, but I really don't know how to change the tone. She's a total badass in every possible way. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main issue is this line: "Rouce's performances of her original science rap songs have captivated audiences at national meetings. She has performed at the American Society of Hematology’s ASH-a-Palooza since 2018, and her special 2020 video performance can be viewed online". For the first sentence I would recommend removing it and/or saying what the source or people say about her performance song (e.g. "X from y believed her performance was "xyz"" or "x from y noted how the audience enjoyed her performance" or something along those lines. That would make it sound more neutral. Alternatively, you could remove all opinions and just list the facts (e.g. "Rouce's performance her original science rap songs at national meetings").
If possible, I think getting some more sources would make it a bit more neutral if possible, so then there is more varied coverage of her.
Also, the apostrophe in "Hematology’s" should be a ' instead per WP:CURLY.
I am not an expert but these are just minor suggestions. I really hope it is accepted next time as I agree that she is an icon! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a go. Thanks for being my wikipedia friend. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your user page and I wrote you this haiku:
In my own rom com
One character is missing
Where's my gay best friend? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Omg thank you!! That is so lovely! (Also sorry for my lateness, I just saw this!) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
❤️ Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Harris, Mark (March 11, 2024). "Missing the Gay Best Friend". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 September 2024.

Draft:Carolina Botero

I just created a draft for Carolina Botero. She received an EFF Award this month for her work. Thriley (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you have made a good start! Are they more sources available? As I think that would help the article, especially if the sources discussed her life and what led her to receive the award, which would really help the article. Also I highly recommend fully sourcing the links as this can prevent them from Wikipedia:Link rot. I can help you with that if you would like :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I was going to put it into articlespace as a stub as I think she meets GNG. Thought I'd post here in case anyone was interested. Will add a source or two more for now and then move it. Thriley (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Green's October 2024 edit-a-thon

Hello WikiProject Women in Red:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping a note to say this motivated me to work on the article for veiqia, which I nominated for GA last night! Lajmmoore (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lajmmoore: That's great! You're technically a little early (GA noms are meant to be submitted between Oct. 1st and 31st to be part of the WiG event), but I'm really glad you've gotten a boost out of it for your wiki projects. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AAAAHHHHHH, that's so funny! I'm never early for anything! Please can it still count? I was looking at the WiG page and was like "it's very quiet", durrrrrrrr Lajmmoore (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst: Is there an easy way for Lajmmoore to withdraw her GA nom and renominate it on Oct. 1st? Or alternatively, what do you think about opening up the event a bit early? (I'd rather wait for October to start, but don't want her to lose her WiG editathon submission!) Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanna the Brave: Easiest way is just remove the GAN tag from the top of the talk page and add it back once the event starts. Definitely don't want to disqualify the nomination, but I'm not quite ready for the event to start yet :') Article is looking great btw, thanks for working on this Lajmmoore! --Grnrchst (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lajmmoore: Does that sound okay? Just remove the GAN tag for now and re-nominate when the event starts in Oct. Then we'll be good to go! Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
100% - thank you both! Lajmmoore (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate bios for Kathleen Parker

Hi. I just came across duplicate bios for a former member of the Illinois State Senate, Kathleen Parker. The first, Kathy Parker, appears to have been created/redirected in May 2018. The second, Kathleen Parker (politician), was created in June 2018. Is there a way to merge these two articles? 47thPennVols (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

47thPennVols, I have blanked and redirected the shorter Kathleen Parker (politician) article and merged the Wikidata items. All the information before you expanded the politician article seems to be present in the Kathy article, I have corrected one date. TSventon (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your help! 47thPennVols (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I give up on this one?

Rejected at Afc, should I let it go? Draft:Tracy Schorn Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Allthemilescombined1: In order to avoid problems of notability, especially in connection with living people, I suggest you start by finding at least three reliable independent sources which cover the subject in some detail (in accordance with the guidance in our Primer and our Ten Simple Rules). If you cannot find such support for Tracy Schorn, then it might be more useful to spend your editing time on creating another biography.--Ipigott (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Allthemilescombined1
Please also take a loot at Manual of Style/Biography.
your article doesn't provide the basic information such as the date of birth to your audience. Hounaam (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How and when to confirm 20% women's biographies

As you can see from our main WiR page, we have just reached 19.94% women. This is actually a two decimal approximation based on Humaniki's 19.935%. Over the next few weeks, Humaniki will no doubt produce figures in excess of 19.95%, which we would normally round up to 20% on our main page. Should we celebrate a figure which has simply been rounded up or should we wait for Humaniki to give a figure actually stating 20% or higher, without any rounding? In view of establishing such an important milestone we should perhaps wait for an uncontroversial, non-rounded 20%, even if this could take a couple of weeks longer. We would then be able to present the full figure and related data, exactly as produced by Humaniki (including women bios of something like 20.033%). I would be interested to hear whether others agree. (To avoid any premature celebrations, we could simply reproduce the three decimal figure on our main WiR page until it exceeds 20%.)--Ipigott (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that more than 20% means more than 20%, so check the calculation if the figure is greater or equal to 20.000%. fr Wikipedia celebrated 20.001%. TSventon (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We won't celebrate 7 million articles at 6999500 articles either. —Kusma (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article on Wikipedia's existential crisis

Writing in today's The Guardian, Stephen Harrison presents some interesting ideas in "Wikipedia is facing an existential crisis. Can gen Z save it?" with quite a bit more on Hannah Clover.--Ipigott (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! thanks for sharing. Hounaam (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen Erasmus+ Project

I just became aware of the WikiWomen Erasmus+ Project, which will be launched at Celtic Knot Conference 2024 on Thursday, September 26, 2024. What I've been able to glean from the project's mainpage is that it's a toolkit for "gender gap and minority languages". -- Rosiestep (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you drawing attention to this interesting EU project, Rosiestep. There are more details under the partner Mercartor although the coordinating partner is actually Afük, providing more details here. There appears to be strong interest in Frisian but other partners also address Irish and regional languages in Spain. I'm pleased to see there is strong emphasis on involving schoolchildren who have also been a focus of Wikipedia's development in Norway. The project has apparently been running since early 2022 and is scheduled to end in 2025. As far as I can see, the Celtic Knot Conference will present some of the resources and toolkits which have been developed and will discuss the project's progress. Perhaps some of our Irish friends will be attending the conference.--Ipigott (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just seen that Yupik is speaking on developments with the Sami languagges. We can therefore expect useful feedback.--Ipigott (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struggling to find sources for Vivienne Gray

She's a New Zealand classicist of 'international renown' according to our national encyclopedia but I am struggling to find any good source for biographical details. My draft here for reference, suggestions welcome! I'll ask for help at the WCC project but their discussions don't seem very active. DrThneed (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to keep looking for sources, but just as an initial thing to note, why aren't you including any of the reviews of her books?
I'll keep looking for more beyond these. Silverseren 22:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the help @Silver seren. I stopped working on listing her pubs and reviews of her pubs when I realised I hadn't found any good source yet on her (rather than her work). I always feel that one good profile is necessary to be safe from getting nominated for deletion, and information I have on her is much more limited than I'd normally be comfortable with. DrThneed (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with many academics, there might just not be much on her for a biography outside of some primary university type sources. That's just how it is. You can always expand a career section by focusing it on coverage of her books and what they're about. That's what I had to do with Grace Lavery. And deletion really doesn't seem like a concern because Gray clearly meets WP:NAUTHOR. Notability is already showcased with these reviews.
Here's some more reviews, including for her more recent books. I've also found a couple sources discussing both her books and research in general, including her competing ideas with other researchers.
Anyways, hope these are all helpful. Good luck! Silverseren 22:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Silver seren very definitely helpful. I'll go ahead with it - but I might also see if the classics dept at my uni knows of anything. She falls into that time period when there isn't much online coverage but might have been something in magazines, newspapers or academic society newsletters. DrThneed (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrThneed, I agree that a profile will help ward off deletion nominations, but the people who patrol the deletion listings for academics are pretty good at not letting notable authors slip through the cracks. If you make sure it's clear that an academic has got 2+ books with 2+ full academic reviews each I would rate the probability of a deletion discussion ending in actual deletion to be extremely low. Less than that and you do enter haggling territory. -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biography appearing in new biographies

I have noticed several of our recently created biographies of women contain the non-existent category "Biography" although it is not listed among the article's categories and in fact does not exist as a category. Can anyone provide explanations? What should we do about it? (See for example Iltija Mufti, Karry G).--Ipigott (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two examples are in the non-existent category because they have notability tags like {{notability|1=Biographies|date=September 2024}}, which was added to Iltija Mufti here. The notability tag was edited on 13 September and a correction has been requested at Template talk:Notability#Template-protected edit request on 14 September 2024. TSventon (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, TSventon, for this useful explanation. So what should we do about it? It seems very strange to me that a notability tag should add a category that is not permitted. Perhaps there are hundreds more biographies which carry the biography category for the same reason.--Ipigott (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, there are 4,757 pages in the biography category, but I don't think we need to do anything. The template is protected so only template editors can edit it. The problem has been identified and the editor responsible has been asked to fix it, but hasn't edited today. I would expect it to be fixed in the next day or so. TSventon (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, the template has been corrected, and the number of articles in the category (currently 9,470) will go down every time an affected article is refreshed. I will be interested to see how long it will take to clear the category. TSventon (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your involvememt, TSventon. It was obviously something requiring attention.--Ipigott (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism page

I have just noticed the recent edits on the Feminism page and wonder if they are in accordance with the idea of citing references for everything or indeed of giving as much weight as is due but not more. Perhaps someone with a good deal more experience than I have could have a look and see what they think? They read as a bit pointed to me. Balance person (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if the offending additions have now been deleted. Thanks, Balance person, for drawing our attention to them.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia North America Conference

I see from here we already have a detailed schedule for the WikiConference which will be held from 3 to 6 October in Indianapolis. Several presentations report on developments related to Women in Red while speakers include Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight, Christine Meyer and others from WikiProject Women in Religion, and Deena Larsen from WikiProject Electronic Literature. Looks like an interesting conference.--Ipigott (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling Cherokee Nation tribal councilors into Wikidata

This is a directory of the 343 current and past Cherokee Nation tribal councilors. There seems to be an option to export as an Excel file. Is there an easy way to upload this into Wikidata and identify them as Cherokee Nation citizens? Eventually, it would be great if the female councilors could then populate on the WIR Native American redlink lists. TJMSmith (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing now that some in the directory may have had different legislative roles, like Amber Fite appears to be a lawyer might not have been a councilor and Amy Page was a member of the district court. TJMSmith (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the notability of these roles established? Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tribal councilors yes, not sure about the others that may be in the directory. TJMSmith (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Blaze Wolf, for confusing you with someone else.--Ipigott (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright Ipigott, I assumed you thought I was familiar with Cherokee history given that I frequently interacted with ARoseWolf in the past. ― Blaze Wolfblaze__wolf 14:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tribal councilors are national legislators, so definitely presumed notable, as would be an occupant of any national office. On the others, a preliminary search for Amber Fite-Morgan and Amy Page indicates that both appear to have a claim for notability. Fite was the general counsel for Northeastern State University and is now in the same position at the University of North Alabama. Page helped write the statues for paternity and child support in Oklahoma per this. Obviously both are BLPs, so the question becomes are there adequate independent sources to meet GNG? SusunW (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Susun's assessment that most tribal councilors would have a presumed notability as national legislators. From there it would be about providing the necessary independent sources to withstand a potential rebuttal to that presumed notability should the challenge occur. --ARoseWolf 23:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Nichols

Hey y'all, I'd appreciate some help with Draft:Margaret Nichols (psychologist), a famous lesbian sex therapist. AFAICT, she was very influential in the field and has been cited hundreds of times. We had an article on her for a few years, it was deleted due to a socking COI editor (who she'd criticized in a paper she wrote), and I got it moved back to draftspace a little while ago. I don't have much experience writing about academics so was hoping someone here could help get it back to mainspace! Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it with the sources, give me a sec. Silverseren 16:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, here's what I found just from Newspapers.com, so other places should be checked as well.
I hope these help. Silverseren 16:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D'yan Forest

I'd appreciate any feedback on this draft. Draft:D'yan Forest Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good - coverage spanning quite a few years, as well as Guinness and recent NYT. PamD 19:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Should I move it myself? (I don't know how) Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
short but nice. Hounaam (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft on Nepalese artist

Draft:Sabita Dangol has been stuck in AfC for literally years. It's in much, much better shape than it was when I initially declined it over two years (!) ago. Anyone here interested in tidying it up (please check carefully for copyvio, repeated past problems with this article) and getting it to mainspace? -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of copyediting. PamD 18:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely written with very useful information about the artist. Hounaam (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft on Nina Baker

I started the Draft:Nina Baker today. Would greatly appreciate help with this as I'm going on holiday (Finally!) tomorrow. User:PamD I don't know if this is of interest to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResilientEngineer (talk • contribs) 19:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft doesn't currently say anything about her contributions to the history of engineering. She appears to be the author of two books, Beneath the Radar: An Illustrated Account of an Ordinary Radar Operator's Life in RAF Radar Stations 1942-6 (Crampton-Moorhouse Publishing, 2021) and Adventures in Aeronautical Design: The Life of Hilda M. Lyon (Crampton-Moorhouse Publishing, 2020) and a co-editor of several others. I didn't find any reviews on JSTOR, and only one on Google Scholar [1] but maybe there are more elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @David Eppstein I didn't get very far with it yet. There is a LOT missing at the moment. PamD managed to find a bunch of stuff which you can see in a thread above under the heading about the need to focus on engineers. The books are certainly worth adding. But I know there should be further information on other honours she's received TheResilientEngineer (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything off of the first book, TheResilientEngineer, but here's what I found from searching the second. Silverseren 20:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren thanks for pulling this together and to @David Eppstein for identifying the books. TheResilientEngineer (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles which may be about the same religious institute

I think Daughters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Daughters of the Sacred Heart may be about the same organisation. Both refer to the same primary source and both say founded in 1903 by Maria Teresa Nuzzo. One of them has a hatnote saying "For the institute founded by Ignazia Verzeri in 1831, see ... " but neither article seems to be about that one. Does anyone have time and inclination to unpick this? Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were originally about different groups, but since this version, in 2021 was it, some idiot has messed them up. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reversed the incorrect edits. TSventon (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both. Tacyarg (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red, the Wikipedia article, has questions on this project

I noticed that users were asking questions on the Women in Red article (not the WikiProject!) I don't think it would be appropriate to redirect that talk page to this one, but a template box to tell people that questions on the project should be asked here would be nice.

I'm reminded of the ChatGPT article, where people thought that they could prompt the program to respond on Wikipedia on the article's talk page. Cheers :-). LR.127 (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea, LR.127. Does anyone know of a template which could be used in this connection?--Ipigott (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we will need to produce our own Wikipedia:edit notice like the one at talk:ChatGPT. I have put a link to this discussion at Talk:Women in Red in case anyone watches that page, but not this. If we agree what we want, we could ask the editor who set up the Talk:ChatGPT edit notice if they would be willing to help. TSventon (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just being a pedant, but correct your link to Wikipedia talk:ChatGPT to just the plain Talk:ChatGPT :-). The Wikipedia talk page doesn't have the edit notice, only the article talk page. Edit your comment at Talk:Women in Red too. Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TSventon (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should do something like that on Google Scholar. Most recent additions to its talk page look like attempts at search queries. UPDATE: done. If we agree on what we want the edit notice to say and how to format it, I can put it in place. I don't think the ChatGPT edit notice template will work as-is for this talk page but maybe we can use it as a model. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit message at Talk:ChatGPT uses {{Generative AI editnotice}}. I can't find any other en Wikiprojects with articles so we could just create an editnotice with bespoke text. I suggest something like Information icon This is not the place to talk to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. To do so, please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. If you would like to discuss this article's content or suggest improvements, you are welcome to participate and post on this page. The format could be copied from the Generative AI editnotice. TSventon (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy won!

Congratulations to Lajmmoore, winner of the OE Awards for Excellence in the Wildcard Award category (based on this work User:Lajmmoore/Round the World Challenge]! Well-deserved! Take a bow, Lucy! -- Rosiestep (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was indeed a memorable achievement. Congratulations!--Ipigott (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. That is a lot of work on diverse subjects. Nick Number (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all! I heard some discussion a while ago about how Wikimedia projects need more outside recognition, as advocacy and education, so I have been on a bit of a nomination spree. I don't personally feel very comfortable with putting myself "out there", but I think it's worth it to get other people talking about our work! Lajmmoore (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a fantastic idea! Thank you so much for going to that effort, and congratulations—the recognition is so well-deserved! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Hounaam (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological list of operatic sopranos

Hi all, I just created this list by going through our various categories on operatic sopranos. There were a number of women missing their birth year within those categories and I was unable to include them. Those singers are listed on the talk page at Talk:Chronological list of operatic sopranos. Any help in sourcing dates for those singers and then placing them within the list would be much appreciated. For historical singers where the birth date is not known, the list is sorting them by the first year they were known to have flourished. Thank you for any and all assistance in advance. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4:: This is a list that certainly needed to be created. As for those without a DOB, would it not be possible to list them under the year they became notable, i.e. fl.? It would be a pity just to leave them out, Unfortunately, for some reason there are numerous female opera singers who prefer not to reveal their DOB.--Ipigott (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking more carefully through the list and would like to congratulate you, 4meter4, on such a well presented comprehensive enterprise. I see you have in fact made a start on fl. dates for the early years but obviously much more needs to be done. I was wondering if separate sections on fl, cases should be included for each century, e.g. "Operatic sopranos flourishing in the 18th century" (with an explanatory note). Perhaps Gerda Arendt has some suggestions too?--Ipigott (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Ensminger

Any suggestions to improve this draft? Also: on the talk page, I ask if the book review reference is reliable. Draft:Jean Ensminger Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Manual of Style/Biography. Hounaam (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I changed the lead sentence. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve replied to you on talk regarding that source—it seems ok. If there are more to add from journals and newspapers, that would be good too. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you gotten Wikipedia Library access yet, Allthemilescombined1? Because ProQuest on there has a ton of academic reviews for Ensminger's books. Silverseren 21:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Let's see if I can figure out the instructions. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your account may not be old enough yet. When did you make it? It needs to be 6 months old before you can apply (and 500 edits, but I think you're probably good there). Silverseren 21:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it stopped me on the 6 months, I have maybe 3 months. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate. Well, plan on getting it as a New Year's present to yourself. For now, I'll see if I can find the non-Proquest versions of the reviews. Give me a sec. Silverseren 21:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! At least I'll have a better excuse for why I'm not touching grass then. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's for Making A Market ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) and for Experimenting with Social Norms ([8], [9], [10]). I hope these help. Silverseren 22:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paper on Wikipedia entry requirements for men and women

Initially released in March 2024, Traces of Unequal Entry Requirement for Illustrious People on Wikipedia Based on their Gender by Lea Krivaa and Michele Coscia from IT University of Copenhagen presents an analysis showing that "there is indeed a higher bar for women to have their own biographical page on Wikipedia". I must say I found the paper difficult to follow and could not see when and on what version of Wikipedia the data were collected. Perhaps David Eppstein can take a look and let us know if there's anything of real significance. (Also published after revision in June 2024 here.)--Ipigott (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More explanations by Michele Coscia here.--Ipigott (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are looking at en Wikipedia, but I could be wrong. The sample is selected using the pantheon.world dataset of articles present in 15 Wikipedia language versions. Pantheon does not have its own Wikipedia article and I can't find any previous mention of it here. TSventon (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your interest, TSventon. Pantheon was mentioned years ago on Wikimedia. A Wikipedia article might be useful. There is a detailed description in Nature here. The current list up to 2023 comprises 115,750 people. Interesting that the first woman does not appear until No. 36 Marie Antoinette.--Ipigott (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, Having read about Pantheon and about Network theory, I feel I have a better idea what the paper is about. The articles were collected on 12 February 2023 and the examples of Aristotle (https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Aristotle) and Hu Shih (https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Hu_Shih) show that they were collected from en Wikipedia. It is an interesting calculation, but I am not sure what action it would suggest on en Wikipedia. Perhaps there should be a Women in Red project for Pantheon.
According to Humaniki, en Wikipedia had 1,928,008 biographies on 12 February 2023.
They checked the 88,937 biographies on Pantheon (each present in 15 Wikipedia language versions) on 24 November 2021 and found 84,463 classified as male or female
They reduced the dataset further by selecting birthdates in the range 1750-1950 leaving 32,901 articles (nodes)
They then looked at wikilinks (edges) between the selected articles and rejected unlinked articles, leaving 9,540 (8,177 male and 1,363 female) articles, around 0.5% of the total population on Humaniki.
Finally they analysed the wikilinks between the articles and found that women's articles had better links to other articles than men's articles did. They concluded "a woman is added on Wikipedia only when she has stronger connections to the existing structure than a man". TSventon (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, TSventon, for giving us such a clear summary of the paper. From the figures given, the differences between linking in men's and women's articles are however very small for such assertions to be made. Another explanation could well be the more highly developed discipline of editors creating or improving biographies of women. Women in Red has devoted a considerable amount of effort to encouraging editors (e.g. through our essays and feedbacl) to write biographies meeting high Wikipedia standards while Women in Green has specifically sought to improve women's biographies up to GA standard and beyond. It would have been interesting to see whether there were measurable differences in the quality levels (Stub to FA) of men's vs women's biographies in the dataset under analysis. I seem to remember earlier studies indicating a generally higher quality standard for women's biographies.--Ipigott (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, TSventon, for helping save me from trying to go through the same close reading.
I'm not convinced that a correlation between gender and link structure implies causation in the article creation. There could be other reasons for better connectivity of women once their articles exist, such as explicit efforts by editors such as us to create that connectivity (as I try to do for the articles I create and did today for one of JessWade's new articles, Eloise Marais). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing @David Eppstein - wasn't there a different paper a while ago that suggested that women's biographies in general are "better" because there's a higher threshhold, so wouldn't then greater linkage be an effect of that? Lajmmoore (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also sceptical about the conclusion. Firstly, the connectedness of the sample of women on en Wikipedia will partly be due to the work of editors on this project, secondly women in the 18th and 19th centuries probably had to be better connected than men to become notable and thirdly 71% of the biographies from the period from Pantheon had no relevant wikilinks, so connectedness on en Wikipedia is clearly not a barrier to inclusion on Pantheon. TSventon (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note under her blog post about this discussion Lajmmoore (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The dataset used was the Pantheon 2020 Person Dataset, which is available as a spreadsheet here. 19,993 (22.5%) out of 88,937 entries are female.
It appears that Pantheon entries need an en Wikipedia article, so creating articles for notable topics from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Number of links could increase the number of women on Pantheon. It could also be useful to have a Wikiproject:Pantheon to highlight which articles on Pantheon should be improved. TSventon (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for a start perhaps, one of 2025's monthly themes could focus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Number of links? This is the first time I've seen this list! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could encourage links in a tip of the month. As for improving Pantheon articles, it looks to me as if we would need to do quite a bit of preparatory work, creating lists of articles with ÷shortcomings, etc. Any volunteers?--Ipigott (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lajmmoore, one problem with the "Number of links" list is that the names with the higher numbers of links have mostly had an article previously, which has then been deleted for lack of notability or another reason. I noticed that Rosiestep had written two articles from the list recently.
Ipigott, I was wondering whether it would be possible to set up Wikiproject:Pantheon as a taskforce of wikiproject:Biography and then use AWB to tag 88,000 articles. I was thinking aloud rather than suggesting starting any kind of work immediately. TSventon (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your overview here, TSventon. In my translation work, I have looked at that list and tried to find someone who would meet the requirements for inclusion on EN-WP, but as has been mentioned already, many of the articles on that list don't meet criteria for EN-WP. I think the idea of Wikiproject:Pantheon as a taskforce of wikiproject:Biography has merit, or, alternatively, maybe someone creates items in Wikidata for all the Pantheon entries, and includes a property that attaches the items to Pantheon, and then we generate a redlist for the missing women's biogs? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a redlist, if there was it would be the top few lines of the "Number of links" list, which I have checked. The only woman from the top of the redlist on Pantheon is Mila Nitich, whose article was deleted after a PROD in March, so it is possible that Pantheon periodically removes articles which have been deleted from en Wikipedia. Although 20 articles about her have been deleted, Nitich still has 15 articles, including 11 stubs added by one IP account. TSventon (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I can be one thing, it's hasty! Thanks so much for clarifying I thought the Numbers list was drawing on the same data as Pantheon! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lajmmoore:, I didn't explain very well. The Numbers list is drawing on the same data as Pantheon (i.e. Wikidata), but the Numbers list is selecting women not en Wikipedia ("periodically updated by Listeriabot"), while Pantheon is selecting people who are on en Wikipedia (updated less regularly). Mila Nitich is on both lists, but the Pantheon information for her is not up to date. TSventon (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need help accessing obituary

Hi all. Does anybody have access to newspapers.com? If so, I would appreciate it if someone could clip soprano Florence Quartararo's obituary for me. There are older encyclopedia entries on her, but none with her death information. She died in San Francisco on June 6, 1994 and there is likely an obituary in one of San Francisco's newspapers (based on what is alluded to in ancestry.com). Unfortunately the Wikipedia Library access to newspapers.com has been down for a long time, and it's somewhat doubtful it will come back anytime soon. Thanks in advance to anyone who is able to help.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this her, 4meter4? Silverseren 03:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Thank you so much!4meter4 (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMF criticized for funding left-of-center non-profits including Art+Feminism

The article "Wikipedia Donations Go Toward Embedding Feminism And Racial Justice In World’s Largest Encyclopedia" by Robert Schmad in Daily Caller accuses the Wikimedia Foundation of bias for funding left-of-center activist groups, in particular Art+Feminism, and thus "betraying its original mission of anonymous, blind writing and editing".--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Regrettably for them, WP:DAILYCALLER: "The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information." Innisfree987 (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this clarification, Innisfree987. The assertions by "right-of-center" Heather Mac Donald seem to be in character.--Ipigott (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope our friends at Art + Feminism, Whose Knowledge & Black Lunch Table are OK. They are do great work and are inspirational Lajmmoore (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, they are invaluable contributors. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*eyeroll* is my only response to that nonsense. Silverseren 20:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haitian-Canadian Yolette Lévy

Hoping someone here has access to French language sources beyond the ones already used in order to give more insight into Yolette Lévy's career, e.g., was she the first Haitian city councilor of Val d'Or. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think her position as a councilor in a relatively small town is relevant. What is far more important for me is her role as a unionist pushing for women's rights in a leading provincial organization. More background on this would be useful.--Ipigott (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of "women" articles awaiting review stood at 329 on 31 August. Thanks to the efforts of new page patrollers, it has been reduced to only 24 today, 29 September. This is no doubt partly a result of the current backlog drive but there appears to have been special interest in articles about women. It also represents a considerable reduction in the time taken for new mainspace articles to be reviewed. Administrators and other editors entitled to review are encouraged to keep an eye on women articles awaiting review, whether or not in connection with an NPP drive. Speedy reviews help to encourage participation, particularly in connection with new or inexperienced contributors. In many cases, it is useful to provide feedback and assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that’s great! Yes I don’t do a very large amount of reviewing but I read a few for the drive and that’s where I started. The sorting does make it very easy to find articles relevant to one’s skill set. Thanks to all who pitch in this way, I totally agree it can help smooth the onboarding of new folks. AfC as well. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to see that by this morning it has been reduced to only eight. I've never seen it so low before.--Ipigott (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my ignorance, but how can I get my draft added to this list? Draft:Rayne Rouce Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not an ignorant question, as I don’t quite know the answer either! It’s not usually something you need to add, it should be detected automatically, but I do see it miscategorize pages from time to time. I’ve just added another women’s project tag to the talk page, as well as the biography project, in hopes that might trip the filter, but I don’t actually know what does. Perhaps someone who does will chime in. Innisfree987 (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Allthemilescombined1 and Innisfree987: The list does not contain drafts. It presents articles in mainspace which have not yet been reviewed under New pages patrol or which have been relisted as requiring a review. Experienced editors are welcome to apply to become reviewers -- see NPP reviewers. The "women" listing is just one of many available from NPP sorting. I have found it particularly useful to look through the "women" listing every day as it gives an overview of new articles, many of which have been created by new or inexperienced contributors requiring assistance. I frequently find more experienced editors who have written several articles about women. When I tell them about Women in Red, they often sign up as members.--Ipigott (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Innisfree987: As you mentioned AfC above, I thought I would take a look and see if there had been any major reduction. I don't know how things normally run but I was surprised to see there are currently about 1,300 in Category:Pending AfC submissions, of which many seem to be biographies of women. (Women's names occur throughout the list with Draft:Nereida Garcia Ferraz (since 30 June) at the beginning and Draft:Mary Beth Goodman (since 24 June) at the end.) It's a pity there is no obvious means of preparing a list of the AfC "women" biographies awaiting attention. I suppose it could be done manually on the basis of the names in the list or perhaps automatically if anyone has an algorithm for picking out women's first or given names. Seems to me to be very discouraging for new contributors to have to wait three months or more but I suppose many of them are there because they have not been correctly resubmitted. Nevertheless. it looks to me we could do far more to help them along.--Ipigott (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott: Numbers at AfC tend to rise over time until there is a backlog drive. The last drive in November 2023 cleared the backlog. There is a chart here which shows that the backlog has been reduced from nearly 3500 since June. There is a much larger Category:Draft articles on biographies with 8,397 articles, mostly not in the queue for review. Looking at the examples you linked, the dates are misleading. Draft:Nereida Garcia Ferraz was declined on 30 June 2024, resubmitted on 8 July 2024‎ (the date is not shown on the Review waiting template) and given feedback on the same day. Draft:Mary Beth Goodman was declined on 24 June 2024 and resubmitted on 30 September 2024. TSventon (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: Thanks for these details. I am aware of the periodic backlog drives which certainly help to speed things up, but I am not sure they solve all the problems. Many of the articles reviewed are resubmitted with improvements and once again have to wait for attention. The overall time taken for an article to be accepted can therefore be quite considerable. I think articles about women, particularly biographies, would receive more attention if they could be listed separately. In the early days of Wikipedia, experienced editors were frequently willing to work on the shortcomings of articles from newcomers but in my experience, AfC reviewers usually just state the problems and expect newbies to solve them by looking up background documentation. I think many contributors to Women in Red would be ready to provide assistance if they could have easy access to "women" AfC drafts, along the same lines they can access mainspace "women" articles awaiting NPP review. Any hope of progressing along these lines?--Ipigott (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been looking through Category:Draft articles on women. It might be worthwhile making a start on this.--Ipigott (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: I have added a subheader to help find the AfC discussion in the archive. I agree that AfC has its limitations, but it seems to be in catching up mode at the moment, which is better than falling behind mode. What do you make of Category:Draft articles on women? TSventon (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is really low - we're usually up somewhere closer to 3000 pending submissions, with some submissions as old as three months. The backlog is unusually short in both size and duration right now. There are lists of women for AfC at Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography/Women. Actually, this is how I got involved in AfC in the first place! (via seeing sad unloved drafts at WiR) I really recommend that folks here who care about this backlog pitch in to help. Even if you only review one draft a month, that's still one article that wouldn't have been reviewed otherwise. Very happy to provide assistance to anyone from WiR who wants to dip their toe into AfC reviewing and is feeling a bit hesitant - just send me a talk page message. -- asilvering (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes—just catching up—sorry for my confusion above, @Ipigott, I mixed up the NPP and AFC queues because happily both do have a list of women’s entries. I try to look in on both. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Asilvering, Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography/Women is exactly the list we need. My past experiences with AfC have not always been too successful with their reviewers sometimes suggesting that the necessary improvements had not been made or tagging the articles on mainspace. If however we examine the pending articles from the usual criteria for notability, etc., I believe a significant number -- if not most -- could be promoted to mainspace. There seems to me to be something of a conflict between AfC's interest in encouraging new contributors to improve various quality aspects of their articles and Wikipedia's basic approach to notability which relies on significant coverage in independent sources whether or not these have been used in the draft. As the list currently contains only 97 drafts, it seems to me we could work together with other WiR contributors and see how many of the articles can be "retrieved" over the next month. I would suggest we also work on improvements to the articles and encourage their creators to stick with Wikipedia (if they are still active). As for the listing suggested by TSventon of over 1,500 draft women articles at Category:Draft articles on women, many of them also seem to represent a good start on a biography which could be further developed without too much effort. I see however that in some cases they are just old drafts of articles which are now in mainspace, sometimes as a result of a fresh start.
This has been a revealing discussion and has provided a basis for further efforts to move women articles to mainspace while trying to encourage more recent contributors to continue writing about women. I think with Asilvering's assistance, it might be useful to set up a list of those willing to participate in processing pending AfC drafts. It might be useful to go through the current list of 97 and select a subset of those meeting basic notability before undertaking further improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea. My recollection is there’s a template for promising drafts we could use? Innisfree987 (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's mostly to request that admins don't delete the page via G13 if it goes unedited for six months, but if folks here want to use it as a flag for "help this draft out, it's probably notable", I don't see why not. -- asilvering (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about a new "never-ending" event page for #pendingAfCdrafts? This would be a methodical way of keeping track of our work. There will be various dispositions of the drafts (some will successfully move to mainspace and others won't). It would also be a way to methodically connect with newer editors, shift some conversations to the WiR talkpgae, encourage newbie mentoring, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just "#PendingDrafts"? Since I suspect most newer editors don't really know what "AfC" is by name, just by experience. -- asilvering (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red October 2024

Women in Red | October 2024, Volume 10, Issue 10, Numbers 293, 294, 318, 319, 320


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Unsure how to expand a stub article? Take a look at this guidance

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The 'Mental Load' comic

Should the 'mental load' comic have its own article? [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you need actual news articles about it, of which only your final two links would count. Here, use these as well: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. There's a lot more French sources out there, this is just what I found from a quick Google search. Silverseren 19:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tysm! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone want to take a look? Draft:The Mental Load: A Feminist Comic @Silver seren? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me. Silverseren 21:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milestone for women scientists

Those preparing to participate in Women in STEM in October may be interested to see that Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists (created by Keilana in November 2012) has just reached the important milestone of 25,000 articles. That's quite an achievement for all those who have contributed.--Ipigott (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nina B. Lamkin

I came across this fascinating American author and educator. I would love to read more on her if someone is willing to create an entry for her. Thanks! FloridaArmy (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Newspapers.com for a pending draft?

I noticed Draft:Nancy Friese was pending in the AfC and I worked on clean up. What I noticed missing was the RS citations to support the artists exhibition history. I am not able to access Newspapers.com right now and I was wondering if anyone else could help to add some of the citations? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Working. Will get back to you in a moment. Silverseren 01:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some quick things I found, PigeonChickenFish,
I don't have time to work on the article itself, but I hope these clippings help. Silverseren 01:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Silver seren thank you so much! I will start the process of adding them. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translation contest July–September 2024

WiR Translation Contest 2024

The winners of the 2024 WiR Translation contest are:

  • Winner: Fixer88 with 120 new articles
  • Second place: Rosiestep with 40 new articles
  • Third place: Munfarid1 with 24 new articles

The contest received a total of 314 new articles from 19 users. Thanks to everyone for their participation!

--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Great effort by the winner and placegetters who created a total of 184 of the 314 new articles. Also, my thanks to @WomenArtistUpdates for monitoring the entries, updating the results each month and issuing the prizes. Oronsay (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations from me too. Tremendous effort over the past nine months.--Ipigott (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a Wikiquote removed

I find the first Wikiquote for Nora Ephron offensive and I suspect Nora would want it removed in today's day and age, though it presumably made sense in 1975. Should I make an account there and start a discussion?[29] Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Hawaiian Magazine

Hi, are the pre-2004 issues of Honolulu (magazine) available on the internet? I need a few issues for documenting the "misogynist" and "homophobic" ideology of the Science of Identity Foundation. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red&oldid=1249030181"