This WikiProject has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Chris Wilson (14 January 2015). "Why Wikipedia Is in Trouble". Time. Retrieved 15 January 2016. Laura Hartnell (6 March 2016). "Why women are missing from history on Wikipedia". ABC News (Australia). Retrieved 24 December 2016. Molly Redden (19 March 2016). "Women in science on Wikipedia: will we ever fill the information gap?". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 December 2016. Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (7 December 2016). "Viewpoint: How I tackle Wiki gender gap one article at a time". BBC News. Retrieved 24 December 2016. Dimitra Kessenides and Max Chafkin (22 December 2016). "Is Wikipedia Woke?". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 24 December 2016. Tom Phillips (13 February 2018). "Archival Activism: the Editors fighting Wikipedia's Sexism Problem". The Wireless (the website of Radio New Zealand). Retrieved 14 February 2018. Liz Scherffius (28 March 2018). "Women fighting for equality on Wikipedia". BBC. Retrieved 28 March 2018. Jenny Singer (2021-01-26). "The Women of Wikipedia Are Writing Themselves Into History". Glamour (magazine). Retrieved 2021-04-06. Her project links up with Women in Red, an initiative that seeks to create an article for each of the women on Wikipedia whose names are hyperlinked in red, indicating that they lack their own page. Kate Jacobson (11 March 2020). "Filling in the gender gap on Wikipedia". Fortune (magazine). Retrieved 11 March 2020. Peter Coy (13 December 2021). "Education Is Like a Beautiful Garden". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 December 2021. Sidney Page (October 17, 2022). "She's made 1,750 Wikipedia bios for women scientists who haven't gotten their due". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 17, 2022. "How are Wikipedians fighting gender bias online?". Al Jazeera English. May 4, 2023. Retrieved March 10, 2024. "The Guardian view on Wikipedia's female volunteers: a hive heroism that changes history". The Guardian. March 8, 2024. Retrieved March 10, 2024. Carole Sargent (May 8, 2024). "Why notable Catholic sisters need Wikipedia pages, and how to create them". Global Sisters Report. Retrieved May 8, 2024. Maureen Halushak (May 11, 2024). "This Canadian Non-Profit Is Helping To Fix Wikipedia's Diversity Gap". Chatelaine. Retrieved May 12, 2024. Paul Paterra (July 8, 2024). "'Women in Red': PennWest prof helps close gender gap in Wikipedia entries". Observer–Reporter. Retrieved July 11, 2024.

Just visited it, and it hasn't been updated since July 2022! Who's the team on this? Would also like to propose the persons updating your X account share the same posts a Threads account. Shelter3 (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shelter3 -- Thank you for commenting -- I seem to recall with the demise of Twitter there was some discussion about where to post updates, and how to coordinate the considerable effort it required, but I'm not sure who was involved. Could someone more au fait with social media chip in? The much-anticipated and surely now just-round-the-corner (fingers crossed) 20% milestone would make a good excuse to reconsider these updates. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shelter3 & Espresso Addict, The topic keeps coming up. I believed the last time we kicked it around was November 2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_134#WiR_on_social_networks . Bottom line, no one tends the socials except the noble Penny Richards who keeps the Pinterest pages updated. They are always worth a visit IMO. I really like seeing all the diverse photos.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about Victuallers? And in the past, Rosiestep has demonstrated considerable interest in the social networks. Although I'm not much good at the mobile stuff myself, it seems to me that these sites probably attract new participants, both to Wikipedia and to Women in Red. If we are to continue promoting them on our monthly invitations, we should at least keep the basics up to date.--Ipigott (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Shelter3 - I used to run the instagram account, but it takes quite a lot of work for one person, and I've just had a lot of other things to do. @Rosiestep & I had planned to sort out re-setting it at Wikimania, but never found the time. Are you volunteering to help with it - if so that would be wonderful! RE: 20% - we should definitely use that as a reason to get the insta back up and rolling - but I think I can only promise to do one post a month Lajmmoore (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interest in this! As already mentioned, Penny Richards is a stalwart poster to Pinterest, while other WiR members have previously posted to Twitter/X, Facebook, Insta, but we haven't kept it up as we got busy with other things; I don't think WiR has set up TikiTok or Snap accounts but maybe. It would be great for WiR to return to active participation on social media. Like everything else around here, members just volunteer to take on a task, and we learn as we go. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pinterest boards are fun to set up and not too difficult to maintain--I never have to write content, just click some links. Instagram would be a bit more work; but not too much, and it would probably have a wider reach. Beyond the outreach possibilities, social media links help bring more visitors to our articles; and more visitors can lead to improved content, photo donations, etc. It's also just fun to sift through our new articles and see what folks are up to across the editathons.

For Instagram, I can picture a first-of-the-month post listing the new and ongoing editathons (like our invitations), a weekly post for an interesting new article with a free image (maybe could use this slot to highlight the "trifecta" articles that fit three or more current editathons), and an end-of-the-month post with a report on our outcomes, maybe a screenshot from the Pinterest boards. If someone wanted to get more ambitious they absolutely could, but this would keep the IG account refreshed and relevant every week without too much fuss. I'll keep at the Pinterest boards, but I'm happy to help and support the Instagram feed as needed. Penny Richards (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on Pinterest, though I trust Penny Richards posts are good. Would be happy to take on Insta and maybe Facebook as IG lets you post to FB automatically. Twitter/X if I have time. (I doubt we have the bandwidth for TikTok or Snap.) I'd be happy to try branching off from some of Penny's posts from Pinterest (I have an account and just got in) then would like to see what I can schedule regularly. Posting weekly is pushing it: I have a demanding day job and work as an artist and don't even post weekly for myself. Shelter3 (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shelter3 - I'm sorry I didn't see your kind offer sooner, I'll drop you an email today, if that's OK. The instagram is up and running again. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oronsay just updated the % of biographies and we seem to have broken 20% - what an incredible achievement!!!! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My cup runneth over! How incredible that we did this together! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raising a glass to everyone at WiR! Well done, one and all. Dsp13 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It took 10 years from 15% or so in 2014. Maybe in another 10 years we can get to 25%? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so, but fear it will be tough; I'm already finding that it's genuinely hard to find women without bios who meet the (increasingly stringent) inclusion thresholds, and not at all difficult to find red-linked men. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I think we all feel the rate of % increase has become painfully slow. Perhaps someone keen could do a quick graph of the progress over recent years? Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict, I know other people’s ideas are often not as interesting as ones we come up with on our own but in the event you’d like suggestions, please feel free to remind me of some of your areas, I have so many women I feel are unambiguously notable and just don’t have time to get to; would be very glad to see if any overlap with your interests, if it has any appeal (totally understand if it doesn’t though!) Innisfree987 (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein, Espresso Addict, and Johnbod: my estimate based on this year, using my summary of the statistics on the Metrics page, is that we would hit 22% in 2034. The rate of % increase is slowing down as the number of bios at the start of the year is increasing and the gap between the percentage of women in new bios and in existing bios is closing (in 2024 it was 29.2% - 19.7% = 9.5%). TSventon (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! I'd forgotten the graph I wanted was already there! At least the decline in the rate of % increase is flattening out. Thanks again (to all who do) for maintaining these. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Innisfree987 -- My psychology tends to a brief love affair with the subject so I fear "blind dates" might not click. Do you keep an online slush heap of good prospects that you don't mind other editors stealing from? Espresso Addict (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally makes sense about blind dates! You know I hadn’t set down my list in writing but maybe I’ll make a project of it! I’ll drop you a line if/when I have a good list for perusal. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict, my go-to list of unambiguously notable redlinked women for when I'm having trouble finding one elsewhere is Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships, which User:Miraclepine has been helpfully maintaining and expanding. It lists many academic women in a wide variety of subjects, most or all of whom pass WP:PROF#C3. I'm interested particularly in the ones in mathematics, physical sciences, and engineering, but there are many other topics available. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David Eppstein -- That's a good idea. I've been plodding through biomedical FRSs from the 1900–10s of late, but of course all the women on that list were finished at least a decade ago. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict, do you read French? I was referred to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Le Maitron a ways back and haven't had much time to really get into it. These women all have entries in a biographical dictionary already, which is a good sign they're notable - my guess is the top half of them meet our guidelines. (Some entries are much too short to count for GNG, and there won't be much on them elsewhere.) -- asilvering (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Asilvering -- I have been trying to get my school French up to the level where I can read sources to create articles but I'm not sure it's quite there yet -- will take a look anyway. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should say, when I said "top half", I had first sorted it by sitelinks, highest to the top. -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I remember a discussion (but can't now find it) where there was a suggestion to write a collaborative statement about the landmark ... I set up a few sentences here but would warmly welcome others to add to it (I have had a veeeeeeeeeery long day @Rosiestep, @Victuallers, @Dsp13, @David Eppstein, @PamD, @Oronsay, @Ipigott & everyone else! Lajmmoore (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took up this invitation and added something -- hope that's ok (I don't think I'm even formally a WiR member)? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making a useful start on the statement, Lajmmoore. You've set the ball rolling but I think it would be useful to double-check some of the figures. If you look at our Metrics page, you will see that in September 2015 there were 205,814 women's biographies while today there are 408,183. It therefore looks to me as if the number of articles about women has almost doubled since we started. Perhaps we should also point out that in addition to biographies, we have also added a considerable number of articles on women's works, organizations and initiatives which are not included in the stats. While 20% is indeed an important milestone for us, it may also be pertinent to point out that we need to progress far beyond just one in five biographies as women deserve far better representation given their increasing activity and achievements worldwide. But I would like to hear what others think about this.--Ipigott (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chart here if useful - requests for tweaks welcome https://commons.wikimedia.org/key/File:Women%27s_biographies_on_English_Wikipedia_reach_20%25.svg

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put together a simple userbox (based on the basic Women in Red userbox) in commemoration of the achievement. :) ForsythiaJo (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ForsythiaJo, I proudly added your template to my userpage! Thanks for creating it! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ForsythiaJo Same here. Maybe we should encourage everyone to do this. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ForsythiaJo, Thanks so much for the userbox, which now adorns my userpage. Oronsay (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This could be sent as part of the January mass message @Miraclepine Lajmmoore (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about a statement was here and Rosiestep said then that there was discussion happening in various Telegram groups. TSventon (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:ForsythiaJo Hello! I would love to add your user box to my home page...if only I knew how to do that! Can you help with simple visual editor instructions? It's such great news! Thanks! Balance person (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! If you're on a computer, you should be able to go to the userbox page, go into edit, and simply copy + paste the box. This should also be doable on a phone. Not sure about any further visual editor formatting, unfortunately. I could also add it to your page myself, if tech on your end isn't cooperating. :) I'm so pleased that people like it enough to add it to their pages! ForsythiaJo (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We finally did it! Best! (Early) Christmas Present! Ever! ミラP@Miraclepine 04:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three cheers to all involved and a fourth for the visionary creators, Rosiestep and Victuallers, and all the leaders whose guidance and effort we’ve benefitted from over the years (I would tag more people but so many people have made huge contributions that I am loathe to begin a list where I will surely miss someone crucial!) I salute your achievement in fostering an environment that made so much constructive work possible. I know how vital it’s been to my experience on Wikipedia, and I’m very grateful. Innisfree987 (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We never expected it to last a decade! Thank you for your kind words. ... and cost of changing the internet was ~zero. Merry Christmas and a Happy 20%. Victuallers (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated my summary of the statistics from the project page on the Metrics page which might be useful for a graph. TSventon (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have time to make one @TSventon - or maybe @Tagishsimon - I'd like to do a Diff post as soon as I can to share the news & hopefully get some wider interest Lajmmoore (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't know how, there is a how to but it involves specialist software. Tagishsimon hasn't edited since July, so hopefully we have other tech literate members. I intend to update my figures for the 30th December, but that won't change the graph significantly. TSventon (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realised - I wonder if @Pigsonthewing might be able to help? Lajmmoore (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, congratulations everyone!! -- asilvering (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well done everyone. Nick Number (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like Amazing and congrats! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is fantastic! Really wonderful to hear we've passed this huge milestone! I hope everyone here is proud of themselves and the excellent work they've done to make this possible. Onwards to 25%! --Grnrchst (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belated yay! EEHalli (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminiscing here... Fact is: I am no visionary... I didn't think about "in 10 years" or "reaching 20%". Possibly/probably, that helped us to "not fail" as our (Roger & me) only goal back then, in 2015, was: "to move the needle" from 15.5% to "something better". "Ten years", "20%", "all of us" (like Innisfree987, I'm reticent to list names and leave anyone out) is nothing short of history-changing to society, life-changing to me personally. Now that we're here, truly, I'm humbled and gobsmacked and filled with gratitude.

I wish I had it in me to write a good blog-post, but I've never been good at that. Ergo, leaving it to others who may have time and inclination to do so. If ever there were a media moment for Women in Red, this might be it. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It honestly feels both early and late for this to be happening. Earlier than expected, later than it should have been, I suppose? Amazing, regardless. Congrats to everyone! Silverseren 00:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really wonderful if people have trivia/factoids that might hook journalists in, if they could add them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/key/User%3ALajmmoore%2Fsandbox1?wprov=sfla1 I can try & contact some people journalists can need a bit of luring - pigsonthewing added some good bits at the bottom but more would be good!!! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could talk about the editors in this project - how many countries/states do we represent? Age groups, occupations offline? Obviously we probably couldn't get this information from everyone, but even a sliver of project participants could be interesting. ForsythiaJo (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool idea to add some trivia/factoids. In that regard, I added 2 additional trivia/factoid subsections: (a) First woman's biography you created on EN-WP after the establishment of Women in Red (18 July 2015) and the date; (b) Last woman's biography you created on EN-WP dated 16 Dec 2024 or earlier. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally find it interesting to learn what types of professions everyone involved in WIR has and how that breaks down. How many in STEM fields? How many in literary fields? Ect. Silverseren 00:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like currently we have 54,242 pages tagged with Women in Red, although this also includes categories and templates. If we could filter those out, we could say exactly how many articles the project has contributed to. ForsythiaJo (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein is that something you might be able to do? I'm no good at filtering Lajmmoore (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for article talk pages containing the text "All WikiProject Women in Red pages" finds 52,941 hits. I think that's what you want? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• adding nice Women in Red images to a gallery from Wikimedia Commons
• can, using the discussion in the draft, we find a group of articles from "around the time" we tipped to 20%

Lajmmoore (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• which was the *first* Women in Red biography - was it Bárbara Jacobs by @Rosiestep or another?

Lajmmoore (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lajmmoore, Looking at the sandbox document... so far... it looks like the *first* was Hoàng Xuân Sính, on 19 July 2015, created by David Eppstein. There may have been others created on that day or the day before but this would require a review of these names. --Rosiestep (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder if there's a way to query those 1486 article to see which was first? @Fuzheado would you know (or know someone else who might)? Lajmmoore (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone have time to add more details from here about other gender projects? Lajmmoore (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• which is the most viewed women's biography of all time? which is the most viewed Women in Red?

Lajmmoore (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lajmmoore, this tool is available for your utilization in addressing the statistical analyses that are pertinent to your requirements. Igallards7 (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've messaged the journalists I spoke to in March, but I think quite a few people are finished for the year. If people have suggestion for wiki-friendly journalists to reach out to (anywhere in the world), let's try! Lajmmoore (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update on this, I also sent a precis and the ansbox draft to Guardian Opinion (no reply), Independent newsdesk (no reply), Vice (no reply), and to some journalists who write about Wikipedia - probably 20 different contacts in total. One said that it was just hard to get freelances article through in general at the moment becuase newsdesks in general are incredibly overworked. I also think the timing of just before Christmas is not helpful to our cause - I got several out of offices from people who are now on Christmas break.

I'll try again between Christmas and the New Year & unless anyone objects, record a short video for social media talking about the ahcievement - that might help get attention. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update, I also emailed the story to a bunch of "positive news" websites last week, hoping that one of them might pick it up! Lajmmoore (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just drafted this template, {{Women in Red 20 percent}}. Ideally, the barnstar would have an overlay with 20.003% but I don't know how to do it. Maybe it would be nice to add the Wikipedia globe on the far right, but I also don't know how to add an image on the right side. Can someone help with any of this? Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent additions and edits, it seems to me that the "statement" up to and including section "Gender equity in other language Wikipedias" is ready for publishing. Unless there are other suggestions, tomorrow I will create Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/20% milestone. Please make any final adjustments.--Ipigott (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for doing this @Ipigott - once that's up I'll put a version on the Diff blog too Lajmmoore (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Looks great! The fact about the Rosa Parks biography was particularly interesting to read. Really goes to show just how far we've come through this project. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement not ready for publishing

Ipigott, sorry to get her late, but this has to be reworded The following biographies were the first to be created after the establishment of Women in Red. The only article listed there that would qualify is Hoàng Xuân Sính. Likewise, the article can include the three 16 Dec created articles, but shouldn't include the others. (cc: Lajmmoore). --Rosiestep (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott and Lajmmoore:. Plus, I'm starting to look at our Dec events to find articles created on 16 Dec. Need a few minutes to do that; it's tricky with timezones and are we going by anywhere on Earth.

• 293: According to this rev history, and after clicking on links, these were created on 16 Dec: Belén Aguilera by Another Believer, Joana Rosa (artist) by Roundtheworld, Edith Wisa by Victuallers, Joana Rosa by Roundtheworld, Oroya Day by DrThneed. Also according to that rev history, Kingsif added a link to the article Celine Haidar, but when I click on Celine's biography, the create date is 17 Dec; does it count?
• 294: According to this rev history, Penny Richards added an article to #294 on 16 Dec, but that biography, Ramona Bressie, when I click on its links, shows as being created on 17 Dec.
• 324: According to this rev history and checking the article itself, Dolores Warwick Frese was created by Penny Richards on 16 Dec.
• 325: According to this rev history, and checking the edits made on Dec 15 and Dec 17, no articles created on 16 Dec were added to this page.

I'm done reviewing our four Dec events and their histories. I think these articles should be reviewed by someone else and the ones that are judged to be created 16 Dec should be added to the "statement". I think articles created before or after 16 Dec don't need to be included in the "statement". Ditto with the Diff Post. This is just my opinion. What do others think? --Rosiestep (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we listing articles created on December 16 at all? The statement suggests that we probably reached 20% on December 12. pburka (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my, Pburka; thank you. I didn't catch that we probably reached 20% on December 12. I commented earlier on this talkpage that I was holding my breath for the expected report on December 13 (we usually get the updates on Fridays) but the comment was made that we were only at 19.998% by that date. Agree that we shouldn't include Dec 16 articles if the date is December 12. Maybe it would be best if we don't include any articles (July 2015 or Dec 2024) in the "statement" or "Diff blogpost". --Rosiestep (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This composer from New Zealand appears fonhave won various awards and to have done some interesting work. Would anyone be interested in helping work her entry up to mainspace? FloridaArmy (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see Claire Cowan has an entry in mainspace. I wonder if the histories should be merged ? Looks like a cut and paste. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't merge the histories, it definitely is not a cut and paste - I wrote the mainspace article without any reference to or knowledge of the existence of a draft on Claire Cowan.DrThneed (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies forgot to tag you in @FloridaArmy DrThneed (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:DrThneedA merge of anything worthwhile and a redirect is the way to go in that case. Happy Holidays! FloridaArmy (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject of musicians, I've done the same for another page I made, Ryoko Maekawa/Draft:Ryoko Maekawa. Despite the reviewer's claim that it is not reliably sourced, pretty much every source is reliable for fact. ミラP@Miraclepine 21:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the BBC's 100 women and the Financial Times' 25 most influential women, I decided to create Gisèle Pelicot. I'm perhaps blowing my own trumpet but this is the first time in almost 20 years that I have created an article which has been listed in the top three of the week. Quite a Christmas present! A very Merry Christmas to all those who participate in Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody could do it, you could. Congrats 🎺 Trillfendi (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Ipigott and thank you for tackling such an important person. Balance person (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balance person: I wrote the article because she was one of the few listed from Europe and I am fluent in French. I didn't realize how important she was until the court case began to conclude. Then she was covered in the world's press, TV and radio for three or four days. But for once we at least had an article everyone could access. One of these days, her biography may be worth expanding and nominating for GA but I'm not much good at BLPs. For now, we could do with some real photos. There must be thousands but I've no idea how we can find them.--Ipigott (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested, there is a deletion/ merger discussion for fr:Gisèle Pelicot at fr:Discussion:Gisèle Pelicot/Admissibilité. TSventon (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WiR Project page proudly announces the 20% achievement but I'm not sure how to update the statistics this week. As of 23 Dec it's 20.009%, with 2,041,741 total bios and 408,531 of women - these figures from the Humaniki stats server. Oronsay (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oronsay:} I suggest updating 20.003% as of 16 December 2024. That means that of 2,040,570 biographies, only 408,183 are about women: the rest of the wording could then be fine tuned later. TSventon (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oronsay: Thanks for inquiring. I've adapted the text leaving info on the date we exceeded 20%. I think from the beginning of January we should revert to the traditional presentation.--Ipigott (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am drawing to the end of my #1woman1day Start Class challenge (phew!) and thinking about what's next. Today my attention was drawn to some edits removing very large chunks of text and entire sections of BLPs (mostly women), reducing some to mere stubs, because they were poorly sourced or unsourced. (I'm not naming names because removing unsourced information, especially from BLPs, is a valid activity, even if I'm sad these editors couldn't find a more constructive way of improving these articles.)

I had already thought about spending 2025 revisiting women's bios that I've already written, revising and updating, archiving links, making sure they're linked from as many places as possible, looking for images, and dealing with any issues they've accrued. Now I'm thinking about maybe pairing each of my articles with another one that has an unsourced section tag or similar. Anyone want to join me? Or have suggestions for ways to improve articles beyond the ones I've listed? Is there an easy way to find women's BLPs in a particular subject area with unsourced sections? DrThneed (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! I've thought for a while that to address the deletion side of building articles on women, WiR needs a subgroup, or perhaps a separate sister project, for articles on notable women that are in trouble -- up for deletion, or tagged in ways that in practice put them on a delayed deletion queue.

(Hoping I'm not one of your miscreants... It's a real problem what to do, especially as an admin, with very poorly sourced articles on living people, especially where the article has something of a promotional tone -- it's always best to try to find a reliable source, but in practice that might not always be realistic.) Espresso Addict (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No definitely not you! I'm appreciative of the problems you mention - promotional articles exist, and I'm never going to argue with someone who says all info in a BLP should be sourced. Of course it should. But what I saw was a new editor working very fast through tens of articles deleting most of each publication list and most of each article, rather than tagging them as needing work, and a more experienced editor coming along and taking even more out. It leaves me very uneasy.

I would work more on AfD but I think I'm constitutionally unsuited - I find it really demotivating even if the article doesn't end up deleted! But improving them before they get AfDed seems more positive. DrThneed (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrThneed: Drop me a note with the name and I'll look into whether it is appropriate warn them; that behaviour looks highly inappropriate to me.

I know what you mean about AfD; I can only bear the place when I'm in a really good mood. Definitely best to improve them while they are still hanging about in the "kick-me" piles. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted some of this, but could another admin take a look, please? I'm honestly out of my comfort zone reverting edits removing unsourced material in BLPs where it doesn't seem problematic but genuinely isn't sourced, and there is a huge amount of it, mainly to women's bios, especially left leaning or feminist -- it's beginning to seem biased to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now reverted by DreamRimmer for Doug Weller, apart from those where I (or presumably anyone else) had edited on top to partially restore the material. Thanks for bringing this up, DrThneed! Espresso Addict (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @Espresso Addict I was really out of my depth there, very glad that more experienced people have got involved. DrThneed (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• First a word on removing unsourced material from BLPs. When I first started to create articles on Wikipedia in 2005, I discovered many articles were based on listed sources but did not have inline references. Some of my earlier articles have been edited with lots of "citation required" templates. One GA was even threatened with degrading. It took me about two hours a day for a couple of weeks to find valid updated sources and "save" the article. I'm pretty certain many of the BLPs and other biographies of women are faced with the same problem. In my experience, most of the facts are correct if thoroughly investigated but this takes time and experience. I would therefore welcome a more nuanced approach on the need for inline sources in our guidelines. It may also be a good idea to prevent newbies deleting large chuncks of existing articles until they have gained adequate experience. Maybe this could be based on their own creation of at least one acceptable article.

As for a new initiative for 2025, I don't think it would be useful to continue the one article a week approach as there have been very few participants but I do think we need to find incentives for creating new articles about women, especially biographies. Some of our participants achieve considerable success by creating stubs in the hope that others will expand them. This may offer a solution to all the low-hanging fruit mentioned by Innisfree987 and would of course also allow creators to undertake further expansion if necessary. Years ago Dr. Blofeld suggested a contest on women's stubs. Maybe it's time to revive it. Or at least introduce some kind of encouragement for short but adequately sourced stubs.--Ipigott (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think about this kind of thing, too, because one of my "things" on Wikipedia is improving bios and articles that could be in danger of removal due to being poorly sourced or unsourced. It often means rewriting the entire article and replacing it with new, updated, or improved content, which can be frustrating because there tends to be no reward for doing so, other than the personal satisfaction. I suspect that's why it's not done more. Anyway, one of the issues with these bios and articles isn't that there aren't enough reliable sources already in them or that there aren't enough additional sources out there found by searches, but that the existing sources haven't been mined adequately. There needs to be more incentives for success in that kind of thing. I've found that one of the most fun things to do, and something I've learned from Rosie, is to go through a source and add the information to already existing sources, which both helps expands articles and adds reliable sources to them. One of my personal WP goals is to continue to do that in the coming year. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to distract anyone from the main goal of creating new articles @Ipigott, especially now we've just reached 20%. I won't have the time to do a new article every day this year, and I've previously found that switching focus leads to the acquisition of a whole bunch of new editing skills, so going on an article improvement drive is also a bit about personal development too. @Figureskatingfan that how to mine a source article is really useful, thank you so much!

I noticed that other WikiProjects I'm part of, like WikiProject New Zealand, use maintenance tags in talk page templates to mark articles needing infoboxes, photos, and other improvement. It makes it easy for people to monitor work that needs doing. I don't know if that's an approach that could work for this project, or has been considered and rejected? As it is, I shall work though my own articles, and try to 'match' each one with a similar article by someone else that's in need of improving (and maybe using Petscan).

I'm particularly keen to develop skills in de-orphaning - I picked up on the tip of adding people to surname articles a while ago from other members of this group. I've also realised that many academic societies tend to have no article or only have stubs, for instance American Society for Theatre Research, and yet they often give out awards such as Lifetime Achievement Awards (I'm shall add notable recipients to the ASTR page). So if people have tips about de-orphaning or other page improvement recommendations I'd love to hear them! DrThneed (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One way to broaden one's editing range is to sign up to SuggestBot. I have it on a subpage and I do as much or as little as I feel like each time, knowing that every little bit helps. The algorithm returns articles similar to ones you've worked on. Oronsay (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Oronsay - interesting tool I hadn't come across before! Have signed up. DrThneed (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A note about de-stubbing: a few months ago, we passed 33% on the sub-challenge of destubbing 5000 articles about women between 2020 and 2030, see here. Be sure to add your destubs to the list to keep that project moving forward. Penny Richards (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me about this, Penny Richards -- I often find it difficult to destub according to the rules, though, as you are meant to source everything, and I generally don't like removing unproblematic unsourced material just because I can't readily source it. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again -- I've just declined a G11 on this rejected draft on an African-American businesswoman. It definitely needs a lot of work but the subject might conceivably be notable if someone wants to take a look. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | January 2025, Vol 11, Issue 1, Nos 324, 326, 327, 328, 329 Online events: New: Music (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run A & B | Internet personalities Continuing: #1day1woman (year-long initiative) | Women who died in 2024 Announcements from other communities Celebrate Wikipedia Day on Jan 15, 2025 Participate in #1Lib1Ref Jan 15 – Feb 5, 2025 Tip of the month: Celebrate WiR's 20% achievement by adding {{User:ForsythiaJo/20%Userbox}} to your user page. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 17:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello! @Oronsay has done a great job in co-ordinating the events for January, and it would be great to have a volunteer to do the same mid-February - this involves looking at suggestions and working with other volunteers to create and proofread February's events (all listed in Ideas page). If you're able to, please pop your name in the rota section here. Many thanks to @Rosiestep & @Victuallers for signing up for March and July! If it's your first time, there's lots of support available and it would be really lovely to see some newer project members have a go (either in Feb or much later in the year) Lajmmoore (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just bumping this post as we need a community member to co-ordinate the up-coming February events & we are approaching the middle of the month! Lajmmoore (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays! Some of you may be interested in the discussion regarding a potential category merger of Social media influencers, particularly in light of Women in Red's discussion regarding the upcoming January event for Internet personalities? ... or influencers? ... or celebrities? where we could use your input, too. Rosiestep (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I typically make articles on fashion models (though haven't done them in a while), I'm sure I could help if needed. I made the article on Nara Smith a few months ago. Trillfendi (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Trillfendi. Would appreciate your help!

All, if you have thoughts about this merge discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 25#Category:Social media influencers, please weigh in. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now resolved... we are leaving it as Internet personalities, per its redlist. Oronsay (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it's a great idea to encourage inexperienced or brand new editors to write articles about TikTok stars, Instagram influencers, or YouTubers. In my NPP/deletion experience, those types of articles tend to be written with the assumption that those people are notable because they have X or Y million subscribers and they tend to be sourced to social media, blogs, and low-quality clickbait-y websites. I fear that this will result in a lot of draftifications, deletion discussions, and headaches. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, if we are going to do this topic, we need to be super extremely clear on what the reliable sources are to be used and have a list of the internet-related periodicals that are reliable and which ones explicitly are not and should not be used period. Silverseren 18:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that would work, but given that it's 3 days until January, can this event be put on hold for further discussion? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Oronsay, @Rosiestep, @Trillfendi. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep: I just realized you're the one who moved this discussion. Sorry for the ping. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the second ping.  Self-trout. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! No worries! To answer your question, Voorts, can this event be put on hold for further discussion?: Yes; we can do anything we want. :) We could add a banner across the top of that event page saying something like "Putting this on hold till we sort things out". We've never done that before, but, as we're trailblazers, it's okay to try something new. What we'd need is consensus to do so. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JFYI, I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture#Internet personalities editathon at Women in Red seeking guidance on WP:RS, "tips&tricks", etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 19:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not a fan of social networks, I think we have reached the stage where we need to cover notable women bloggers and social media influencers. If you look at Category:Bloggers and all its subcats, there are far more men than women. It nevertheless seems to me women are significant contributors to the evolving sphere and deserve recognition. I certainly think we should maintain the event for January although it may be useful to emphasize on the event page that biographies need to be based on recognized independent sources which cover them in some detail. More experienced editors may be able to assist those who have problems establishing notability. Nothing ventured, nothing gained!Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're shooting new editors in the foot if we push forward without significant up-front guidance on what sources are acceptable under N and V. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voorts: I don't think this is any more of a problem than pop singers, models and TV people. We just need to keep a check on new articles and provide constructive feedback as necessary. Many of our younger participants are particularly interested in internet personalities. Let's give them a chance to promote those who deserve it.--Ipigott (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We just need to keep a check on new articles and provide constructive feedback as necessary. That would be fine if only editors from WIR were reviewing new articles, but I don't think many NPP reviewers will be as patient; I hope I'm wrong. Anyways, I really don't see the harm in delaying this event for one month so that we can get a list of good sources and ensure that guidance is in place for new editors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me as if the Internet personalities redlist from Wikidata is already sufficient to get things moving. If anyone has specific ideas on other women or pertinent sources, they can be added to the Redlists section.--Ipigott (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a paragraph to the event page, calling for care in establishing notability. If there are problems with inadequate sourcing, we can draw addition to this explanation.--Ipigott (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redlist doesn't link any sources. I'm not sure that that paragraph will be helpful for new editors. I think it needs to clearly explain that reliable, secondary sources are required and explain what reliable sources are. I still think it would be beneficial to push this to another month, but if consensus for thet doesn't develop, I'll leave a post at NPP advising them of this event and reminding people of BITE / asking them to direct new editors here if they have questions. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be helpful for us to highlight one or two articles that editors could look to for guidance/inspiration? A quick skim for some highly-assessed articles in this category include iJustine, Mia Khalifa, and Hanna Cavinder. All three are fairly long and might be overwhelming to new editors, so as an alternative maybe we could offer just a solid start/c-class article? ForsythiaJo (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could also link directly to WP:RSP, which is a good starting place to check a source's reliability. ForsythiaJo (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think offering one or more decent stub/start articles, plus perhaps one start/C, would be more helpful as an example than well-developed articles, which can be overwhelming even to less-new editors.

I've been thinking about this area more generally, and one problem with internet personalities is that merely being even a fairly major one is not enough to count towards any notability criterion I can think of -- which is not the case with, say, authors, musicians, actors, politicians or sportspeople. There are hundreds of women active in the fannish online sphere I used to frequent who would be extremely well known, but afaik precisely none of those is wiki-notable for that work; in the rare instances where they are wiki-notable it is for conventional publications, academic work or rights advocacy, and the fannish celebrity is not even mentioned in their articles. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of the comments above, it now seems important to decide whether participants support or oppose this event for January. :Please state you preferences below:--Ipigott (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: It seems to me that with the Wikidata redlist and the explanations on the event page, we can safely continue with this event as announced.--Ipigott (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no calls for cancelling the event in January, it will proceed as planned.--Ipigott (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Wikidata redlist, sorting it on the last column for number of links, produced the usual depressing number of uninteresting porn stars, but I found a young Ukrainian violinist who turned out to have a solid draft article, begun in 2018, which I've tweaked a bit and moved to mainspace as its reasons for rejection in 2022 had been met. So that's a start! PamD 13:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've also got my eye on a blogging mountaineer with surname "B" for a double hit! PamD 13:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finishing up an article on Professor Nancy Stepan and I've noticed in the course of this that two other language Wikipedias have an article on her. Including this one on Portuguese Wikipedia, which also includes this photo of her locally uploaded. Would the copyright requirements used there also apply here on English Wikipedia or is Portugal more legally open on such usage? I notice the non-free template used there says it is being used under the laws of "Portugal, Brazil, and the United States". Silverseren 21:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the English Wikipedia, we cannot generally use fair-use images of living people. This is an issue of local policy, not of legalities; our policy is stricter than what the law allows. The Portuguese Wikipedia may have different rules. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein - When is it not okay to use fair-use images of dead people? I'm doing some Stub-class reviews of women writers. There are many historical women whose EN-WP biography doesn't have a photo but when I google their name, I find photos. Case in point, Jane Aamund (1936-2019), Danish author and journalist has many photos here. When there are a lot of photos on the web, as with Aamund, is there a policy of how to choose one? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any policy for choosing among them. As for when it's not ok to use fair-use images of dead people: I think only when there exists a free image to use instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's been quite a lot of argument (in the context of the main-page recent deaths) about how long after death it is reasonable to wait in the hope that a free image will be uploaded to the internet, with some advocating for a year or even more. I don't think anyone would have a problem with someone who died in 2019 though. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, @David Eppstein and Espresso Addict, for these helpful explanations. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think if it's not too hard to reach out to rightsholders to ask them to release under a COM compatible license, that should be done. Particularly with well-known academics, I'm sure there are colleagues with photographs that would be more than willing to license photos if they're asked. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had any luck with that, Voorts? I've found people have either not replied (the vast majority) or not been able to negotiate the hoop jumping necessary to release copyright or upload a photograph to Commons. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In absolute theory, a fair use image should not be used unless all reasonable avenues of trying to find or obtain a free image have been exhausted. In practice, if there is a prominent photo of someone who is deceased (e.g. one used in multiple notable obituaries), even English Wikipedia's limitations on how the use is fair shouldn't preclude using it. This also covers the fact that people who knew someone recently deceased almost certainly do not want emails from Wikipedia users asking if they have a photo they'd be willing to share under CC while grieving. So yeah, if there isn't a free image on Commons or the usual places, fair use should be able to go with a suitable image almost right away. Kingsif (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently made the page Helen Kennedy (botanist) but it isn't reflected here: https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Missing_articles_by_occupation/Botanists because the link created is for the page Helen Kennedy (Q21517428). Wikidata IDs aren't typically part of article titles so I didn't think to title it that. Do I need to change the title, or make a re-direct page with the Wikidata ID? Or should I just manually edit the list (which is usually auto-updated) to show that the page has been made? BlakeALee (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a weird quirk of the WIR missing article lists. Do not create a redirect using the Wikidata ID; it will probably get deleted. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, should I manually edit the list then? I want people working on the Women in Red project to know the page isn't "red" anymore, that it exists. BlakeALee (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't normally bother to amend the listing, but have done so in this case. The Wikidata ID was added automatically to differentiate from other women named Helen Kennedy. Oronsay (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok cool thanks! BlakeALee (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any manual changes to the list will be overwritten with the next update. Gamaliel (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an article about a famous female outlaw/bandit from the early 1900s called Elena Greenhill.

Draft:Elena Greenhill Blaker

any comments/edits welcome! Bob meade (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a new editor to Wikipedia so I hope this is the right place to put this! I created a draft for Verisheh Moradi, an Iranian political prisoner who was recently sentenced to death. She is a women's rights and Kurdish activist. There are a dozen articles about her (some English, some French, some local in Kurdish or Farsi), and Amnesty International has launched a campaign for her. I believe the media coverage and international concern (combined with the pressing nature of her situation) warrants creating a biographical page, but I would like to hear anyone else's thoughts. Here is the draft. It is not as complete as I would like, but I thought I would submit as is for now. I would appreciate any insight or help! Curiousgirl007 (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this could be moved to mainspace and I did so. But I believe I only have privileges to move my own drafts to mainspace, not Afc drafts. Would appreciate input from @Asilvering or @Ipigott or others with experience, and my apologies as I believe I overstepped. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Allthemilescombined1, there's no rule against people without the AFCH perm moving drafts to mainspace. I typically advise that non-AfCers don't move AfC-tagged drafts themselves, for a number of reasons (one of them being that editors are often quick to accuse others of being sockpuppets when they see this behaviour, and it's easier to just not invite that kind of drama), but since you've already done it, don't worry about it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Asilvering. Momentary lapse on my part. Appreciate your help. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! I actually wasn't sure if I was able to move an AfC draft into the mainspace once it had already been submitted, I couldn't find that option. If you wouldn't mind, could you explain how to do that so I know going forward? Curiousgirl007 (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page --> Move. If it's your draft, and it's been declined at AfC before, I'd really advise against it, but if you've submitted it to AfC and then simply got bored of waiting in the queue, that's no big deal. Move it and then be sure to go and delete all the AfC templates at the top. -- asilvering (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone -- Can I interest anyone in trying to source Nadia Bouras (Dutch Moroccan historian who writes in Dutch) -- the article has had a number of deletion requests recently. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated her uni profile External Link from a dead Dutch one to a current English one, which might help. PamD 16:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added some book reviews, and I see you did too. I think this would be an easy WP:AUTHOR#3 keep if it were hauled off to AfD. pburka (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pburka -- I don't often see quite so many deletion attempts on an established article unless there's something clearly wrong with it, but perhaps with the added book reviews editors will now leave it in peace. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it feels like a (poorly organized) campaign. I wonder if she was in the news recently. pburka (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've beefed the article up further with some interviews. She's been covered quite a few times by Dutch papers/websites. ForsythiaJo (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Babayan was one of the academic articles I made two weeks ago. As of the past 24 hours, there is an IP editor on a rotating IP address that has been making wholesale wording changes to the article. Some of the changes are okay, more detailed than I had been, but I'm wondering if they're edging into promotional territory for her books. I tried asking the first version of the IP editor if they were Babayan themselves, which I feel is likely, but I received no response. And they're back to making changes just now with a different IP.

Suggestions on what I should do? Silverseren 20:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to head to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard if the issues continue. Best wishes for 2025! Mujinga (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Silverseren: I've protected it from IP edits for a month. Hopefully that will kill the issue; if anything else burbles up please shoot me a message. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 07:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I hope this is appropriate to post and isn't considered like 'greasing the wheels' of some kind since we're all a group interested in more women on wikipedia (though you still take wikipedia seriously and wouldn't randomly fight for something to be kept that you don't think deserves it).

Anyway, the article I made for Ally Louks was nominated for deletion. I know it's not up to an actual exact vote and is more about the discussion. Nonetheless, as far as I can count, it initially had 7 keeps and 3 deletes. But because the deletes were pretty passionate and had a lot of links and arguments, the article was re-listed "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus."

Since that time, 2 more people have jumped in with delete votes. So, I guess I'm posting it here to kind of widen the audience of awareness of this discussion (and/or if anyone has any ideas to improve the article itself, that also may help).

Thanks! MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MoreWomenOnWiki If you want people to look at an article and its deletion proposal, it's helpful to provide links to make it easier for them. I've linked her above in your post, and the AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ally Louks. Please remember always to link pages you're talking about. Thanks. (I have read most of the walls of text but haven't !voted as I find most of the arguments convincing on both sides!) PamD 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MoreWomenOnWiki:: Thank you for bringing this interesting case to our attention.--Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Could anyone who is more knowledgeable than myself about women's involvement in the Chartist movement help improve the article I created on Elizabeth Neesom back in August? Seems a notable individual from the sources I can glean, but any expert advice is much appreciated. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely seems notable to me and it looks like you've represented that well already in the article. You might be able to add this from Workers Liberty and this from The English Historical Review, if you can find a place to add them. Silverseren 23:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @GnocchiFan, I've removed a couple of the tags and added to the lead, but it does need de-orphaning. @Silver seren's references are a good shout too. Oh, and I added a few more categories. Nice work Lajmmoore (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I started this, which will certainly interests the Women in Red project: a famous picture of a woman by a woman. Help needed. Happy New Year! Yann (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Yann, for creating this article. As it contains the same information as Femme de Tehuantepec, it looks very much like a translation. If so, for attribution purposes, you should state it is a translation in an edit summary in accordance with Help:Translation. You might also like to look at WP:RIA. If you intend to cover other photographs by women artists, you might like to join WikiProject Women in Red. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created both articles, but first the English version. ;o) Yann (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was active a few years back with fr:Projet:Les sans pagEs, but I never formally registered with the Women in Red. Now done. Yann (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid any future confusion it might be helpful to put a note on both talk pages explaining that you are the creator of both pages.

A few other little things:

• I've made a link from Woman of Tehuantepec, the base title, so that readers can find this new article at its disambiguated title
• The {{stub}} template goes at the bottom, not the top - I've moved and refined it
• I linked calabash as a word not familiar to everyone
• And I think she is "carrying" it rather than "wearing", though the French word "porter" serves both English meanings.

Thanks for your contribution. There's a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia but it's an interesting journey. Happy Editing! PamD 19:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y infobox ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the infobox and the improvement. Both the English and French articles histories show who created it and when, so is it really necessary to add anything? I have been around here for a long time, but I am mostly active on Commons. Yann (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but as we've seen above, a very experienced editor thought it was a translation needing acknowledgment, so confusion is clearly possible! PamD 23:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should have checked into the background more carefully but I did say "looks like a translation". It's not the first time I've run into this kind of problem. Editors should of course be encouraged to cover the same subject in more than one language. One positive outcome of this is that Yann has now joined Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome @Yann :) Lajmmoore (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all! If, like me, you're interested in what other people edit on, I just finished a side-project that was focusd on the 20 countries with highest proportions of gender imbalance in biographical articles (see here), which was inspired by a 2020 (!) event on the topic instigated by @MarioGom. The countries periodically alter, as more biographies are created, so they are not static. I'm going to set up a new challenge - probably focused on the ten lowest this time around (using Humaniki's measurements) - but other ideas are welcome! Lajmmoore (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a fun challenge, I would definitely be interested in something along these lines. ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting results, Lajmmoore. I was surprised to see Paraguay was as low as 12.8% for all language versions, although it's now at 13.3% for the EN version but is only 10.2% for the ES version. We should be able to improve the stats for English without too much difficulty. As for a new challenge, perhaps we could include countries needing improvements in our monthly events.--Ipigott (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]