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

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]
I like your suggestion, Rosiestep. How about creating a page on "Assisting new editors" with links and explanations from our main page and from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members? We could mention both the NPP women pages for review and the Pending AfC list on women as well as essays such as our Primer and our Ten Simple Rules. I think the page should be directed first and foremost at more experienced participants who could then contribute more actively to encouraging newcomers and providing assistance with new articles. From time to time, we could organize "drives" on helping newcomers interested in writing about women. Wikipedia requirements are not easy to understand, especially for those who have never used anything but a smartphone. I really sympathize with those who receive cryptic messages from AfC reviewers telling them, for example, to look at Help:Referencing for beginners when their drafts are refused. We could certainly do far more to help them along.--Ipigott (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. So this month (Oct), folks can flesh out a process and develop resources, etc. Beginning in November, we'll have an event page focused on pending drafts. Maybe by becoming methodical with this line, we can really make a difference not only with the draft article (getting it to mainspace faster), but also with providing warm support to newbies who think they're alone out there. --Rosiestep (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Essays/Assisting new editors. I would appreciate help, corrections and expansion from other contributors.--Ipigott (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just done a trawl through Wikipedia:AfC_sorting/Culture/Biography and tagged thirty articles as women, which should increase the list of women by about a third when the bot runs. @Ipigott: would it be worth mentioning that list as well? Category:Draft articles on women may merit a mention as well. TSventon (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon, the bot uses ORES predictions so I'm not sure that tagging will change anything (many drafts that aren't tagged as women end up in the list). I'd be interested to know what your results were - once the bot runs again, can you check how many were added to the list that weren't there before? -- asilvering (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@asilvering, the bot ran at 18:00 and moved one article. It will be interesting to see if the next run picks up any more. Was it reasonable to correct the categories from biography to women, even if it does not affect the lists? TSventon (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the next run will make any changes if it hasn't already, but I suppose we'll find out. What your edits will have done is resorted the articles into Category:Draft articles on women. Whether that's a useful thing to do or not is up to your own opinion. It's certainly not doing any harm. -- asilvering (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that counting that a third of women AfC submissions are not on the women list was useful as it means that we can't ignore the main biography list. It may not be useful to do it regularly. TSventon (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: I have edited the AfC section of your essay, please fine tune or revert as necessary. Some feedback from Asilvering or someone else with hands on AfC experience would be useful. TSventon (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TSventon, for these useful improvements. I do nevertheless frequently come across articles prepared by newcomers in their sandboxes which are then moved by AfC contributors to become standard AfC drafts (draft:article title), often with a message or edit summary stating this is the correct format for articles which are not yet ready for mainspace. Is this encouraged at AfC or simply the result of what individual contributors feel is the way they should be named? The drawback is of course that drafts are deleted after six months whereas there is no limit on sandboxes or articles under development in user space. One way to avoid difficulties is for inexperienced contributors to create drafts for further development in their user space as user name/article title. This approach allows them to work on more than one draft at a time and also makes it easy to move the draft into article space. If others find this approach useful, it could be suggested in the essay. Many new contributors I have helped along continue to develop articles along these lines, sometimes asking me whether I think their developments are already suitable for mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An advantage of starting a "Username/articlename" draft is that it starts with a clean edit history, while a sandbox may have a long and involved history. Some articles end up in mainspace with a long edit history showing previous work in the sandbox which is quite irrelevant to the current work. I've done it myself before changing my method. PamD 07:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The instructions about moving pages are here: drafts have to be moved to draftspace to use the AfC tool. I agree that "Username/articlename" drafts are a good place to start. If an editor doesn't have a COI and is supported by WIR, then they probably don't need to use AfC, which would explain why the number of women articles in AfC is so low compared to the number of Biography articles. TSventon (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there is no general requirement for articles from new contributors to be moved to AfC in the AfC draft format. I think it should be made clear that AfC is an option, not an obligation, and AfC contributors should be advised not to move articles under development to AfC unless there is a good reason for doing so, for example failure to meet requirements when created in mainspace. Many enthusiastic new users are dismayed by the negative feedback they receive from AfC and are seldom consoled by the follow-up message they receive from the Teahouse. The ratio of articles in Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography (495) to those in Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography/Women (93) corresponds more or less to the overall 20% of biographies which are about women. Most new contributors who write about women are not aware of Women in Red unless they are students under Wikiedu or have attended editathons where WiR has been mentioned. Most learn of its existence once they begin editing and come into contact with other editors who try to help them along.--Ipigott (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott, AfC is not an obligation. However, if you tag a draft in your userspace with the AfC submission template, you've clearly asked for AfC to review it, so AfC reviewers will move those drafts to draftspace. -- asilvering (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Category:Draft articles on women, is there any alternate way to view the list, to include additional information, e.g., like the info we can see at WP:NPP? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of. -- asilvering (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: presumably AfC wouldn't mind if somebody from WiR posted a message on the talk pages of some of the editors with articles going through AfC? (I am not volunteering to do so.)
@Ipigott: The proportion of articles in Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography/Women (93) out of the total number of biographical articles in AfC sorting is about 16% (93 out of 495+93) as the bio list does not include the members of the women list. Adjusting for 30 women not on the women list gives around 20% (93+30 out of 495+93+30), which is still less than the proportion of new bios which are about women, which is around 30% based on the recent Humaniki statistics. Hopefully that is partly because WiR provides an alternative to AfC for some new editors. TSventon (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility of editing/moving AfC drafts

By all means! The only thing that editors who are not AfC reviewers can't do is use the AFCH script to approve drafts. Interacting with any other part of the process is fine (and you can even remove the AfC tags and move something to mainspace, nothing's stopping you - but I wouldn't recommend doing that). To anyone interested in pitching in, though, I really would recommend applying for the AfC reviewer pseudoperm. There's no harm in applying for it and never using it, and even if you only ever approve a handful of articles, that's a handful of articles that got to leave the queue when they would have had to wait longer otherwise. -- asilvering (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering:: Your advice "I wouldn't recommend doing that" is a pretty stiff constraint. From your explanations, it looks as if anyone who wants to improve AfC drafts and move them to mainspace should first become an AfC reviewer and use the "AFCH script" (no doubt in connection with Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions). Over the years, I have frequently been approached by contributors who have asked me to help with the delays or feedback they have faced from AfC and I am nearly always able to help them or explain why their article is unsuitable. In cases where articles have been refused, I try to explain the reasons given and often make the required improvements myself. (Especially in cases where new contributors are using the visual editor, it frequently seems difficult for them to make the improvements required whereas I can handle them far better from my laptop.) I then feel entitled to move the articles to mainspace. Many of the AfC delays come to light when contributors become members of WiR, no doubt hoping to receive help from the project. I always thought AfC and the English Wikipedia in general would welcome such assistance but from what you say, as I am not a member of AfC my involvement will not have been appreciated by you and your AfC friends. As a result of these discussions, over the past couple of days I think I have moved three or four AfC drafts to mainspace, at least two of which required significant quality improvement. From what you say, I should not have interfered with them as they had been submitted to AfC. This is all rather unfortunate as I believe many keen WiR contributors have been or would be willing to help with AfC drafts without joining AfC. It seems strange to me that as a keen new page reviewer I am allowed (even encouraged) to improve new submissions (which often include articles promoted to mainspace by AfC reviewers) but I am not encouraged to help AfC drafts along until AfC reviewers have first approved them. In any case, until these problems have been resolved, as I am not a member of AfC, I will no longer try to help with any more official AfC drafts. But is there any logic in this?--Ipigott (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s often discussed that AfC and NPP should just be one process, I’m not sure why it’s not. Is there a reason you don’t just add your name to the AfC list tho @Ipigott? Like you say you’re beyond qualified. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s the link for you or anyone else who might be amenable! Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants. It seems to me encouraging WiR members to sign up could be a good way to foster participation. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To tell you the truth, Innisfree987, the reason I don't want to become a participant is that I have come across so many new contributors who have faced difficulties with the project that I am not happy about the way it operates. I know this feeling is shared by a number of the most active editors who participate in Women in Red. If the project could be adapted to make new contributors more welcome, I would certainly reconsider. I realize, however, that it is difficult to reach a compromise between the need to avoid unsuitable articles on mainspace with that of attracting new editors. I was hoping these discussions might pave the way for progress along these lines. I am of course grateful to editors like TSventon, asilvering and yourself who contribute so positively to the project.--Ipigott (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I will say is that like many projects, the participants tend to take more seriously the perspectives of people involved in doing its work (believing they have a better grasp of its challenges), so signing up might be a route to influence the culture. However I do understand that that’s not an enviable option if one doesn’t like the culture currently in place. Bit of a catch-22! Innisfree987 (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I strongly believe that signing up and participating is the best way to change its culture. As for Ipigott, he doesn't need to add himself to the list because he's an NPP reviewer already - the AfC reviewer pseudoperm is only required if you don't have NPP or admin rights already. @Ipigott, I'm not sure why you're not just using the AFCH script yourself to accept these drafts? -- asilvering (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, thanks for the reminder. Yes the script is great! Innisfree987 (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have liked to draw the attention of key players in the AfC project to this discussion but found that the project's basic talk page is reserved for those working on project administration. None of the other AfC pages suggested appeares to be suitable for finding out whether key players agree with asilvering (see above)that experienced editors who are not members of AfC should be discouraged from editing/moving AfC drafts and liaising with their creators. As a non-member of AfC, I have participated fairly actively along these lines for a number of years and thought my assistance had positively contributed to the English Wikipedia and would be generally welcome by those from AfC. While I have never received any negative reactions or warnings, I have learnt today that such edits and moves by non-members are apparently not welcome. I would therefore like to see whether this is in fact the case by bringing the matter to the attention of key players such as Primefac, Robert McClenon, Timtrent, Anne Delong and KylieTastic from AfC as well as JTtheOG and Vanderwaalforces from New Page Patrol. I hope that together we can find approaches that will allow constructive editing of AfC drafts to ensure in particular that more of those interested in writing about women continue editing on Wikipedia. Please also let me know if there are other talk or discussion pages where these issues can be discussed. We are hoping to launch an initiative in November to provide more assistance to new and inexperienced contributors of articles about women.--Ipigott (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not seeing where it says only project members can post? Am I overlooking? I see the notice at the top that it’s not for asking about drafts, but that makes me think questions about the nature of the project at what it’s meant for? Innisfree987 (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, anyone can post to the project's talk page. Ipigott, I'm not sure what you're reacting to by @TSventon - I don't see any comment here suggesting that experienced editors who aren't AfC reviewers should be discouraged from editing drafts or liaising with their creators? I would absolutely encourage experienced editors to do that whether they're AfC reviewers or not. But as I've said above, what I'd really like to encourage is joining AfC in the first place. There's no obligation to review any particular number of articles. I myself started just because I occasionally bumped into drafts that were obviously ready for mainspace, or had been declined in error, and I wanted to be able to help those drafts when I came across them. -- asilvering (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about my mistake in mentioning TSventon above. I¨ve now corrected it to you asilvering as you said you would not recommend moving draft AfC pages to mainspace unless editors were official AfC reviewers. To recap, the statement was "Interacting with any other part of the process is fine (and you can even remove the AfC tags and move something to mainspace, nothing's stopping you - but I wouldn't recommend doing that). To anyone interested in pitching in, though, I really would recommend applying for the AfC reviewer pseudoperm." Although you said it was "fine" you clearly did not recommend it. But in the light of your most recent remarks, it looks as if there will be no objection if I continue as before. We need to put something together in this connection for our essay. As for using to AFCH scripts, I simply do not know how to apply them and was certainly not aware that I was entitled to do so as an NPP reviewer. Could this not be explained more clearly in the documentation. And what exactly is the AfC reviewer pseudoperm?--Ipigott (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't recommend moving AfC drafts to mainspace without using the AFCH script. If you have access to the script (which you personally do), then by all means you should be accepting articles you think ought to be in mainspace. What I don't recommend is removing the AfC tags and then moving the page manually, via a page move. I don't recommend doing this because this is frequently done by people who are trying to evade AfC for disruptive reasons - sockpuppets "accepting" each other's drafts, COI editors attempting to get around the process, and so forth. If you do a manual page move to "accept" AfC drafts, you (rightly) set off a lot of people's alarm bells, and they may (wrongly) object to your move. Please use WP:AFCH!
The AfC pseudoperm is a not-exactly-perm that allows people who do not have the NPP perm to use the AFCH script. That's all it does, and it's not technically a perm (there's no change to your user rights). It simply means that an admin has listed you at WP:AFC/P, so that the script recognizes you as an AfC reviewer. -- asilvering (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: I'm not going to apologize for continuing to move drafts to mainspace and for refusing to install yet another script-with-unknown-side-effects to do it for me. You should stop discouraging experienced editors from doing that. If you are having problems with new editors promoting their own unready drafts, find some other way of dealing with it. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying "don't do that" - I'm even the one who brought up that it is possible to do so! (Because I didn't want to give the impression that only AfC reviewers/NPP/admins can move drafts to mainspace. That's incorrect - they're just the only ones who can use the AFCH script. It won't function for anyone else.) I simply don't recommend doing it. I really recommend that anyone interested in moving AfC drafts to mainspace become AfC reviewers and use the AFCH script. It will automate doing all the cleanup, send a message to the draft creator telling them their draft is accepted, and save you (general you) from having to deal with some overzealous and confused NPPer who thinks you're trying to pull some kind of bs. If you don't want to take that recommendation for whatever reason, that's perfectly fine. -- asilvering (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I should add, also, in case it was your only concern, that specifically speaking AFCH is a "gadget" you enable in your preferences, rather than a solo-maintained userscript. -- asilvering (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I have been looking at AfC and my impression is that they get 250 new or repeat submissions a day (based on September) and accept 60 a day i.e. around a quarter (based on AfC statistics page), which sounds like a lot of work and a good conversion rate. It would be nice to have some easily accessible automated statistics for AfC, of course I may have missed them. I hope we can discuss how to work with AfC and get any articles moved to mainspace counted as a success for both projects. TSventon (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon, If we create an event page; and if someone lists an AfC article that they improved and shifted to mainspace; and the editor also adds the WiR talkpage template to the article associated with the event page, then, I think, that should give us our metrics? BUT, maybe something else, or something additional, needs to happen? Noting, of course, that the article must also have a Wikidata item (human; woman). --Rosiestep (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not worried about whether WiR editors will contribute to WiR metrics, rather hoping that WiR involvement can improve AfC outcomes, however they are measured. TSventon (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon nothing that auto-updates as far as I'm aware. @KylieTastic is the one to ask for specifics. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon as Asilvering said there are no auto stats at the moment. One problem is that so many reviews are deleted only a bot with admin level would be able to see the full revision history to do accurate stats. A bot that monitored in near real time would be good enough though. A lot of the stats we have come via Quarry queries such as this 'recent' summary (aka last 31 days I think) with 6417 reviews and ~1329 deleted (a lot of spam, attack pages, copy-vios etc). Over the last few years I've been monitoring the AfC accept rate is ~20% (not including the speedy deleted junk). On a side note I have posted here before about Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography/Women - it would be great to get this project active on helping these more of these improved/accepted. KylieTastic (talk) 18:22, 6 October 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]

Thanks! I wasn't paying much attention to that project; I should join. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 8 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? en:q:Nora Ephron Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allthemilescombined1:, Wikiquote is a Wikimedia project, so you should be able to use your Wikipedia account there.
@Penny Richards:, I have seen you mention Wikiquote, do you have any advice on whether Wikiquote has a relevant policy, whether the first quote for Nora Ephron is likely to be sufficiently offensive to be removed and where Allthemilescombined1 could go to start a discussion? TSventon (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very very involved at Wikiquote, I just start pages there sometimes (and I should do it more). My understanding is that, if the quote is accurate, and the sourcing is correct, it might not get removed. The point of Wikiquote is not to provide inspiring or flattering quotes, but accurate quotes with sources. What the subject would want us to remember of her words is not really part of the equation. However, if the quote requires some context to be understood, or if she later disavowed the sentiments expressed, that's information the Wikiquote page might include. Penny Richards (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about this @Allthemilescombined1 & one thing to do would be to find an earlier quote to go above that one, so there's something different chronologically. Further, if you can find a redaction of it, or as Penny says, further context I would add that too. e.g. "Later, in 19XX, Ephron responded to this quote by saying XXX ..." I guess you can also check how accurate that quote is? Lajmmoore (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was thinking mainly the issue is that it’s bolded and at the top—what we’d call over here undue weight. An earlier quote is a great idea. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. We should also remove the statements that Washington and Jefferson and half of America's founders owned slaves, that Winston Churchill failed in the Gallipoli Campaign, and every other inconvenient fact that we suspect the article subjects regret, or no longer believe, or otherwise "would want removed in today's day and age". Our content should be nice and clean and present the subjects exactly how the subjects would want to be presented, without any "offensive" facts! Think of the children! --GRuban (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please let’s try to disagree civilly. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember good faith @GRuban - the editor who asked the question is pretty new, so please do bear the range of levels of experience people have when responding. We all learnt the ropes at one time or another - often by asking questions and being supported to understand guidelines by other editors. Lajmmoore (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you folks, point taken. --GRuban (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Cullen article

Hallo, I've drafted an article about Adrienne Cullen. She was an Irish journalist who successfully campaigned for open disclosure by hospitals when patients are damaged in the course of their treatment.

I've been advised by editor TSventon to approach you for help in getting the article published. It's been declined for publication twice.

Here's the link to the draft Draft:Adrienne Cullen

Thanks Janep1814 (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Janep1814: Certainly looks to me as if it should be in mainspace but perhaps you could first help by adding missing citations, particularly about her early life.--Ipigott (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott - will do. Janep1814 (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being paid for this article in connection with the info on your user page?--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott - I was reimbursed for expenses related to research. Janep1814 (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked it a bit, added a ref or two and standardised it somewhat, but it looks perfectly mainspace-worthy to me. The barely-disclosed COI is a bit of a disappointment: why am I spending time on a project for which someone else is getting paid? COI disclosure needs to be much clearer, and the template at User:Janep1814 is malformed (seems to be "Nowiki", which isn't helpful - if people are being paid to edit, they should spend some of that paid time in understanding how Wikipedia editing works.) PamD 12:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD - I've seen your changes. Re the COI, I found the information on wikipedia to be pretty confusing and did the best I could to disclose. I thought the information I provided was all that was required. From other conversations with editors here I now appreciate that I need to be even more explicit. Janep1814 (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article to mainspace but Janep1814 needs to look carefully through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and adapt her user page. Further suggestions for changes to the article should be posted on the article's talk page for review by non-paid editors.--Ipigott (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott ok. What other details do I need to put on my user page. I was only reimbursed some research expenses. I note the request to put suggestions to changes on the articles talk page for review. Janep1814 (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Janep1814:: The instructions under "How to disclose a COI" on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest page seem very clear to me. You should make the suggested changes both on your user page and on the article's talk page. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties.--Ipigott (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Janep1814 take a look at my user page - there's a section where I disclose all the paid editing programmes I've been involved in. If you click edit on my user page, then switch to source editing you can see what the code looks like in that section and adapt it for your circumstances. It is really really really important to do this. I'd also recommend you keep an on Wikipedia list, on your user page for the editing you're paid to do. Transparency is really paramount. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lajmmoore - thanks, this was useful. I've added the necessary details to my user page and will also add them to the article's talk page. Fully agree that transparency is important and at the heart of what Wikipedia is about. Janep1814 (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott - I've added COI information on my user talk page and on the article's talk page. I'm keen to get this right! Janep1814 (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott - thanks. I'll see how I get on. Janep1814 (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New article about a ghost

Just in time for Halloween! I started an article on Margaret C. Waites (1883–1923), a Latin professor at Mount Holyoke College, who left her library to Radcliffe College; her ghost is said to haunt the Cabot Library Suite at Harvard to this day. Might make a timely DYK nom for October 31, in case anyone feels like nominating her... Penny Richards (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have an extra QPQ I was saving for the right occasion! I’ll do it now. What a great find. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! I would welcome reviews (to move the nom along in time for the holiday!) and/or recs for punching up the hook. Can be found at: Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret C. Waites. Thanks for the fun find @Penny Richards! Innisfree987 (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed, all OK! Lajmmoore (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "FM's Campus Ghost Tour". The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved 2024-10-04.
Hooray! Thanks all! I just thought it was too fun an opportunity not too try. Penny Richards (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Murray (art historian)

This article could use some additional eyes and attention. Netherzone (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WDQS graph split project

Regarding the upcoming changes with the WDQS graph split project, when we switch to the scholarly query endpoint, will any changes rquire adjustments to our Wikidata-based redlists? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also please see this survey request from Lydia Pintscher (Portfolio Lead for Wikidata). Would someone be best-suited to fill out the survey on behalf of WiR? Who understands our Wikidata-generated redlists the best? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on this, but I'm pretty sure our redlists access only the "main" dataset, not the dataset of scholarly publications, so they should be largely unaffected by this split. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last page of the survey says At this time, we are focusing on participants who are actively building tools, apps, or conducting research using data from Wikidata. Maximilianklein comes to mind. TSventon (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Max Klein may well be interested and may have some feedback for us on the significance of these developments for WiR. I suppose researchers interested in Wikipedia's coverage of women, such as those at the University of Barcelona, will be aware of all this. We can hardly be expected to inform them individually.--Ipigott (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC drafts needing some love

I just went through the women in the 2 month+ bin at AfC, and there are two drafts here that could use some help from experienced WiR folks:

asilvering (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering:: I've tried to flush out Garcia Ferraz a bit and think it might mow be suitable for mainspace - but I'll leave it up to you.--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering:: thank you for your curated suggestions. Also thank you for publishing the Nereida Garcia Ferraz article, should the article creator get a notification on their talk page, as so far I can't see one?
I have linked the article to an existing Wikidata object which links to database listings with variant spellings. I presume Cubans use Spanish surnames, but I could be wrong. TSventon (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon, the name is alternately spelled Garcia-Ferraz in the article, so the sort order I used is "Garcia Ferraz, Nereida", if that's what you're asking? It looks like they didn't get a notification because they were editing logged-out at one point (I just resubmitted the draft as the last person who submitted, which was an IPv6). -- asilvering (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering:, the article creator was following up the article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#15:08, 5 October 2024 review of submission by Bzbustamante so they are obviously still interested.
If the name uses the Spanish pattern, it probably needs the Template:Family name hatnote to explain, hopefully the article creator knows. TSventon (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have informed the article creator that the article has been published. However that article was first submitted in March, I would have thought that if WiR offered help a lot earlier (after a month?) it would be more likely to persuade new editors to try writing another article. TSventon (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier the better - why wait a month! -- asilvering (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Reid (scientist)

I'd appreciate any feedback on this Draft:Marion Reid. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting this started! Are there sources available to describe her work in more detail and fill out the entry a bit? I have become wary of publishing stub-length entries on living people because if any negative press arrives, it is very hard to maintain due weight and often comes to dominate the entry unfairly to the subject. The reviews of her books are likely a relatively accessible way to source more detail. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 1 (AABB) with short bios of Pierce and Reid looks as though it is the author bios from their book, Bloody Brilliant, so it is not independent. The CNAA was a government body that awarded degrees to students at higher education colleges of various kinds so it does not tell us where she did her research, possibly Bristol Polytechnic. More reviews of her books seem like a good way to demonstrate notability. It would also be interesting to check newspapers.com, if someone has time and access. TSventon (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The California MSc needs a mention in Education, and the Hon DSc from Plymouth (see https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/about-us/honorary-doctorates , 2011, for a source which verifies) almost certainly has a presentation speech or university press release with more info.
The FIMLT/FIMBS needs a mention ... and I'm about to fall down the rabbit hole of improving the article at Institute of Biomedical Science to include its various previous names! (Looking at it, I think her biog in ref 1 has a typo and she's almost certainly FIBMS not FIMBS!) PamD 07:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the quote from ref 6 about being considered uneducatable needs to go in! PamD 07:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This bio https://ncim.org.uk/meet-the-board-bios confirms FIBMS. PamD 07:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And https://justgiving.com/crowdfunding/marion-reid this is another interesting bit of personal life - various pointers show that it's the right "Marion Reid". PamD 07:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @PamD@Innisfree987@TSventon I will work on it. I also want to work on Irene Roberts: https://www.paediatrics.ox.ac.uk/news/irene-roberts-delivers-ham-wasserman-lecture Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD@Innisfree987@TSventon It's the sequel! Draft:Irene Roberts if you could please have a look...thank you. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article show she is notable? It seems to be short on independent sources. TSventon (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the h-index helps! Thanks @Innisfree987 Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please help, Manisha Ganguly article heavily edited and nominated for deletion by new account (maybe sock)

Hi all

Please can someone have a look at the article for Manisha Ganguly:

  1. One user has deleted a huge amount of content from the article, the edits I have been through are to put it mildly, problematic. eg this one which has the edit summary Not really encyclopedic, eh?
  2. They have put several templates at the top of the article and nominated the article for deletion as non notable (the article still has 50 refs even after the user deleted several refs)
  3. They claim on the talk page that the article was written by Manisha herself, without any evidence
  4. The date this was done on appears not to be an accident, Manisha writes a lot on Gaza, this is the anniversary of the start of the Israel Hamas war.
  5. The account is new across all wikis and hasn't edited any other articles but seems to be aware of many of Wikipedias rules and proceedures including templates and AfD, suggesting strongly to me this it is a sock account.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if these problems have been resolved.--Ipigott (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Council is a group that talks about how to organize and support WikiProjects. If you are interested in helping WikiProjects, please put that page on your watchlist and join the discussions there. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women to Watch (National Museum of Women in the Arts)

If anyone was look for inspiration for their next article, here are the women artists in this year's National Museum of Women in the Arts Women to Watch exhibit who do not currently have pages:

ForsythiaJo (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some links. TSventon (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black women in American politics page

Hello! I'm letting you all know that I suggested the Black women in American politics article for a Good Article Nomination.

It was removed with the following comment: "Nominations need someone familiar with the sourcing and content of an article so they can respond to reviewer concerns, so it's usually expected that the nominator is one of the main contributors to the article. Also, it still needs a lot of work before it can be a good article, as it suffers greatly from scope issues and needs more citations."

I believe that the creator of the article is no longer active, so I want to encourage all interested editors to see what they can do to improve the article ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han Kang, first Asian women to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature

Good to see we had reasonable coverage of Han Kang before she received this year's Nobel Prize in Literature and that efforts are continuing to improve her biography. It's also encouraging to see that in recent years the awarding Swedish Academy has given more attention to women writers.--Ipigott (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Draft:Ronnie Haran

I recently came across a draft for Ronnie Harlan, one of "the first female rock band managers." Looks promising. Thriley (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly been improved but it still looks rather promotional. From the sources used, she seems to have the necessary notability. Maybe we should leave it to those of our contributors who are also AfC reviewers.--Ipigott (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Polish translator of Tolkien?

Hi.

Would you like an article about the lady who translated Tolkien into Polish? I couldn't find her in the Tolkien translations category...

Best wishes -Kaworu1992 (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: silly me, she has an article, just not in that category. One hundred apologies -Kaworu1992 (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2: but I now see you have no article about Paulina Braiter-Ziemkiewicz, and it's quite short - would you like a translation?
Best wishes --Kaworu1992 (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kaworu1992, you would need to find enough sources to support the article content and establish notability. pl:Paulina Braiter-Ziemkiewicz seems to have no sources at all. TSventon (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... I realized just now. I will try to browse the Internet and maybe at least find some, I dunno, webpages, interviews etc.? Kaworu1992 (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So the webpages need to be reliable (e.g., not user generated, I have no idea which Polish websites are reliable), and what the subject tells an interviewer isn't independent. TSventon (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ellinor Peerschke

I'd appreciate any feedback on Draft:Ellinor Peerschke. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allthemilescombined1:: You've made a good start on this. If you search for "Ellinor I B Peerschke" (Ellinor Irmgard Barbara Peerschke) you'll find more sources. For more detail, see this. Looks as if Marjorie B. Zucker might also deserve an article.--Ipigott (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of all the improvements you've made, Allthemilescombined1, I see it's now been moved to mainspace. I was intrigued by her birth in Germany with a Russian name but failed to find any details of her parents and their background.--Ipigott (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: I can't see a Russian name. am I missing something? It is still interesting that she was born in Germany and grew up in the US. TSventon (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My confusion, TSventon. I was basing the Russian origin on a former colleague, Serge Perschke, who was in fact a Russian speaker from his mother but his father was German. I now see that Peerschke is common is Germany.--Ipigott (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick glance at your Google search, the name is probably Sorbian in origin (the Sorbs are a Slavic minority group in Germany). —Kusma (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Who Code in upcoming NYC editathon

I was interested to see that Girls Who Code are hosting the editathon at the meetup in NYC on October 26. I was not aware that this highly successful initiative took a specific interest in Wikipedia. It seems to me we should try to develop closer contacts. As they are involved in encouraging thousands of women students to become competent in computer coding, they could also help to promote improved coverage of women on Wikipedia by attracting more women participants.--Ipigott (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI - Draft:Ribbons (sculpture) - through AfC

Hello folks, Just a note to state that I have put a draft of an article to Articles for Creation, because i have a conflict of interest with the topic. It is a new sculpture in Leeds, featuringing 384 women (of which I am one!). If anyone feels like reviewing it, I'd be keen to hear feedback Lajmmoore (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks neutral to me! I’ve accepted. There’s a small referencing error you may want to attend to? Also it led me to your bio which I hadn’t seen. If ever there’s additional secondary source coverage you’re aware of that’s not included, feel free to ping me with a link and I’ll look to see if it can be added, as I know you can’t do. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to main space and I've added a couple WikiProjects to the talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! Lajmmoore (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
& thank you @Innisfree987 - I put a few things on the talk page - even with this I suspect its very borderline, and tbh have no strong conviction about the article - although it was very kind for it to be started off Lajmmoore (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lajmmoore Well done, Lucy, both for being listed and for the article. I had it in mind to start a stub later today, after hearing about it on the news this morning, googling a bit, and finding no article yet, but your proper article is much better than the solid little stub I'd probably have produced. I've done the gnomery of linking it in Pippa Hale and adding it to Ribbon (disambiguation) (falling down a few little rabbit holes en route, like creating surname access for two women surnamed "Ribbons"), and added Pippa to Hale (surname).
I found a full list of the women, which seemed useful to add. But it's a bit of a puzzle: are there 383, or 384? Sources vary! Was someone disgraced and omitted, like a Jimmy Savile, or what? Pippa's website says 384, the project website says 383. Any local knowledge? Which source do we believe? PamD 20:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also puzzled that the list of women gives their location as a number (like your 6.09), where the prefix is 1-6 - so is there a base section as well as the five ribbons, or what? The project website doesn't clarify, just gives a number. Perhaps it's obvious when you're standing looking at it? PamD 20:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD I've been puzzled by both these things too - I think the latter is do with the fabrication? but that is a guess. I'm going to email ask which is the right number! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also there seem to be 382 names on the website (381 times "Ribbon Number" plus Rommi Smith). Unfortunately the internet archive is down. TSventon (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got a very quick reply from Leeds Arts University who project managed it, who said there were 383 women TOTAL on the statue, @PamD & @TSventon Lajmmoore (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lajmmoore Thanks. So Pippa got it wrong? Or is her name on there somewhere as the artist, perhaps, as an extra? She doesn't seem to be in the list. Fascinating! (And I wish I'd known about the project beforehand, to get Penny Ewens included: shame on the current Lib Dems for omitting to do so.) PamD 08:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's hope that more ribbons will be added @PamD but I agree there are lots of women who got left off! & I think Pippa's website might have an error! Lajmmoore (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marzieh Hamidi

Marzieh Hamidi is a Afghan taekwondo athlete. The article needs expansion. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Call for volunteers for the research project “Measuring the Gender Gap: Attribute-based Class Completeness Estimation”

We are a group of researchers at The University of Queensland, Australia who are working on a research project titled “Measuring the Gender Gap: Attribute-based Class Completeness Estimation” (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/key/Research:Measuring_the_Gender_Gap:_Attribute-based_Class_Completeness_Estimation), supported and funded by the Wikimedia Foundation. Our goal is to understand how and to develop supporting tool for Wikipedia editors making decisions on how to address the gender gap in Wikipedia content.

We are looking for a passionate Community Engagement Manager who will play a pivotal volunteer role in this project to help us to engage with the Wikipedia editors’ communities.

About the Role: The volunteer will help us to:

·      Develop a plan to engage relevant Wikipedia communities with our project.

·      Identify individual editors willing to join an online research interview (this study was approved by the University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee, reference 2023/HE001795).

·      To understand how gender balance has been taken into account in the editorial process and decisions, as well as to discuss how a tool could be best designed to support this process.

Who We Are Looking For:

·      Someone with a strong commitment to promoting gender equality in Wikipedia.

·      Excellent communication and interpersonal skills.

·      Experience in community management (desirable).

Benefits:

·      Opportunity to make a significant impact in reducing the gender gap in Wikipedia.

·      Expand your network within the Wikipedia communities and professionals.

·      Develop skills in community management, and project coordination.

For further information and expression of interests, please contact Gianluca Demartini (Special:EmailUser/Eglu81) and Tianwa Chen (Special:EmailUser/Tchen9). Eglu81 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ipigott, for your note and ping on your talkpage regarding this research. Eglu81, though you've left a message on my talkpage, too, I'll reply here for greater visibility as others may have similar questions. Eglu81, I'm curious if you are you seeking 1 person or multiple? As your university is based in Australia, is there a preference for the volunteer(s) to be from Australia? That said, I'd be happy to hop on a Zoom call to discuss your project further as your research subject is a priority focus area of mine. -- Rosiestep (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rosiestep for your interest and availability and thanks Ipigott for your support! Yes, we are based in Australia and we have been in contact with the Australian community already, interviewing a few editors with relevant interests. We would now like to expand the focus to editors worldwide as this is not a geographically-restricted issue. If we can find more people to help us, that would be great, but we believe having one advocate who is internal to the community would already make the difference. Please, get in touch with Tchen9 to arrange a time when she can provide a summary and status update of the project via Zoom. Eglu81 (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eglu81: email sent. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Paxon Moore Cooper

I started recently on a sandbox draft for Sarah Paxon Moore Cooper. I've run into a wall with my digging skills without archive.org (or being in Santa Barbara) and would love help or general feedback. The sandbox draft has a lot of my notes on possible clues to references that I've found.

The more specific things I think would really improve the article:

  • In the article, under running notes of sources, I've been able to find two photos - one of her, one of her garden - but I cannot find the original sources that the linked websites/references used.
  • I've found lots of sources with passing mentions calling her a notable botanist, but no specifics as to why. Specializing in ferns is from more modern references, I think based on her samples in current collections.
  • Similarly, multiple sources saying her 4 acre Home Garden was a notable stop or must see for tourists/visitors to the Santa Barbara area, that it held 1000s of plants, and at least one reference suggesting her responsibility for introducing exotic plant species to Santa Barbara. But again, no details beyond that.

Thanks! Cyanochic (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here are some suggestions to make it more readable and adopt a more expository style:
after the first line you should devide the text and make a biography section (use Heading).
Stop writing S. Cooper in the text, just Cooper.
I also uploaded an example of what it should like, based on your own text on article's talk page.
You can ask the admins to remove it after you have taken a look.
Cheers. Hounaam (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Hounaam, for your useful suggestions but section headings should not be over-captalized. I've slightly edited your talk page version.--Ipigott (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks dear @Ipigott; I will keep that in mind.
Cheers Hounaam (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additions! I had been leaving adding more expository writing and cleaning up my notes until I felt like I had enough references for a "submittable" article, but after seeing your suggestions I see I had more than I thought. Cyanochic (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Cyanochic, Ambrosia10 has obviously put a lot of work into the Wikidata item d:Q96475325, so they might be able to answer questions about the links they added.
Ellwood Cooper: In His Own Words says "All photographs are from the collection of the Santa Barbara Historical Museums, unless otherwise noted." There are notes on uploading photographs as public domain or fair use here. TSventon (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TSventon. I've been using Wikidata a lot lately, but somehow never noticed the View History tab! Ambrosia10 if you have ideas/input, I'd love to hear them!
I saw that from the Ellwood Cooper article. I wasn't sure if that counted as public domain/fair use since the article was released less than 80 years ago. Same with the photograph of her garden in the Goleta History website. If you think they are one or both okay, I will definitely add them to Wikimedia commons and the article.
(Also I've just found a reference saying she's the first female botanist to have a plant named after her (!) It was already listed on the species page, which I hadn't stumbled on since I typically exclude Wikipedia from my searches. Myriopteris cooperae. Since I'm not ready to publish the article I had to share the cool news somewhere.) Cyanochic (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use images are uploaded to Wikipedia rather than Commons and you need to give a fair use rationale when you upload, I linked some hints. Generally an image of a deceased biographical subject can be justified if there are no public domain alternatives available. Fair use images have to be used in articles rather than drafts so you would have to wait until the article is published. Whether an image is PD depends on when the image was first published. The rules are complex, hence I added a link rather than trying to explain everything myself.
Also note that the redirect is spelt Paxson, just to complicate searches. TSventon (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, I've only uploaded things so far to Commons that are under CC BY copyrights before. I'll read about the other options.
I noticed that spelling variant/issue on findagrave which has a photo of her headstone. The headstone says Paxon and I'm using that as my final spelling since very few sources spell out the name and just use the initial. (And sources that do spell it vary between Paxson and Paxon.) Cyanochic (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Paxon is the usual spelling, but the alternative spelling should probably be noted in the article. Also I searched Google books using Paxson and found an article about Ellwood in the Pacific Rural Press, also available here. TSventon (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cyanochic your article is great and thank you so much for creating it! I spend a lot of time researching early women botanists and it is fabulous to see articles being created about them. As for the claim she is the first female botanist to have a plant named after her, I'd be really interested to know whether there are other citations that support this. 1875 seems to me to be quite late date for this to first occur. Unfortunately because the Biodiversity Heritage Library is down at the moment (as a result of the Internet Archive issues) I can't check what Eaton actually said. He might have qualified it by saying first American female botanist? I've co-authored a publication about plant genera named after women with our dataset showing several women having genera named after them in the early to mid 1800s including Sarah Amherst and Lady Sarah Elizabeth Hay-Williams (née Amherst) with the genus Amherstia named in their honour in 1826 as well as the noblewoman and botanist Mary Elizabeth Catherine A’Court having the genus Acourtia named in her honour in 1830. It may be that the first naming of a plant species after women occurred later but I'd be very surprised if that was the case given the large number of plant species compared to plant genera. Ambrosia10 (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ambrosia10 and Cyanochic: Eaton 1875 says I take great pleasure in giving for the first time to an American Fern the name of a lady botanist. The page is available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/2476219 . I have corrected the article. TSventon (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm usually more skeptical but I think my excitement got away from me. Cyanochic (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 "priority" initiative

I'm already looking forward to planning for WiR's 2025 Year-Long Priority Initiative. Here's historical data regarding previous/present Year-Long Initiatives for consideration:

I'll also make a suggestion for 2025 to get the ball rolling: Music. (Reasoning: It's super broad. We already have a lot of redlists. Hoping this attracts new editors, if not forever, at least for the 12 months we'd be doing this event.) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music is a great idea! Some other broad topics for future consideration: Business, Politics, Visual arts. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep: Your choice of Education for this year has proved to be a great success. My only concern with Music is that with or without a WiR focus, we'll continue to see the topic as one of the major attractions for articles about women. I must say I like the suggestion of Business. We seem to be reaching a point where women are proving to be increasingly prominent in the business environment around the world, both in acquiring key positions in existing companies and organizations and in individual entrepreneurship. If we choose the topic, we could also encourage more attention to be given to the history of women's business achievements. We should in any case also try to reactivate interest in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Business in which Another Believer has been so active.--Ipigott (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Akbari

Anyone interested in taking a look at Draft:Anna Akbari? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allthemilescombined1: You include many references to book reviews. Why not provide more details in the body of the article, mentioning some of the reviewers and their comments?--Ipigott (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate the encouragement, and it is better for it. Does it look ready now? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly an improvement. In connection with Startup Your Life, I think you need to be more explicit, explaining that your comments come from the Time review. Perhaps others viewing this page also have suggestions.--Ipigott (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thank you! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Allthemilescombined1
Pls take a look at Manual of Style/Biography.
Cheers Hounaam (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Di Jones

Does anyone have suggestions for this page https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Draft:DiJones_Real_Estate It had been rejected but this project has got me inspired and I have improved a lot of the citations.PinkAechFas (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WiR now has a page on the Esperanto Wikipedia. How do I set up Listeriabot?

During the last days I created a Esperanto version of Women in Red: eo:Projekto:Virinoj_en_ruĝo. For now we are focusing on female Esperantists with a list similar to this English list: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Esperantists

I created the table using a Wikidata Query, but I would love to set up a automatic system with Listeriabot like most languages do. Is there some documentation on that? I haven't found anything and I couldn't set it up myself. Stefangrotz (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to siblings with same last name in article?

I just started on Draft:Mary Kirby and she worked very closely with her sister Elizabeth Kirby. Both were unmarried for a long time and share the same last name. Currently I am referring to Mary Kirby as "Kirby" in the article, and her sister as Elizabeth. But this feels odd since I eventually refer to Mary's husband later in life by his last name as well. What's the general recommendation for this? Is Elizabeth okay or should I use something like "E. Kirby"?? I swear I've seen something about it in an essay before but I couldn't find it. Thanks! Cyanochic (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just found Elizabeth and Mary Kirby. I somehow didn't find this when doing an initial search for existing pages. So I will not be fully creating this article unless others think it's notable to make it separate. However, it's not linked in Mary Kirby's wikidata. I'm not sure if it should be though. Cyanochic (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cyanochic, the answer to your first question is that first names should be used where needed to avoid confusion. The place to look is in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography and the shortcut is MOS:SAMESURNAME. For some reason only the redirect Elizabeth Kirby was linked to its Wikidata item so I did the same for Mary Kirby (writer). TSventon (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases, it is useful to provide further clarifications to avoid confusion, such as her sister plus full name, her mother plus full name, etc. I personally find switching between a woman's maiden name (e.g. in the Early life section) to various married names later in the biography is pretty confusing. Indeed, in longer biographies I often have to re-read the article carefully to make sure the different names refer to the same person. I have noticed that less experienced editors use the name in the article title throughout. This certainly avoids confusion but is it acceptable? As far as I can see, there is no clear recommendation on this in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography.--Ipigott (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some missing National Academy of Sciences members

Cyanochic has been collecting redlinks of National Academy of Sciences members: see User:Cyanochic/NAS Scientists, as linked from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia § Work-in-progress list of National Academy of Sciences scientist red links. Most are men but there are some missing women including:

—David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting Linda Manzanilla has an es-wiki entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @David Eppstein! With @Innisfree987's comment, I'll add that I've been adding names to my list using the Ill template after already doing a few subfields and I haven't gone back to update the earlier names yet. In general, I'm trying to note if there are any existing Wiki sources in the list to help anyone that comes along. Cyanochic (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red&oldid=1253298934"