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.

@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]

• Congrats to everyone at Women in Red! A wonderful milestone. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2025 (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]

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]

I know, we have so many. And I could do it myself, but - time, etc. Still, wanted to highlight that (as a idea to translate from es:Casilda Flores Morales) due to this: She's an "aguafresquera" (a woman who sells non-alcoholic beverages in the market). A women like Casilda wouldn't normally overcome Spanish Wikipedia's notability criteria. However, librarians from Oaxaca knew that, albeit invisibilized, Casilda was a critical historical actor (she even removed governors from power). So they dug out all relevant sources and created a beautiful Wikipedia article about her! I don't actually know what the source for this is, I stumbled up on this in questions for a presentation I am about to co-host... and thought some of folks here could be interested. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Side-note: found the source of the quote, it is from last Wikimania's presentation on notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which, comes to think of it, would be another RS on this... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sitting in a session called The Effects of Outlier Data (About Gender and Intersectionalities) in Wikidata on Wikipedia’s Main Page: Results of the ‘Cover Women’ Project. One result presented was the significant gender disparity in front page content on the English Wikipedia.

Here is the etherpad: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WikiLibCon2025_gender-gap-librarians and slides: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/WikiLibCon25_COVER_WOMEN.pdf

Gamaliel (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with the overall en:wp bio % just reaching 20%, a figure of 29% suggests considerable bias for selecting women, which I expect is the case. Of course there is Women in History month, which must be part of it. Large numbers of the bios on the main page are from centuries ago, with naturally smaller numbers of women from their period. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall there was a push to include more women in sections other than DYK, as women rarely make TfA or the main part of ITN, which has resulted in more recent deaths in ITN, as well as births/deaths of women in OTD. I think if you looked at the question slightly differently you would still find women are underserved by the more-prominent parts of main page; eg today, there is a picture of Lynch plus 2 other men in the main part of ITN, and bold-linked articles on 5 men to 1 woman in the main parts of DYK/OTD. It's only in the less-obvious RDs and birth/death dates that one sees more women, though I note today there are 6 men & 0 women in the RDs (and 2 of each in births/deaths). Espresso Addict (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I love this objective from the notes - "Reveal bias trends on gender and intersectional bias in the content featured on WP front page". Mujinga (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While it is interesting to see the results of this analysis, it is not surprising to see the levels of disparity indicated. I'm pretty sure similar results would appear from analyses of newspapers and other "reliable" sources used as references in Wikipedia articles. While efforts to increase women's coverage are to be welcomed, they unfortunately need to be backed by global trends. On the English Wikipedia, we could nevertheless make additional efforts to include women in the "In the news" and "On this day" items on Wikipedia's front page. Perhaps we could promote interest in our monthly newsletters.--Ipigott (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's Joan Plowright at the moment, in need of sourcing, if anyone is interested. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a bit of success adding women to OTD suggestions (although you do have to wade a bit to get to the process), so for example Yolanda González (activist) is featured today and I had totally forgotten I'd added her as a suggestion months ago. I've also noticed a change with DYK - I'm sure there used to be a woman/women's topic featured there every day, but I feel it changed in the last couple of years, so sometimes there might not be any women at all, but other times lots. (I have full sympathy with everyone who does the prep queues, it must be really hard to line things up, but I have noticed this.) Lajmmoore (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was ever the case that "there used to be a woman/women's topic featured there every day" outside Womens' History Month. But you could ask at the DYK project. There wouldn't always be enough approved articles anyway. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create an article on Mary Crease Sears. I spent some time last night trying to get a reliable source for her DoB. The Boston Women's Heritage Trail lists 1859 as the DoB. Most others have 1880 or "before 1880". She has a listing on Find a Grave with a picture of her headstone. Would the best solution be to use 1859 with the Boston Women's Heritage Trail citation, or 18 Aug 1859 using Find a Grave? She is right on the border of notable so I am worried that the article will get a ding for using the dates from Find a Grave. No rush, but advice sought. Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WomenArtistUpdates -- I wouldn't put a reference to Find a Grave, particularly if you are worried about demonstrating notability. You could note it on the talk page in support of using 1859 rather than 1880 perhaps, that's less likely to attract pushback. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Espresso Addict. Sound advice. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found her birthdate on page 283. Gamaliel (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gamaliel! --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to expand a previously deleted draft, but my retrieval request was denied [1] for non-notability. Sachs directed Surge and wrote two books [2] which were reviewed by PW, Goodreads and mentioned in Oprah magazine, Pop Sugar, USA Today; she was named in Forbes' 40 over 40.[3] Should I argue the denial, make the draft from scratch, or give up? TIA! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not following the rules at all. The draft was deleted under G13 for being an abandoned draft, not for any controversial reason. And claims of notability and original research are not under the purview of those involved in REFUND. UtherSRG, why are you not following the rules of the undeletion process and are inserting your own personal opinion on notability? There are other drafts you undeleted under G13 literally above and below this request. Silverseren 03:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allthemilescombined1 It was contributed by an editor blocked as a sockpuppet, edited by another blocked sock and an (unblocked) SPA. You might be better starting from scratch with reliable sources rather than getting yourself mired in all the sockpuppet accusations. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then why was it deleted as G13 months afterwards? Do any of those editors have anything to do with misinformation being added to articles? If not, I don't see the issue of using what's there. Silverseren 03:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't deny it for notability. I denied the restoration because the draft was rejected. Draft rejection is different than draft decline. Decline means the reviewer has found problems with the article, but work can continue. Rejection means the reviewer has found the topic to be not desirable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. As a RFU worker, I follow what the AFC reviewer has discovered. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering the number of reliable sources covering her and her work, it sounds like you shouldn't follow what AfC reviewers decide, especially if there's an editor in good standing who wants to work on said article subject. I've personally found that AfC reviewers have quite a high ratio of misses when it comes to the quality of their reviewing. Silverseren 03:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either of you are welcome to create a new draft from scratch. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, which is it then? You just said your reason for rejecting undeletion was because it was rejected at AfC for non-notability. But saying to make it from scratch doesn't change that notability, if true. That's a contradiction. Silverseren 03:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG:, would you object to my e-mailing a copy to Allthemilescombined1 for their reference? At least some of the sources look re-usable. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sock puppetry involved, I woudl think sending only the references themselves and not the actual text would be appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've e-mailed just the sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note, sources for you. These are for her first book How She Really Does It:

• It's never easy to find time for the kids (Page 2)
• How She Really Does It Review
• Balancing motherhood, career focus of book
• How Working Moms Manage

Be back in a bit. Silverseren 03:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this ended up being more of a random grabbag of articles about her, rather than on one single topic. Multiple films, books, ect. Anyways, Northwestern Magazine, Times of Israel, Patch, Jerusalem Post, PBS, Village Green, and The Gazette. Hope that helps, Allthemilescombined1. I noticed she does also have some good sources under "Press" on her website, which I think you found with what you listed originally. Silverseren 03:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your help and Espresso Addict too. Is it a bad idea to include "Cynthia Nixon told Sachs she felt guilty about leaving her children with a babysitter only if she was going to a non-work activity" in the article? Maybe Nixon regrets telling the Miami Herald that in 2005? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason to include that? Seems like it wouldn't meet WP:DUE requirements. You don't need specific examples from her books, I feel. Silverseren 22:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just created an article for Martha Joynt Kumar. She heads the White House Transition Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit that assists in presidential transitions of power. Thriley (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After finding Talk:Sigrið av Skarði Joensen, I have updated the project banner {{WikiProject Women in Red}} to accept up to five meetups — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since December 2022 we have been adding a "tip of the month" to our invite! I certainly learn new tricke from these. However, we could do with a few more to build up a "bank of tricks", if you've got some ideas please add them here. Equally, it would be great if someone could help to catch up with our tips archive, so if someone fancies a nice tidying job, adding the tips from the invites from the last few months of 2024 for our record would be really useful! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a draft article on a recent ECHR ruling which has impacts on French law's interpretation of marital rape and divorce. If there is anyone who knows more about this area, I would appreciate if you could give this a look. Thank you in advance! GnocchiFan (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, this project has about ~10 articles in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references created via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, you can check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.

These could use some of your attention

To do

If you could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are 29 articles listed under the same error category in [4], which is updated weekly and might be a useful page to check if you're looking for things like that to clean up. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just picked one at random and fixed Michelle de Saubonne. I didn't use a script; just hovered over the refs to see which ones were missing tooltips. pburka (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed Diana Trask using a script. Is there a standard message to give to editors who wrote the articles to let them know that Svick's script is a useful tool if they are using sfns? TSventon (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb do you know what the problem is with Fannie Brown Patrick? It is in the Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors category, but Svick's script doesn't give an error message. I have finished the rest of your list. TSventon (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was footnote [6], which had an sfnref with quotation marks and a template in it. Probably the error was that the unexpanded template did not match the expanded template in it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You EC'ed with me fixing the very same thing! :P Silverseren 17:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. It took much more time to figure out (by groveling through the html of the formatted article) than to make the edit. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems David got to it already. There's no standard message, but the one I just gave above I suppose. Or the text in Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello folks, a new editor @Tryingwithheart (welcome!) got in touch about a draft they'd started for this artis, Terry Ananny which is from one of the redlist (see here) and I'm adding it here so they can benefit from our project's hive mind of experience Lajmmoore (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting there is a COI on the user's talk page Lajmmoore (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | February 2025, Vol 11, Issue 2, Nos. 326, 327, 330, 331 Online events: New: Black women | Alphabet run C & D Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements from other communities: Wiki Loves Ramadan begins on 25 February - a great opportunity to focus on women from Islamic history Tip of the month: Looking for an image? Sometimes you can find openly licensed ones on Creative Commons search Suggestion: Consider helping to promote women under In the news and On this day on Wikipedia's main 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 08:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Government of India recently announced the list of Padma Award recipients, and several Indian women have been honored this year. I have added the names of these women, whose Wikipedia articles are yet to be created, to the "WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality". If any editor wishes to create articles about them, they are welcome to do so. Feel free to ping me if you need any assistance. Thank you! Happy Sunday! Baqi:) (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morning folks!! I'm looking for some help. Is anybody up for trying to find some extra sources for this draft. I'm trying the find the book mentioned in Ref 7 re: the Cimetière du Père Lachaise article. I found a longer version which I put in the Ext Links section, which is fairly detailed. I had long search yesterday, about 5 hours in Gallica and couldn't see it. I think I found the magazines but not the full yearbook. It must be there somewhere or some other archive but couldn't find it. I did find a couple of small references in IA which I can put in later. But if somebody could find that ref and expand to a full book cite, it would be ideal. I can then mainspace it. scope_creep 08:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to say that there's no obvious reason why this should not be in mainspace, as the subject is long dead and notability does not seem to be an issue. Articles by newer editors are rarely well served by languishing in draftspace; they are likely to receive more eyes in mainspace. I also don't see why an e-copy of the subject's book, while certainly a nice-to-have, is a prerequisite for acceptance? Am I missing something? Espresso Addict (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know, your right and have been thinking about it everyday since I see as its ideal wee history article, on a well known book. Its proper history. I was trying to get the editor more involved in the copyedit aspect but nothings happened. I hoped they would find that Gallica reference, if its even in there. I'll post it today. I'm at a loss to fix it. I wish somebody would fix it for me. scope_creep 09:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace has a few hundred thousand editors who might be able to help :) Espresso Addict (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Our article about Virginia Christian repeatedly called her a criminal. Turns out she was a mentally disabled and abused child who got executed one day after her 17th birthday, without a fair trial. She worked as a washerwoman to help support her paralyzed mother. I posted some sources on the talkpage, but there are many more. Can someone please take a look at this article? I suck at writing and have the brain of a dehydrated cucumber. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This subject isn't a biography, but I was looking at my to-do list for stuff I came across before but decided to procrastinate until later. One of those articles is baby fever. It's currently a two sentence stub. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Faithfull needs some work to make it to recent deaths on the front page. It is always so tragic when someone like her doesn't make it to the front page due to lack of interest in finding citations. Thriley (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]