Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 121

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115←Archive 119Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122Archive 123→Archive 125

Carolyn Grace

I saw a friend (and airshow enthusiast) mention this display pilot, who has sadly recently died. I've made a start on Draft:Carolyn Grace, but I'm short of source material - I was hoping there would be more sourcing available, but I can't see any obituaries in The Guardian or BBC News, which is a bit of a shame, as without them, I can't in good conscience put it mainspace without expecting it to be sent to AfD. Can anyone help? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

There's quite a lot available through The Wikipedia Library, Ritchie333. Here's just some of what I found:
  • Horne, Alistair (May 9, 1994). "A Spitfire At Last". Forbes. Retrieved December 7, 2022.
  • "Spitfire pilot fights for more flights". The Daily Telegraph. May 26, 2014. Retrieved December 7, 2022.
  • "The Grace Spitfire's triumph and tragedy". Eastern Daily Press. August 13, 2012. Retrieved December 7, 2022. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |A299552112&v= ignored (help)
  • "Grace Spitfire will perform an aerial ballet in the skies over the showground this afternoon". Eastern Daily Press. July 31, 2013. Retrieved December 7, 2022. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |A338348495&v= ignored (help)
  • Moreton, Cole (May 9, 1999). "Wings of desire; A female Spitfire pilot? What will the old boys say?". The Independent. Retrieved December7, 2022. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help); Unknown parameter |A66597081&v= ignored (help)
  • "Spitfire pilot rejects claims that Bentwaters could become a civil airport". East Anglian Daily Times. May 22, 2014. Retrieved December 7, 2022. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |A369001258&v= ignored (help)
  • "Spitfire is pulled out of show in row over flights". East Anglian Daily Times. June 17, 2014. Retrieved December 7, 2022. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |A371747762&v= ignored (help)
No idea on whether the links will work to The Wikipedia Library, especially since the template doesn't like the pipes that are in the URLs. SilverserenC 00:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I've tried a few of the links and they just come back as "not found". I know I can access The Times archive through Gale, and that's been helpful, but I haven't tried the Independent, for example. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Just go to The Wikipedia Library and use the search bar on the top to search "Carolyn Grace" spitfire as your search string. Then it will look across all of the available databases. That's how I found the above sources. SilverserenC 00:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it normal to have the full text of someone’s website in external links? An IP editor on Rosalind Creasy believes so. I am not very sure of that. Thriley (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It's fairly normal, I would say. We do it for authors, for example. And there's a parameter to include personal websites in the infobox, if you'd prefer it to be there instead. SilverserenC 06:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The actual dispute appears to be: do we make the link to the web site use some descriptive text for the site (I think we should; I generally use "Home page") or should we make it say the domain name of the site? The relevant guideline would seem to be MOS:URL, which says "you should add a descriptive title when an external link is offered in the References, Further reading, or External links sections ... Generally, URLs and domain names are ugly and uninformative". So I think it is pretty unambiguous that Thriley has the correct side of this dispute and the IP is wrong. That guideline also says that it should be a bulleted list, so I made that change as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I do agree there. I usually use "Official Website". Though in this case, "Personal Website" would work too. SilverserenC 06:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
This is an interesting question. In cases where there is already an infobox, if it's simply the site of the subject's personal website it should probably best be included there, simply as the URL. As most of my own articles do not initially include boxes, I usually list the subject's website under External links. I prefer something along the lines of "Jane Doe's website" rather than "Official website". In cases where the site is a page from the site of an educational institution or an organization, I might say "Jane Doe's page from X University's Department of Religious Studies". It seems to me that "official" often falsely enhances the status of sites which are blatantly trying to promote sales or providing information on a performing artist's coming appearances. Unfortunately "official" appears to be widely used whatever kind of site it points to but it may be useful to consider whether it is always appropriate.--Ipigott (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Agree. "Official website" obscures what the link actually is. In a world where we teach children not to click on links indiscriminately because it might be phishing, or where Twitter charges money for blue ticks, or individuals change where they are hosting their personal websites, does it even make sense? Cielquiparle (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
No, our current standard practice is to use the {{official website}} template (which I think has implications in terms of linkages with Wikidata too) in "External links" and to show the URL in the infobox if there is one. Looking for an example of a FA for a living person who has a website, the first I've found is J._K._Rowling which indeed uses the template under "External links" but shows the URL in the infobox using {{URL}}, and Roberta Williams has the "official website" in EL and no less than 4 visible websites in the infobox. (Found by skimming through Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/recent_TFAs hovering mouseover to look for living people). PamD 08:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
But I agree that it doesn't always seem appropriate, so that perhaps there should be at least a synonym "Personal website", to use in biographical articles. That would need discussion, perhaps at Template talk:Official website or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, rather than here in this niche. PamD 08:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
And Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography seems silent about websites. PamD 09:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
But, arguing against myself, I see that WP:ELOFFICIAL says Use of the template {{official website}} is optional. PamD 09:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Voting for the new 'sound logo'

Hello folks! Just a reminder that voting for the audio logo is now open and it's really interesting to see how people have conceptualised it! Lajmmoore (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Carmen J. Walters

Carmen J. Walters, the president of Tougaloo College in Mississippi would be a welcome addition to Wikipedia. Sources include here, here, and here. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as there are no takers I created Draft:Carmen J. Walters. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Anne McCall

Just saw the article Anne McCall while doing newpage patrol, and I see that it's been marked for notability concerns. I would suspect that she passes the threshold, given that she's been named the president of the College of Wooster, but I wanted to run this by the group if anyone else would like to weigh in; I'm really not that good with the academic notability guidelines, I'm afraid. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

NPROF requires presidency of a "major" academic institution, with "major" generally being understood to refer to academic research output, prestige, and/or university size; I don't know whether a private religious college with <2000 students would be considered acceptable here. JoelleJay (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth M. Cox

I started Draft:Elizabeth M. Cox and would appreciate any help with it. It appears to me there are at least two authors by this name, maybe more. One wrote a bibliography (compendium?) of women legislators on the 100th anniversary of women getting elected to Colorado's state legislature. I listed several other books she may have authored. There is also a fiction and short story writer who also teaches of the same name. Thanks for any help sorting them out and expanding on them. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Library Thing suggests that there are at least seven authors called Elizabeth Cox. They don't yet have a disambiguation page for Elizabeth M. Cox. TSventon (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Template up for deletion

Template:Lebanon County (Pennsylvania) Women’s Hall of Fame is up for deletion. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 December 12. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I see you went to some trouble creating this template, Maile66, but it has only been viewed four times since it was created. As all the names are listed in the corresponding article, it doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose. Let's just hope that bringing it up here will encourage some of the names to be turned from red into blue.--Ipigott (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I've moved it to Draft space, to save the content, and hopefully work on it sometime later. — Maile (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

BBC's 100 women

One of the 100 is woman cutting her hair

As usual at this time of year, the BBC has issued its latest list of 100 women. A few of the names seem to have been covered by Wikipedia articles but there are certainly many others who deserve articles. I see Victuallers has already added a few to 100 Women (BBC).--Ipigott (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

thanks Ian ....and Oronsay, BlueBlack and Cantsayhellotoyou. We have 100 to look at. Adding to wikidata is the minimum and tweeting @wikiwomeninred is happening. Pleased to see others Victuallers (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
@Victuallers & @Ipigott - the amazing @Yupik made a great table on Meta for the 2021 women I don't know if anyone has time to make something similar? I'm not sure I would until the new year. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
*blush*, thank you for the kind words Lajmmoore :) The table isn't ready, but I've created the page and added the list of 100 women, so all that's left is to add the qids from Wikidata to the table :) I'll try and get some done today and tomorrow, but I'm sure the quick folk here will have it done before that considering how quickly it's gone in previous years -Yupik (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, I had time and now the table is ready. 65, possibly 66 already existed in Wikidata, the rest still need to be created and added to the table. If someone here knows Korean, the 66th is Park Ji-hyun, who might be the same as Q111231177 (I wasn't sure). -Yupik (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you @Yupik! I don't start many new articles...but I found it very easy to follow your chart and go from there. (Still in progress...) Cielquiparle (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I just found Sandya Eknelygoda and added her to @Yupik's table. I will now use OpenRefine to add the remaining 32 to Wikidata in next hour or so and report back here when done.--Oronsay (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to @Yupik for creating the meta list, which now has 98 women on it. I confirmed that Park Ji-hyun is same as Q111231177 by reading translation of Chinese wp bio which included mention of Nth rooms. Will see what else I can add to the Wikidata entries.--Oronsay (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much @Oronsay & @Yupik this is really brilliant! Lajmmoore (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
<3 to all of you for the collaboration! This is just one reason why I love being part of this group! :) -Yupik (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm really happy there's been so much positive activity on this over the past couple of days. It's a great demonstration of what we can do on Women in Red. Thank you all, especially Yupik!--Ipigott (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Good to see Naomi Long on there - a positive force for politics in Northern Ireland, in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Maureen Beck

Just found this on the slush pile and found one detailed source. Can anyone else help? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's what I found, Ritchie333:
I hope that helps. SilverserenC 02:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife acceptance factor

Not exactly on topic, but.... Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Effie Kapsalis

Effie Kapsalia (2019)

Sad news. If you've done work in the GLAM space, you may have known Digitalffie (1971-2022). --Rosiestep (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

In the new year, maybe we (or someone) can organize a memorial editathon appropriate to her memory? Effie's encouragement at Flickr Commons, back before 2010, was probably part of how I landed at Wikipedia in the first place. So I'm definitely in. Penny Richards (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I think this is a wonderful idea as a tribute. Effie was so interested in my PhD research and really gave me the confidence to talk about it more. Count me in too. Smirkybec (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I see there is already a short biography of Effie Kapsalis which some of you may be able to expand.--Ipigott (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I hadn't heard of her until her death, but she sounds amazing. Plus one for a memorial editathon. Might be something to organise in conjunction with Fuzheado and the Smithsonian? Lajmmoore (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks all. Yes, we will let the wider community know of memorial activities when they are finalized (sometime in January). In the meantime, reflections and messages are being collected at User_talk:Digitaleffie as well as at the family site on Ever Loved. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

biografiA

The biografiA series of encyclopedias seems to contain quite a few notable Austrian women, often without enwiki articles. Their Lexikon österreichischer Frauen is open access, but many of these women would benefit from additional sources which exist in Germanosphere libraries. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Linette Lopez, journalist

Journalist Linette Lopez has been in the news recently. She was recently suspended from Twitter. She has done a lot of reporting on Musk and Tesla. Thriley (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

There’s a page for her already started at Linette Lopez but it would be great to merge the material over. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Requesting review of deleted content

This edit seem to delete student generated sourced content from the article Male gaze as part of their academic project. It's understandable that being newbies their content may not be perfect but academic student community has made substantial contributions to women related topics over the years specially in non biography areas and I suggest review of said deletion, by women related wp projects and previous article contributors, to find if any supportive action may help rescue any suitable content rather than just blanket deletion. (Discussion link @ the article talk) Bookku (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

While some of it could have been better worded, I don't see the reasoning for removing it. The sources used were fine for the content. This just seems like the editor is trying to actively revert edits done by students in general. SilverserenC 17:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Dubious - without checking, it's hard to see how a paper entitled "An Experimental Analysis of Young Women's Attitude Toward the Male Gaze Following Exposure to Centerfold Images of Varying Explicitness" justifies, in Wikipedia's voice, the conclusion "Male rulers use such means to brainwash women and devalue their status. They limit women's minds by stereotyping women as having to please men. Male gaze is also a means of male power to restrain women...." At best you might get "Some Young Women think that....." Probably, we're better without it. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
There was far more than just that removed though. Content throughout the article was removed in that one edit (which in itself is ill-advised, since it makes it difficult to see what was changed). SilverserenC 19:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

BB-SEC

Black Belt security ( BB-SEC) is a woman owned cybersecurity business that has been listed recently in a top ten list of cybersecurity providers but does not have a wikipedia page. It is also notable because women make less than 25% of all cybersecurity practitioners despite the field's popularity. This also may be the only cybersecurity business that 100% owned by a woman. Citrus and something (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaways

Hello all, I just nominated @Willthacheerleader18 for a merchandise giveaway (I did not know the scheme existed until today), since they make great contributions particularly about royalty. If people feel inclined, It would be grat to see some more people support the nomination. I also imagine other nominations would be welcomed in future too. Lajmmoore (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I was not aware of this either. I have tried in vain to find a list of those who have already been nominated.--Ipigott (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Here you go, @Ipigott! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Innisfree987. From Wikipedia:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations, I can see it goes right back to 2012. I wonder how many of those nominated have helped with improving coverage of women. Maybe we should start giving more attention to them.--Ipigott (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Great idea! Innisfree987 (talk) 07:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Great work on Twitter!

I’ve never quite sussed out who is operating the WiR Twitter account but terrific job offering the draft tool to the broader public! What a great idea for welcoming new folks (and especially those interested in women’s bios!) to join the editoriat. Innisfree987 (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Request for inputs

@ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic bicycle


Bookku (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Carla Vernón

There's a message on my talkpage regarding a new woman CEO (The Honest Company) who doesn't have a Wikipedia article yet. BLPs aren't my forte, but maybe someone here would be interested in this one. Seems like a deserving subject.

Here are some of today's press coverage:

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

[7]
[8] (Lifetime timeline)
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]

-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Afro-Latina

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Business#Carla_Vernón we are trying to determine the first Afro-Latina CEO of a publicly traded U.S. company-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Fritzi Cohen, hotel owner and activist has died

I just made a draft for Fritzi Cohen. She died today. Any help would be appreciated! Thriley (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing marital status

There's an interesting discussion on this at Talk:Emily St. John Mandel after the subject was forced to ask the BBC for help.--Ipigott (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the people in the discussion over there are correct. A tweet from the subject would have been fine. A claim related to an editor analyzing court documents would not be. She didn't need to get an interview, she just needed to make the statement on any of her other official profiles or websites. So there's something to source the claim without it requiring OR. SilverserenC 06:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. I understand the adverse response to someone trying to edit an entry from court records but it’s important not to make assumptions and also to err on the side of caution when including personal details for a BLP. It wasn’t true that the entry could only be updated if "reported by reliable third-party sources" plus the marriage info at least was reasonably cast into doubt by the court records: I firmly agree they should not be cited but I personally would have removed the marriage detail entirely. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
(All that said the best of us will still make mistakes, but that’s just more reason for caution. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC) )
It seems to me that we should pay more attention to requests for corrections from the subjects of BLPs. In this case, even if editors are normally discouraged from drawing on court documents, I think it would have been appropriate to take her clearly documented request into account. It certainly makes "Wikipedian bureaucracy" look pretty inflexible if the BBC has to be brought in to justify a change.--Ipigott (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure "inflexible" is fair here. If I read the talkpage correctly, the request was on 15 December, a response made on the 16th, and the next day we had these edits [15][16]. Afaict, requester made no further comments on WP. In WP-land, I don't consider this particularly Sisyphean. And afaict, requester didn't mention they were the article subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Editors here might be interested in a proposal to change BLP in response to this incident. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Other related discussion at Talk:Emily_St._John_Mandel#RFC:_attempt_to_correct_the_Wikipedia_article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Request for help making a redirect page

Some time back I was kindly advised to mention Ida Kirkpatrick artist (who has no page) within her sister Ethel Kirkpatrick's existing page (rather than start a brand new page for Ida) and then to create a redirect page for Ida to Ethel. I have done the former but am unsure how to do the latter. Could a kind person tell me how to create a redirect page? Thanks if you can! I have read various help pages but am not confident. I think I would make a mess. Balance person (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Balance person: I would search for Ida Kirkpatrick - https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?go=Go&search=Ida+Kirkpatric&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 - click on the redlink for her name which puts you in edit mode https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ida_Kirkpatric&action=edit&redlink=1 and enter the redirect incantation: #redirect [[Ethel Kirkpatrick]] then add an edit sumary, save and you're done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
@TagishsimonThanks very much for your clear and prompt help. I did indeed use the suggested incantation and I think it has worked! Balance person (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
That's good it worked! I tend to use the box at Wikipedia:How to make a redirect Mujinga (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
It didn't work. @Balance person:, you included the nowiki tags - which was an accident of my causing, waiting to happen. They were not needed on the redirect page ... I added them on this page so that we'd see the necessary square brackets around the article name in the redirect incantation. Probably worth having a look at this diff giving the before & after of the fix. Anyway, apologies for that, I think that IRL was crashing in on me as I was trying to respond to you, and so distraction & suboptimal answer :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I have used the idea given by Mujinga and that seems to have worked. No worries about the problem. I think I have got the hang of it now! Balance person (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! That is a lot easier and I think it has worked this time! I have made a note for the future! Balance person (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Saluting 60 Jamaican Women

I was listening to NPR earlier today, and heard mention of designer Ivy Ralph in a feature about her daughter, Sheryl Lee Ralph. A little research brought me to this series of blog posts. We have articles on most of the featured women, but there are at least a few for whom we don't, including Ralph. I'm not sure that the blog itself is useful as a source, but it's good for developing a list of names to work on, at least. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Jess Wade on BBC Radio 4

There was a splendid interview with Jess Wade on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour just now, 30 mins in from start of programme, which will be available on BBC Sounds and perhaps other podcast sources. Full of enthusiasm about raising women's profiles through her creation of 1,800 biogs, and I hope it will inspire some listeners to join us as editors. PamD 10:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @PamD! Listened to the segment after the fact on BBC Sounds here (requires log-in). I like that she also discussed notability, deletion, and conflict of interest. She also seems to have a firm grasp on her Wikipedia addiction. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Downloaded, thank you for the heads up! Penny Richards (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2023

Happy New Year from Women in Red | January 2023, Volume 9, Issue 1, Nos 250, 251, 252, 253, 254


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • De-orphan and incorporate an article into Wikipedia using the Find Link tool

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Prerna Gupta

Hello Editors! I am Prerna Gupta. An anonymous IP editor recently added some content to the page about me that is either redundant, promotional, and/or copyrighted copy/paste. I raised the issue at Talk:Prerna_Gupta#Recent_edits a few weeks ago, but no response. I was hoping someone here might be willing to take a look? ~~~~ Prernagupta1 (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, Prernagupta1. It's always difficult maintaining a page about yourself and I hesitate to make any changes myself unless they can be clearly backed by acceptable independent sources. I note however that John Broughton has been kind enough to help you along in the past. Given his experience with the development of the article, perhaps he would be able to help you again. Happy editing and seasons greetings!--Ipigott (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Screenshot from a Library of Congress talk?

Hello folks, Does anyone know if the Library of Congress releases fall under CC-BY licensing? I'd like to take a still from this recording to illustrate a page for Draft:Antoinette Tidjani Alou. I feel like US Government things are OK to use? But the page isn't clear, so I'm not sure. Advice very much appreciated. Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore: As this video appears to have been created by an employee of the LOC, it's in the public domain (which you can indicate with {{PD-USGov}}) Vahurzpu (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much for confirming what I thought @Vahurzpu Lajmmoore (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Simon & Schuster Mary Higgins Clark Award Notability

Hello, editors! Could someone help either with advice or editing on the Simon & Schuster Mary Higgins Clark Award page? This award honors MHC and is often presented to women, which is why I've shared it here. It is part of the Edgar Awards, which as a whole, meet notability guidelines. The SSMHC Award was moved to its own page so as to not bog down the Edgar Award page with each year's shortlists and winners.

One editor has now twice marked the page with a notability tag. Originally, the article had 13 references, some of which were primary. I added more secondary sources and removed the tag. They re-added the tag, and there's now 40 references, only 9 of which are from primary sources. Their argument is that the sources include only passing mentions. To my knowledge, passing mention is acceptable for awards. That is, the article names the award winner for the year without going into detail about the award. Is the editor correct that this makes the award non-notable, or are they the asshole? Significa liberdade (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Awards must meet GNG to have a standalone article. That means multiple independent secondary RS giving significant coverage of the award itself. If you don't have this then the award is not notable. JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be confusion here between sources needed to prove notability, and sources in general.

Editors should stop caring about whether a source can support the claim of notability once it has been agreed that a topic is notable. After that, it's a matter of improving the article, by adding information with supporting citations. It's perfectly fine to have a source/citation that supports a single fact in an article, where that source [obviously] is primarily about something else. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Anyone Interested in Updating List of Women Neuroscientists

I have been told by a prominent neuroscientist that this list [17] in woefully incomplete. She gave me a list of names to add which I am working on. Some don't have Wikipedia pages. Is there anyone in neuroscience that might help add names to the list? I am a mathematician so don't have deep knowledge of this field. User:Mvitulli Mvitulli (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Mvitulli: A quick look at our List of women neuroscientists shows that it needs to be updated country by country on the basis of Category:Women neuroscientists and the subcategories under Category:Women neuroscientists by nationality. It would be useful to see if the names on the list you have been given are reflected on our Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Neuroscientists. If not, it would be good to add entries to Wikidata, if possible with good references. Perhaps you could provide some examples of those considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia and we could check whether they are backed by adequate secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
This reminded me @Mvitulli of this discussion on women neurosurgeons from last year Lajmmoore (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I added a couple of names to the Women in Red page after I created the subcategory Neuroscientists in the Category of Biologists. I believe I added Rachel O. Wong and Janis Weeks. Not sure if they pass prof test. Mvitulli (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your additions, Mvitulli, but red-linked names need to be backed by sources. I've added references to Emily Sylwestrak, Rachel Wong and Janis Weeks. Maybe someone will now write their biographies.--Ipigott (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I will add sources when I make further additions to the list. Thanks again, @Ipigott. Mvitulli (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Mvitulli: I've now completed my update of the list. I hope it now provides a better overview of women neuroscientists. Many of the individual biographies could of course benefit from additional attention.--Ipigott (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks so much Ipigott. How do we link Rachel O Wong in Wikidata to the Wikipedia page for Rachel Wong. I still have several names on my list to add to the page of women neuroscientists. Mvitulli (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I suggest Rachel O Wong should be deleted from Wikidata as the pertinent info is under Rachel Wong. Perhaps Tagishsimon can look at it.--Ipigott (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate items in WD are merged, rather than one being deleted. Done, now at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q89013711 --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Tagishsimon for sorting it out. Not too hot on Wikidata terminology, I'm afraid. I see from Help Merge that it requires quite a bit of experience and expertise.--Ipigott (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I see the article Rachel Wong now points to Wikidata Rachel O Wong but that Wikidata Rachel Wong still exists. Would it be useful to use a redirect?--Ipigott (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm at a bit of a loss to find out how we can encourage further work on women neuroscientists. I've added an item to the talk page of WP:Women scientists but I'm not too hopeful of any positive reaction. Perhaps some of those reading this page will be interested in contributing.--Ipigott (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Casting directors

Hello folks @Jesswade88 wrote this really interesting twitter thread on the lack of representation of casting directors (80% of whom are women) on Wikipedia. There's quite a few women listed at BAFTA Award for Best Casting. I started coverage off with a page for the first BAFTA Casting winner Shayna Markowitz. Perhaps others might want to lend a hand too? Lajmmoore (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of creating Category:Women casting directors - looks like we have just over 100 represented already. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Casting directors --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I've now run the stats - https://w.wiki/6Am9 - after adding occupation=casting director to WD items based on articles being found in Category:Casting directors and its subcategories. WD reports that WP has articles for 238 people recorded as casting directors, of which 114 (47.9%) are listed in WD as male, 124 (52.1%) listed as female. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
And by comparison, there are a staggering ~30k articles on people listed in WD as film directors - https://w.wiki/6AmB - with the m/f ratio there being ~84/16. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Good for Jess Wade! It seems to me that in regard to film, there is great interest in featuring actresses, especially if they can be accompanied by attractive images. Most of them appear to be added by male editors who are no doubt less interested in covering casting directors or film directors. It looks to me as if we therefore need to focus on non-acting occupations in film, perhaps as soon as February. No doubt there are reliable lists on which we can draw. Who are the film experts among us?--Ipigott (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Lajmmoore for pointing this out, and thank you, @Ser Amantio di Nicolao and Tagishsimon for the cat and the Wikidata work. I like the idea of making "Film" one of our February priorities, Ipigott, but I'm less sure about limiting the event to non-acting occupations as there are plenty of editors out there who might be keen on writing actress articles, so let's give them an opportunity to join in our fun as well. That said, I see a benefit in spotlighting the non-film occupations, so maybe we could have two sections in the Outcomes area of the event page, one for non-film and one for on-film?
We could also be thinking about "Film" or "Stage & screen" as our "2024 Year-Long Initiative"; I think it would generate A LOT of new articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Certainly - happy to be of help, always.
I'm wondering if one of the problems with casting directors is something I've seen come up with producers over the years, namely that there aren't a lot of sources discussing them, even in the trade press. So it's difficult to establish notability using some of the traditional methods. It's something I've been rattling around in my brain of late about the various behind-the-camera professions in Hollywood, actually...might require a bit of creativity to counteract. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Great Women Animators

Was trying to remind myself of the name of Bessie Mae Kelley, about whom I heard on NPR the other week (and wouldn't you know, someone has already created the article on her), and I came across this site: Great Women Animators. I doubt that everyone listed meets the notability criteria, but there's quite a bit there for anyone who might be interested in film and television, or in the world of animation in general. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Seasons greetings ??

Who is "Victuallers in Jedburgh"? Triumph by Royal Mail to find my letter box with only my name and town as a clue
the handmade cards I could have sent to those who I dont have the address for this year (like Kaybeesquared)

When I'm not editting Wiki, Twitter or Flickr then I sometimes squeeze in a home life. Part of that is making xmas cards (several pictured at left) and sending them out by snail mail. I sent 2 or 3 this year to Women in Red friends (who I had the home addresses for and to hand). It never occurred to me to send one to a person I did not have the address for. Just after Xmas I got the following envelope with only my name, wikiname, wikiproject and my town on it. Our Royal Mail had triumphed. The card was great and I really appreciate the thought. So can I take this opportunity to show you the card I would have sent (at left) as distinct from the one that @Kaybeesquared: did send me!! (see the envelope top right). She is one of our keenest followers who I know from the Edinburgh Women in Red editathons each month. She was the reserve emerging UK Wikimedian of the year. Best Wishes from Roger (in Jedburgh) aka Victuallers (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

What a cool story! Never, ever would that have happened in Mexico. I do mean never. Even things with my full name and actual address take about 6 months to arrive, if they ever do. Still waiting on Christmas cards friends sent to me in November and messaged me to "be on the lookout for". LOL Happy New Year Roger and all the editors here at Women in Red. SusunW (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
This is great. Confirmation that posties deserve a pay rise! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Victuallers for the thanking on here, and for the virtual handmade card. Much appreciated.

I had every faith in the postal services to find you.. having stayed in four addresses this year and my snailmail found its way to me..and it paid off as you have a less usual name, the other words were clues as you may have had snailmail with them on it! I had written the card in case you came in person to December Edinburgh WiR so gave it a go..

Yes they do a good job in all weathers and so deserve a raise.

As do all the helpful volunteer editors trainers and supporters of WiR like yourself - gratitude is worth more than : Thank you!! Kaybeesquared (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Updating our Template:Women in Red navigation

I have just attempted unsuccessfully to update our WiR nav template for January 2023. Perhaps Oronsay or Rosiestep could handle it.--Ipigott (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Looks great. That was really quick work and just in time for those down under. Thanks, Rosie, and enjoy your New Year's Eve.--Ipigott (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
So pleased you fixed it for us, thank you Rosie. I looked at it a few days ago and was daunted by the prospect.--Oronsay (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Oronsay, Happy New Year! I am so glad I could help with this task It's one of my few 'super powers' (lol). --Rosiestep (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Also metrics

While we're working on updates, Rosie, perhaps you could update the Totals table for 2022 on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics.--Ipigott (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Ipigott, done and pasted here to make it easy for discussion.
Year Portion if
applicable 		Total Daily
average
2015 18 Jul - 31 Dec 11,711 70
2016 28,399 77
2017 28,271 77
2018 27,323 75
2019 27,207 75
2020 30,119 82
2021 26,780 73
2022 18,893 52
Grand total 198,703
As can readily be seen, our total was way down in 2022. I think there are probably multiple reasons for this, including the fatigue associated with the pandemic. One approach for turning this around in 2023 would be longer periods (2-3 months) for our most popular topics, e.g. Art, Education, Music, Sports, Stage+Screen, STEM, Writers. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
There are two other factors in play here; we're no longer manually adding articles-related-to-women to metrics files. But also, the longer a metric file has existed, the more duplicate entries it accretes due to article being moved. For whatever reason, the metrics engine lists and counts the new name of the article and the redirect name, or else the disambiguation page name. This can easily be seen on the metrics pages if you have User:Anomie/linkclassifier installed. Earlier metrics lists are bloated by perhaps 10%. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank's once again, Rosie for your efficiency in displaying the figures. There seems to have been a general tendency for people to contribute not only less to Wikipedia but less to the social networks too. One thing that does concern me though is the diminishing increase between the number of new women's biographies and the total number of new biographies each month. For example, from 27 May 2021 to 5 August 2021 the percentage of women's biographies increased from 18.91% to 19.02%, i.e. a difference of 0.11%. From 20 October 2022 to 29 December (a similar period), the increase was from 19.36% to 19.42%, only 0.06% or about half as much. So we really need to find a more effective way of encouraging editors to write more biographies of women. I've noticed that many of the new male biographies are short stubs whereas those about women are significantly longer. So maybe we should have a drive on stubs? On the more positive side, it looks as if we will soon have created 200,000 new articles since we started.--Ipigott (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
In connection with stubs, I am impressed month by month with the number of useful short stubs created by Aciram, frequently on the basis of articles which exist in other versions of Wikipedia. Perhaps more of us could adopt the same approach.--Ipigott (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I should perhaps also add that despite my efforts, I believe 2021 was the first year we had no WiR contests, not even virtual ones. A couple of editors believed that there was no point in organizing a contest unless we could also provide real prizes. As a result, Lajmmoore appears to have made considerable progress with WMUK in preparing for a contest in the coming months. I hope very much this can go ahead as it would provide a real incentive for writing more biographies of women.--Ipigott (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to suggest that we somehow make more of an effort to recognize participation in Women in Red events along the way, even outside of contests, and particularly in the case of new-ish or infrequent contributors. It could be as automated as a notification that says, "Thanks for contributing X articles to EVENT!" Maybe with a space for light personalization. It probably isn't as important for highly decorated regulars, but to an editor who hasn't had much recognition yet, it can be huge, and you feel like you got something out of the event, even if you didn't "win" anything. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

New article up for AFD

The Elżbieta Jabłońska article was tagged for AFD, I am still expanding it further. If anyone wants to chime in or help, please feel free. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep Kaybeesquared (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Changes to DYK, volunteers needed

If you have participated in DYK in the past, you may want to monitor this discussion thread at DYK Talk. DYK is currently experiencing technical problems due to a backlog of nominations and a shortage of volunteers who are willing to help *promote* hooks to "prep sets".

It looks like an RFC will be proposed to set expiration dates on DYK nominations that aren't promoted within a specified period of time. Until now, all DYK submissions that were "approved" were generally guaranteed to appear on the main page, but in the view of some admins, this isn't sustainable because they are so short-staffed. The current practice of throttling between 24-hour cycles and 12-hour cycles for DYK apparently causes a lot of strain because there aren't enough people helping when new DYK sets are published twice a day.

(I have now volunteered to promote hooks; it turns out it's easy if you have installed the WP:PSHAW tool and have experience with DYK. You also don't need need to commit to promoting entire sets; they are completed collaboratively, so you could just promote one or two hooks here and there and try to achieve a balance, as long as you are not involved in the hooks you are promoting as a contributor or reviewer.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, Cielquiparle. A few years back it was relatively easy to participate in DYK but many of us have been discouraged by the increasingly long-winded discussions and the time-consuming process of achieving consensus. A recent example is the DYK on Galina Pisarenko. From Talk:Galina Pisarenko, you can see that we've now reached ALT15 and it's still not over. Under these circumstances, I'm afraid I'm not enthusiastic about participating although I always appreciate those who do.--Ipigott (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Ipigott, that discussion is not typical, but it's not atypical for that nominator, whose goals are very different from DYK's goals. It can take quite a few suggested hooks before we can find one that will meet both sets of goals. Also one of the main participants at that particular nomination seems to believe that lengthier arguments are more persuasive, which means that particular discussion is even longer than typical for one by that nominator.
I think in 50+ nominations I've made, I've had maybe a handful that required more than a couple of exchanges among nominator/reviewer/promoter. That's a much more typical experience for nominators who've done more than a few DYKs. Valereee (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Cielquiparle, Valereee: For your information, every day I look systematically at Template:Did you know/Queue to review all the new DYKs about women and their achievements. Those which cause the least problems are of course those on articles which have reached GA status. Many of the others are the result of sensible nominations but I keep finding quite a few which have required considerable attention, including some of the articles which I have created myself and which have been kindly nominated by others. I am often able to improve the hooks myself and speed up the acceptance process. My interest here is is to list successes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Showcase and on any specific WiR topics listed on the articles' talk pages. On average, we have over 50 DYKs on women each month, sometimes as many as 70. That means that on most days, about two of the DYKs are about women. The most productive months are of course those when there are weeks listing two sets of DYKs each day. I may be mistaken but I believe DYKs about women encourage others to contribute similar articles and generally highlight the importance of women's achievements.--Ipigott (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • How do we end up with a backlog of nominations? Wouldn't the QPQ by design make it a 1:1 nomination and reviewed nomination ratio? Obviously not entirely because new editors don't have to do the QPQ, but in general, this should be a self-fixing issue. SilverserenC 22:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
    The qpq does work pretty well. It's the promotion to prep that is the issue. Valereee (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

International Women's Day, March 8, is fast approaching and one of two articles will be honored that day on EN-WP's Mainpage as the "Featured Article". If this interests you, you can vote: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Good luck to the candidate articles and their editors. Rosiestep (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me as if some of the "Recent successes" on WikiProject Women in Green could be listed as candidates - or is it necessary for articles to have achieved FA status? If so, there are also a few of those.--Ipigott (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Ipigott This selection is only for FA. If you click on the link there are two nominated FA articles to choose from. GA can appear as DYK on that date if nominators request it. Not sure how early one can request special holding for DYK, though. SusunW (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I left a thread about it at: DYK International Women's Day, March 8. The earlier they are aware of this, the better. — Maile (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Now I've finally understood the process and voted for Eunice Newton Foote. Hope this now goes ahead.--Ipigott (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Priyamvada Gopal

Hello editors, I wondered if any colleagues who are more familiar with the works of Priyamvada Gopal than me, might be able to help expand the content on her academic research? This is as a result of a suggestion on the talk page on how to resolve some ongoing questions on how to present her profile in the media. Many thanks in advance Lajmmoore (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to organize Feminism and Folklore 2023

This was on my talkpage but I think it's better suited here. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Please help translate to other languages.

Dear WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 121,

Christmas Greetings and a Happy New Year 2023,

You are humbly invited to organize the Feminism and Folklore 2023 writing competition from February 1, 2023, to March 31, 2023. This year, Feminism and Folklore will focus on feminism, women's issues, and gender-focused topics for the project, with a Wiki Loves Folklore gender gap focus and a folk culture theme on Wikipedia.

You can help Wikipedia's coverage of folklore from your area by writing or improving articles about things like folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, women and queer folklore figures, folk game athletes, women in mythology, women warriors in folklore, witches and witch hunting, fairy tales, and more. Users can help create new articles, expand or translate from a list of suggested articles.

Organisers are requested to work on the following action items to sign up their communities for the project:

  1. Create a page for the contest on the local wiki.
  2. Set up a fountain tool or dashboard.
  3. Create the local list and mention the timeline and local and international prizes.
  4. Request local admins for site notice.
  5. Link the local page and the fountain/dashboard link on the meta project page.

This year we would be supporting the community's financial aid for Internet and childcare support. This would be provided for the local team including their jury and coordinator team. This support is opt-in and non mandatory. Kindly fill in this Google form and mark a mail to support@wikilovesfolklore.org with the subject line starting as [Stipend] Name or Username/Language. The last date to sign up for internet and childcare aid from our team is 20th of January 2023, We encourage the language coordinators to sign up their community on this link by the 25th of January 2023.

Learn more about the contest and prizes on our project page. Feel free to contact us on our meta talk page or by email us if you need any assistance.

We look forward to your immense coordination.

Thank you and Best wishes,

Feminism and Folklore 2023 International Team

Stay connected  

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Rosiestep @Ipigott for sharing this here. We are forever greatful to the efforts of Wiki Women in red during the last years for being an important pillar for creating and improving women related articles on Wikipedia. We would also like to take forward the invitation this year. We would appreciate your help and support for organizing Feminism and Folklore with Wiki Women in red during the contest period in February and March. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 19:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Este Haim

I think Draft:Este Haim appears to meet notability and is ready for main space. I’d do it myself, but the title is currently a redirect. Thriley (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

There’s a discussion underway at Talk:Este Haim#Proposed redirect; all are welcome to join but as one of the reviewers has been pinged, I would recommend waiting a reasonable interval for his reply before acting on it unilaterally. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks perfectly acceptable to me. Unfortunately there is a general tendency to refuse new drafts of articles which have previously been deleted or redirected. I see, Innisfree987, that you were the one to make the redirect in April 2018 but today's draft provides far more information than the old version.--Ipigott (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
All three of the Haim sisters are rather famous at this point. Apart from being proper Rock Stars in the literal sense, the whole family (including the parents) also appeared with Alana Haim in Licorice Pizza. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Sonita Lontoh

Hello! On behalf of Sonita Lontoh (Q7561890 at Wikidata; Sonita Lontoh at Indonesian Wikipedia), and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've saved a draft article as a user subpage at User:BINK Robin/Sonita Lontoh for editor review. I've tried to draft neutral overviews of her early life, educational background, career, and accomplishments using Wikipedia-appropriate sources. I'm hoping members of this project may be willing to review the proposed article for accuracy and neutrality, before taking live. I've tried to clearly demonstrate notability without reference bombing or including unnecessary detail. I welcome feedback on the draft's Talk page, where I've disclosed my conflict of interest and posted a similar request for editor consideration, or on my Talk page. Thanks in advance for any help! BINK Robin (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

BINK Robin: Looks fine to me. Obviously a woman who deserves an article. Moved to article space.--Ipigott (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ipigott Thank you so much for your speedy assistance! Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ipigott: I see that the Sonita Lontoh article has been nominated for deletion if you and other editors are interested in taking another look at sourcing. Thanks. BINK Robin (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
BINK Robin: As I moved it to main space, I don't feel comfortable about participating in the deletion discussion. Unfortunately, there is a strong tendency to re-delete articles which have previously been removed. Maybe other page watchers will take a look. If you include the Women in Red tag on the talk page, it will no doubt attract more attention.--Ipigott (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, I think it's completely appropriate for both authors and movers to participate in AfD discussions. There's no requirement or expectation that participants be uninvolved. pburka (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ipigott Adding a tag to the article's Talk page makes sense. Can you clarify which tag? I see the WIR template but it looks like that's for either pages involved in an edit-a-thon or initiative, or general pages. Pburka, that's a good point. With my COI, I prefer to leave the discussion to others, but I'll take your comment under advisement. Thanks! BINK Robin (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The basic tag is template WIR. See WikiProject Women in Red- You can also join the project.--Ipigott (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I've added it to the article Talk page. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

March 8th 24-hour event-a-thon

Hi everyone! Victuallers and I were talking last week about doing something special on International Women's Day, March 8th. There was so much enthusiasm a couple of years ago when different countries hosted individual 1 or 2 hour Zoom drop-in events during Ada Lovelace Day (second Tuesday of October). Would there be interest in doing something like that this year on March 8th? What if we had a 24 hour period, where editors from various countries/regions/Affiliates could sign up for a 30-minute or 1-hour or 2-hour spot to host an in-person and/or Zoom-ish drop-in event related to missing articles or images or Wikidata items in your country? It would be up to each country/region/Affiliate to set up and facilitate its own event, but anyone who's interested and awake during that time could attend. Something like this:

Draft table for participatory events on 8 March 2023
Time (UTC) Country/Region/Affiliate Point of contact Language Virtual
(add your Zoom/Google link here
at least 1 hour before start time)		 In-person
00:00 The moon username virtual & in-person Foo University, 123 Main Street.
01:00 Wiki Women Hula hoopers User Group username virtual only
etc.

Rosiestep (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm all for activities liable to attract more interest in Women in Red but I'm not keen on taking part in on-line events myself. If any new articles are created or if any new members come along, I'll try to follow up. Maybe some of the other language groups related to WIR already have something in mind.--Ipigott (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Following up leads is vital Ian. I've just been loading images donated by Carol Ann Whitehead who led the Ada Lovelace Day at the Pankhurst Centre which got us into the local papers and on a New York Radio show (thanks to the helpful assistance of WMF - need to tell them earlier!!). I will reach out on Twitter to see if our previous partners are free as I think NZ and or Australia are very important for a 24 hour event and so impressed with recent work there. Victuallers (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Information about Disinformation

Rosie and I have been talking to @FPutz (WMF): as she is trying to find about disinformation on wiki which is an important subject. I won't influence you with our experience as I think she is interested in finding out your experience. I said that WIR was an open and friendly project and we have no bosses so she should discuss it here. I said I'd introduce Ziska ... and here I have. Victuallers (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I see she contacted us last April on human rights: see here.--Ipigott (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
offtopic interjection
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am not sure if you are talking about me. But what was eventually "published" about me was horribly inaccurate. Although I initially went through a paid editor the content that was published was NOT what I wrote and would have gotten me into huge trouble. When I try to convey the truth I am questioned. This has been an extremely humiliating experience. Linda Gerdner (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
One more thing. I absolutely DID NOT CONTACT ANYONE IN APRIL about disinformation. I did not even know how to contact you in April. In addition, I had been working with the paid editor and he showed me what exactly he submitted. I realize now that he is not a credible person, but I think he is telling me the truth, when he says the edits that were made on the "published" page where done by an editor at wikipedia, again I was listed as a geriatrician. There was a complete list of references that had incorrect information with author names. Any yes, it was published for all to see, it made me look stupid. There are a number of big names within the health community that I know. Recently that was a change a wikipage to correspond to what this person had told the press that very day. Her wiki page even said that the page had been edited on the very day of the news announcement on Fox news. You even have a disclaimer that your editors are volunteers and wikipedia and something to the effect that wikipedia is not responsible for inaccuracies. I wanted so desperately to have a wikipedia page. Those in the field know that my contributions are important. The American Academy of Nursing knows, also. Linda Gerdner (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@Linda Gerdner Thank you for all your responses. Please rest assured this particular discussion section has nothing to do with you. I would be happy to continue further discussion on your Talk page and will reach out to you there, if you have any further questions or concerns. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Well I certainly did make complaints about misinformation when my page was posted after being edited by wikipedia. And I certainly have many thoughts about this entire process. You know my name and my background, however many editors have fictious handles that seem extremely unprofessional to me. They get to remain anonymous - how convenient. Every wikipedia page that I have seen is focused on the persons accomplishments. One person mentioned something about me including future plans. I am working now on a children book about an underserved population in another country. The first thing editors would have done is delete that content since it is a dream not reality. Now I know why I was advised against doing this in the beginning.
I originally sent through Wikicreators (I think that was the name) and was told they are band from submitting contents to Wikipedia. The editor was upset that they keep using pseudo names to earn money. They have a website (business) that is advertised on the internet, not to difficult to shut them down before they scam others. What is so difficult about that.
I was asked to work on and create a draft for review and a person volunteered as my editor. I worked on the draft on a word document and asked how to submit. I did not get an answer. So I finally submitted it the only way I knew how. I apparently did not use the correct approach and everyone was quick to respond to my mistake. I have never encountered anything like it.
I tried to submit my professional photo with the draft. The system would not allow me to do that, because of copyright. It was my professional photo, it was created for that purpose. Than an editor said, why did you want to add a picture. I know someone who is on wikipedia, she has make less contributions than I have but she has hype, her page as a miserable blurry photo. I could not understand why she would include that photo when I have seen so many nice photos of her. Got to follow wikipedia rules. Linda Gerdner (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

New article for Ellen Granberg

New article created for Ellen Granberg, the incoming president of George Washington University in the United States. She didn't even have a Wikidata item until today. Any help appreciated! - Fuzheado | Talk 16:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Tipton Female Seminary

I would be happy to have help with this declined draft submission. FloridaArmy (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I have added a link and a picture - you do realise that the AfC process is voluntary. Anyone can publish after they have hung around a bit. I did look at the review and I can see that its mostly about the blokes that ran it. A photo of the building or some stuff about how seminaries were key to establishing female education etc etc and mention maybe the ages of the girls or women who attended. Was this one of dozens in the area? ... or the only one within a week's ride? HTH Victuallers (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Victuallers I am under an editing restriction for creating too many short articles on notable subjects (and saving a lot of others at AfD). I am required to submit my drafts through AfC and am generally not allowed to participate at AfD. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
At the time your restrictions were put in place four and a half years ago, 46 of your articles had been deleted, and the participants in the ANI discussion were quite clear that your submissions were frequently being brought to AfD because their notability was not apparent. You were topic banned from AfD because other users found your contributions there to be little more than unexplained votes. Do not mislead other editors or, more importantly, yourself, on why those restrictions were imposed. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Malvina Latour

I just declined this draft of a (possibly legendary) purported voodoo queen from New Orleans. She seems like a fascinating subject, so perhaps someone here wants to take this one up. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The article looks OK to me. A couple of iffy sources which could with "citation needed" but fine I'd say for main space as-is. Victuallers (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
The addition of a University Press book about her seems to make her notability unquestionable; I've moved her to mainspace, tidied her up a bit and added some categories. More work needed, but seems to belong in mainspace. PamD 13:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Oops, I misread the title of the book: it isn't about Latour but about Marie Laveau. I think there are still enough sources, though the article may need some tweaking. There are several mentions of her in the book. Will work on it. PamD 14:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I dont think this is an appropriate article in this state. It is a detailed "biography" based on questionable sources of someone who, according to the best source I've seen, probably didn't exist. I'm glad PamD is working on this because it is really not much better than a hoax article at this point. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: I've done all I plan to do. The Wallace source, a 6 page typescript of a series of interviews, looks convincing: the researcher was talking to someone who definitely existed and says she was called Lala. PamD 23:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
PamD (talk · contribs) Another reliable source lists Lala and Malvina Latour separately in its glossary -- I think this article conflates the two, who are two separate people. We can't be relying on a primary-source interview of "Lala" without a basis to think that is Malvina Latour. The article also relies on a source that has been shown to conflate Malvina Latour with Madame Lott, a third person. It's basically a huge mess. I'd like to move it back to draft.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay I've cleaned it up. There's not much left once all the sources conflating her with different people (or about different people) are removed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I think moving it back to draft would be reasonable at this point. What little info is left could be merged to other pages. JoelleJay (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I wonder where @MMiller324: found sources which show that Lala = Malvina Latour? We seem to have evidence for the existence of "Lala", and descriptions and text about Latour, but none of the sources seem to link them. Perhaps there is scope for a separate article about Lala, including the Wallace source, the song lyric reference, etc. PamD 09:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
One item to consider here is that it is not Wikipedia potentially inventing a person, but historical sources are doing so. I noted this on the talk page for Latour's article. Latour is, for better or worse, in multiple books about voodooism in New Orleans. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_121&oldid=1137361978"