Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 143

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 140Archive 141Archive 142Archive 143Archive 144Archive 145Archive 146

Wikipedia has more than 2 million bios

Exciting news. While updating the statistics via Humaniki just now, I discovered that in the last week Wikipedia has reached the 2 million mark for bios, of which 19.81% are female. (The actual percentage is 19.814% which we have always reported to two decimal places.) The march to 20% continues! Oronsay (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know if this is the first time we've been over 2 million? (Considering the number might fluctuate some with deletions and such.) That seems like a pretty big milestone to reach. Whether it's the first time or the fifth, congratulations WiR! Penny Richards (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Oronsay! Exciting milestone! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, long-expected. It is the first time - deletions do not stop the upwards trend. The female % also rises, but now pretty slowly. We discussed this a while back, with better statisticians than I contributing. Does anyone know the link? Johnbod (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Johnbod, the last few discussions I could find were January 2024, August 2023, July 2023 and April 2023. TSventon (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks - I had August 2023 in mind, but the others are relevant. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
To explain the slower growth in the percentage of women bios, I would imagine pouring warm 30°C water into a barrel of 15°C cold water. If you keep pouring at the same rate the temperature in the barrel will rise more slowly as the amount of water in the barrel increases and the temperature in the barrel gets closer to 30°C. If the water is poured more slowly the temperature in the barrel will also rise more slowly. (That may or may not make things clearer and would not work in real life.) TSventon (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I have done a summary of Women in Red's statistics by year, as published on the project page starting in mid June 2016. In 2017 the percentage of women bio articles increased by 0.70%, while in 2024 (to April) it only increased by 0.24%. This can mostly be explained by a 36% increase in the number of bios (1.5 million to 2 million) between 2017 and 2024 and a reduction of 45% in the annual growth in the number of bios (101 thousand to 56 thousand) in the same period.
See updated version below
Summary of Women in Red statistics
Year Women Bios Percentage Increase in % for year Increase W for year Increase B for year Percentage for year
2016 223,035 1,369,927 16.28%
2017 249,823 1,471,151 16.98% 0.70% 26,788 101,224 26.46%
2018 273,099 1,547,649 17.65% 0.66% 23,276 76,498 30.43%
2019 291,649 1,632,191 17.87% 0.22% 18,550 84,542 21.94%
2020 318,844 1,723,693 18.50% 0.63% 27,195 91,502 29.72%
2021 344,238 1,818,170 18.93% 0.44% 25,394 94,477 26.88%
2022 365,133 1,894,095 19.28% 0.34% 20,895 75,925 27.52%
2023 380,835 1,945,199 19.58% 0.30% 15,702 51,104 30.73%
2024 396,434 2,000,749 19.81% 0.24% 15,599 55,550 28.08%

TSventon (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, TSventon, for producing this interesting table. It might be useful to include a copy on our Metrics page where it can be consulted by those interested.--Ipigott (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Ipigott, thank you, I could do that. Do you or Rosiestep have any stats for July 2015 or thereabouts (date, women, total bios)? For the metrics page I could see if there are figures for calendar years. TSventon (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
This is grand, TSventon!! The information on WiR's mainpage addressing "October 2014 = 15.53%" is based on the information in this article; I can't tell if the article addresses the number of women's biographies, and number of human biographies; I can only spot the percentage. The information is probably there; maybe someone else can find it. That said, when it comes to "maths", I rely on Victuallers' expertise, ergo, pinging him. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Yay! I did my first 2 WIR bios this past month, so hopefully they have helped boost the percentage :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Hitting 2 million is a significant step. Well done everyone. I like the water analogy and I guess thats how it has felt over the last nine years. I hope WiR raised the profile of gender bias and I would hope that many editors would have modified their direction when picking "their next article". They may not have decided to do only women from then on, but if their interest was Swedish WW2 fighter pilots then they may have decided to do all of those women pilots first as "tall poppies". Obviously as time progresses then they may return to blokes as the number of available notable women reduces in the area they are interested in. As we know the chances of getting a gender balance this year is unlikely. We have found the women who were at the battle of waterloo ... and there still dozens of notable blokes who were there. I wonder if it is possible to use the water analogy to work out what the percentage is that we are iterating towards - sadly it wont be 50% if we include all the long dead notable blokes. The good news is that we have seen evidence that 50% may be possible now! if we excluded footballers and concentrate only on contemporary women..... and! ... that Wikipedia continues to grow. If there are no new articles then change is not possible. (Hopefully not everyone is going to switch to tidying talk page templates) Victuallers (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Victuallers, if the number of biographies continues to grow and the percentage of women being added averages 28%, then the overall percentage would iterate towards 28%, albeit slowly. That assumes that nothing much will change in the future, which is unrealistic. There will be more contemporary bios to write with a higher percentage of women and a dwindling pool of 19th-century European men without articles so the percentage of women in new articles may well increase. TSventon (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Let's be realistic. We might be able to reach 20% this year, 21% in two or three years time and perhaps 23% within the next ten years. But I don't think we should worry too much about these numbers. What is equally important is that Women in Red should continue to cover notable figures from a wide range of interests, demonstrating that women have played a key role in the past and continue to do so today, perhaps even more significantly. The main reason we are not able to cover higher percentages is that men continue to receive wider press coverage as well as more general recognition for their efforts. Future success will therefore depend more on the development of sources about women which are suitable for use in Wikipedia than simply the efforts of our contributors. But I certainly agree that it is something of an achievement that some 240,000 biographies of women have been created since 2015, more or less doubling the number back then. I am currently devoting more of my time to encouraging and assisting new contributors as I believe they will be the ones who will best be able to ensure our future success.--Ipigott (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Ipigott, I agree with your comments above, but how did you get 240,000 biographies of women created since 2015? I couldn't find any statistics for July 2015 and the October 2014 paper was based on 893,380 biographies with gender which may exclude a lot of biographies of unknown gender. TSventon (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @TSventon:: My figures are approximations based on the table on our Metrics page (total 216,628) with an additional number of biographies so far this year as shown in the figures for January to April. On rechecking, the total seems to be more like 223,000 (rather than 240,000) but now that you have found a figure of around 209,000 for September 2015, it does indeed seem as if we have more or less doubled the number of women's biographies since we started in mid-2015. Some of the figures on our Metrics page may be rather too high as in earlier years we included women's works, organizations, etc. For recent years, however, they should coincide exactly with the figures from Humaniki on our main page as they only cover biographies. I would also like to point out that there are a fair number of articles which Wikidata counts as only one biography (if at all) although they actually cover two or more women. These include closely associated entertainers, singers and sportswomen. But this is certainly also true of men. (Apologies to those of you baffled by 240,000 -- I should have been more careful.)--Ipigott (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I wondered about that too - it would mean we only had c. 160K female bios before, which I don't think is right. And "more or less doubling the number back then" would imply there were something like 240k "back then". I don't think the number of bios with no/unclear gender was that significant by then either. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
If 26,788 women's bios were added in 2015-16, the same as in 2016-17, then there would have been 196,247 in June 2015 and that number would have doubled to 396,434 in April 2024. The number added would have been 200,187. According to the linked article "To obtain gender meta-data for biographies, we match[ed] article URIs with the dataset by Bamman and Smith [7], which contains inferred gender for biographies based on the number of grammatically gendered words", which suggests that counting articles by gender was not trivial in 2014. TSventon (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I have done some more research and found a Wikidata report from 30 September 2015 produced by Jane023 following a conversation here. That suggests a 90% increase from 209,060 in September 2015 to 396,434 in April 2024. I have updated the summary below.
See updated version below
Summary of Women in Red statistics
Year Women Bios Percentage Increase in % for year Increase W for year Increase B for year Percentage for year
Sep 2015 209,060 1,307,779 15.99%
Jun 2016 223,035 1,369,927 16.28% 0.29% 13,975 62,148 22.49%
Jun 2017 249,823 1,471,151 16.98% 0.70% 26,788 101,224 26.46%
Jun 2018 273,099 1,547,649 17.65% 0.66% 23,276 76,498 30.43%
Jun 2019 291,649 1,632,191 17.87% 0.22% 18,550 84,542 21.94%
Jun 2020 318,844 1,723,693 18.50% 0.63% 27,195 91,502 29.72%
Jun 2021 344,238 1,818,170 18.93% 0.44% 25,394 94,477 26.88%
Jun 2022 365,133 1,894,095 19.28% 0.34% 20,895 75,925 27.52%
Jun 2023 380,835 1,945,199 19.58% 0.30% 15,702 51,104 30.73%
Apr 2024 396,434 2,000,749 19.81% 0.24% 15,599 55,550 28.08%
Total 187,374 692,970 27.04%

TSventon (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping - yes this looks about right. We could step it up a bit by including more bios of women who are connected through relationships with men as more info about them has surfaced thanks to improved genealogical research online. I am referring to all those pesky royals and other notable women who married, had several kids, and then died in childbirth. They are often listed on Wikipedia pages for fathers/sons/husbands but lack their own pages because there are no reliable sources specifically discussing them. These women have had lots of additional coverage in the past twenty years, if only as heirs of their father's or brother's goods, or as pretty sitters of portraits, or as participants in significant events, or as owners of artefacts in their dowry. Many of the last century do have Wikidata items, but not enough statements to warrant a whole Wikipeda page (yet). I have tried but cannot find an easy way to extract such names from existing Wikipedia pages (due to the age-old problemm of married vs. maiden names). With three sources and three incoming links, such bios have a good chance of survival. Jane (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • According to an update here the September 2015 figures were not human only. Hence I have updated the figures again to show a 93% increase from 205,814 in September 2015 to 396,434 in April 2024.
Summary of Women in Red statistics
Year Women Bios Percentage Increase in % for year Increase W for year Increase B for year Percentage for year
Sep 2015 205,814 1,299,047 15.84%
Jun 2016 223,035 1,369,927 16.28% 0.44% 17,221 70,880 24.30%
Jun 2017 249,823 1,471,151 16.98% 0.70% 26,788 101,224 26.46%
Jun 2018 273,099 1,547,649 17.65% 0.66% 23,276 76,498 30.43%
Jun 2019 291,649 1,632,191 17.87% 0.22% 18,550 84,542 21.94%
Jun 2020 318,844 1,723,693 18.50% 0.63% 27,195 91,502 29.72%
Jun 2021 344,238 1,818,170 18.93% 0.44% 25,394 94,477 26.88%
Jun 2022 365,133 1,894,095 19.28% 0.34% 20,895 75,925 27.52%
Jun 2023 380,835 1,945,199 19.58% 0.30% 15,702 51,104 30.73%
Apr 2024 396,434 2,000,749 19.81% 0.24% 15,599 55,550 28.08%
Total 190,620 701,702 27.17%

TSventon (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott and Rosiestep: I have added a version of my summary to the metrics page. Feel free to move/ remove as you see fit. TSventon (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@TSventon:: Looks good. And thank you for your enterprising efforts.--Ipigott (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
This is a great visual and historical record. Thank you, TSventon; appreciate it. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible case of mistaken identity: suffragettes Elsie and Mathilde Wolff Van Sandau

A source from the British Library suggests the two may actually have been one woman going under different names. Looks like something interesting to investigate if anyone wants to improve the page! ForsythiaJo (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just checked "Rise Up, Women!" by Diane Atkinson, which is a 2018 book documenting over 200 suffragettes. She doesn't have any Wolff or Van Sandau in the index at all, but that might be because it was before the medal was found. EEHalli (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
ForsythiaJo, I suggest moving this conversation to the article talk page and pinging the author. The article should probably be rearranged and moved to Mathilde Wolff Van Sandau unless there is equally strong evidence that there were two different women. Presumably an article about one woman would be added to the Women in Red statistics. TSventon (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
ForsythiaJo and EEHalli, I have started a discussion here. TSventon (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Collective Biographies of Women - Madam La Compt not exactly a biography

I started working on the Madam La Compt from WIR Collective Biographies of Women and found out that she's a composite character over multiple generations of Mme. Marie le Comte's family, so I have broken the article down into the "Legend of Madam La Compt" and "The women who inspired the legend and their men" (could be a better title, but working with it at the moment), with subsections for four generations (five with a set of parents).

It got traction because it was in a non-fictional book Pioneer History of Illinois by Governor John Reynolds, who claimed to know the "woman" for 30 years. According to sources, he knew two or three women.

It would be really helpful if someone could take a look at the approach to see if it makes sense. I think the story has become more interesting and I look forward to learning more about the women and their families. I hope it makes sense to keep it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Since I posted this, I added the category Biography (genre) and have been expanding the story about the people that the story is based upon. I know it's just been a day, but does no answer mean no worries?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
CaroleHenson, it is possible that page watchers have left your question in the hope that a more expert editor will answer. I found the article a bit confusing, possibly because I know very little about Illinois. I suggest starting with a sentence like
  • Madam La Compt is a character in the Pioneer History of Illinois written by Governor John Reynolds (1788–1865).
TSventon (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks so much, TSventon! I knew it needed help. I have been a bit stuck. I tweaked your suggestion a smidge and rewrote the rest of the paragraph, so I hope it sounds better now.
Where this is headed is so unorthodox that I wondered if it was going to be considered a viable article. It looks like it is, so that's really good. I have more to come - particularly about Illinois, so I'll try to tie it together better.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
A few quick edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Errors in metrics

@PamD: Further to the earlier discussion of Louis XIV's elephant I tried editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/February 2024 and saw a message "To remove an entry, turn the whole line into a comment. If you just delete it from the page, the bot may add it back", so I have commented it out. The page has since been updated without reversing my edit. TSventon (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about this, but found the earlier conversation here. The problem was with rubbish information being added to Wikidata in the first place, but thanks for working out how to get rid of the resulting nonsense! PamD 07:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I thought there were three problems: first rubbish info on Wikidata, second the bot doesn't correct the metric when Wikidata is corrected and third no one seemed to know how to correct the metric manually. I thought that posting here would help with the third problem. Apologies for not linking to the conversation, it only got archived yesterday. TSventon (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Eleanor Heartney

Is this art critic and author Wikipedia notable? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi FloridaArmy, I just did a quick search in newspapers.com here and from the number (251) and tenor of the articles, it looks like she warrants an article. In the first article that came out, she's the first person to respond the the article title "What are art critics good for?" I like her answer.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Great! Thanks CaroleHenson, that is helpful. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Problematic edits to the bio of Camera Bartolotta

It looks like this bio of Camera Bartolotta is in need of immediate help. It appears to have been changed in April with unhelpful editing (or possibly even bias/vandalism) that wasn't fixed; in addition, it was just changed again yesterday by someone who may have ties to the senatorial district office that this biographical subject represents, creating what appears to be a Conflict of Interest situation. (The individual who made the most recent edits may have initially been trying to make a good faith series of corrections to reverse the potential bias/vandalism, but ended up adding phrasing that has now made the bio read more like a political campaign ad than it does a C or B-class Women in Red article.) In my humble opinion, the majority of edits from April 28, 2024 through May 17, 2024 should probably be reverted, but I don't have the time to take this on by doing a series of manual edits and don't have the administrator rights to do a large-scale vandalism reversion of so many changes. Is there a more-experienced member(s) of the group who could take a look at the bio to see if something could be done to fix the issues that it currently has? Thank you in advance for your response. - 47thPennVols (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

If you just want to revert to an old version, you don't need any special rights: go to the article history, click on the date of the version you want to restore to get a view of that version, then click on "edit" (getting a warning that you are editing an old version) and save your edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you, David. (I finally figured out how to revert everything thanks to your help, and was able to take the article back to the last acceptable edit; so, problem solved!) - 47thPennVols (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
47thPennVols if this keeps happening, you could try Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. The editors involved seem to be fairly new, so semi-protection could help. TSventon (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Very helpful suggestion. Thank you! - 47thPennVols (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red June 2024

Women in Red | June 2024, Volume 10, Issue 6, Numbers 293, 294, 308, 309, 310


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 07:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

About tagging article talk pages

Quick question: do members of this WikiProject prefer if talk pages are tagged for any new article about women, or just articles made during an edit-a-thon or other WikiProject-related event? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd think the banner should only be added when the article has been created or substantially improved by an editor who had WiR in mind at the time. PamD 06:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I generally have WiR in mind when creating articles about women in STEM but am pretty neglectful about tagging them. Sometimes I have gone back and tagged a batch of them. I'm not requesting anyone else to do it for me, but I also won't be offended if anyone wants to do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
After all, look at the wording: "This article was created or improved during the xxx hosted by the Women in Red project". You can't just add that to all new articles about women: the creating editor may have never heard of WiR or may have a philosophical objection to our existence. PamD 06:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! To be clear, I wasn't thinking of tagging a bunch of new women's articles en masse, only my own drafts. Looks like that shouldn't be a problem. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@TechnoSquirrel69 Ah, I misunderstood. There's always the "1day1woman" ongoing editathon if your article or draft doesn't fit elsewhere! PamD 07:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I frequently come across new biographies of women which coincide with the priorities of the month but either do not have a talk page or have a talk page without the pertinent WiR tag. In some cases, if the articles are created by someone who has recently become a member of WiR, I add the tag on the talk page and list the article on the relative meetup page. Quite a number of experienced editors seem to feel talk pages are a waste of time and leave their creation to others. More importantly, some of our most productive contributors simply add WikiProject Women in Red or WIR 2024, probably because that is easier than looking for the meetup number. In connection with PamD's concerns, this simply reads "This page is of interest to WikiProject Women in Red" and can therefore be widely used. (This might be an easy solution for those wanting to cover a batch of articles.) Many non members list WP Women in Red. They are aware of the project but prefer not to become members and sometimes do not even create a user page. In general, I think we should leave WiR tagging to those who create or improve articles. As a result of our metrics, we are able to monitor all the women's biographies created month by month.--Ipigott (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses, everyone! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC notice on DYK and BLP

There is currently an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#RFC on DYK and BLP policy. Given that this is a biography related project, I am placing a notice here. All editors are welcome to participate.4meter4 (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I would encourage participation in this discussion although you should be prepared to spend some time on reading the background. There have been cases in connection with women's biographies when reviewers have tried to promote a more negative hook than the one originally suggested in order to attract more page views. In one recent case, this resulted in the withdrawal of the nomination.--Ipigott (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Temporal shenanigans

I'm working on Draft:Vivian Cosby with FloridaArmy and I've run into a temporal discrepancy in the sources. According to this source from 1947, Cosby's house burned down "four years ago", so somewhere around 1942-1943. But now I've run across this source from 1940 that says her house burned down "nearly two years ago", so putting it in 1938-1939. And I'm not sure what to do with this. If I had to guess, the former short piece was just dramatically wrong on its dates?

Figuring this out is important because she was horribly burned in the fire and had to be hospitalized for three and a half years. She only returned to her career after recovery, but immediately went into screen writing production on three plays at the same time. So a big thing for her career. I definitely have to go with the latter though since there's also this massive article entirely about her life and recovery and it's also from 1940. I just wanted to get thoughts from everyone else here. SilverserenC 16:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The 2nd source above is precise: 1 Jan 1939. I'd use and cite that date, perhaps using "quote" field in the ref, but add something like "(although a 1947 source referred to the fire as "four years ago")", with source and quote, acknowledging that source not least so that someone in future doesn't come up with it and change the date! I can't read your 3rd source, on phone, but presumably it supports the 2nd. Interesting and brave woman! PamD 17:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
2nd source also gives "now 32" at 16 Oct 1940, so hou can get a calculated year of birth range. The lead seems to take her letter literally, disagreeing with the other sources. PamD 17:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Pam. This confirms early 1939. This gives hospitals she was in in 1939 too. So it seems pretty clear. SusunW (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
1938-1939 is more credible as the 1940 sources can't be writing about a fire in 1942-1943. Presumably you want to use the 1947 piece to say that she was hospitalized for three and a half years, so I would suggest noting the discrepancy in a footnote. The accounts are so similar that it is unlikely that there were two fires. TSventon (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Silverseren I suspect your death year is off by 1 year. her death certificate shows 1963 and birth date of 6 June 1901 in Boston. That is confirmed by a birth record #5388 giving parents of Richard Cosby and Susan L. Dodsworth (which matches mother's surname on the death certificate). No clue if she actually married this guy, the the clipping confirms her father's name, age, and gives her schooling info. You could also use the photo. SusunW (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Evaluating notability

Hello everyone, I'm not quite sure about the notability of some of the German-language women writers and poets I'm currently writing about: I would be glad if you could help me out.

Draft:Kerstin Becker

Draft:Alexandra Bernhardt

Draft:Mara-Daria Cojocaru

Draft:Kerstin Preiwuß

Draft:Slata Roschal

Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The simplest way of finding out is to submit them for review! I have added some relevant projects to the talk pages, some of them are probably already to be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Takeru Watanabe The relevant notability criteria is WP:NWRITER if that helps. Theroadislong (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
If the articles are translated from German Wikipedia, that should be noted in an edit summary, e.g. Content in this article is translated from the existing German Wikipedia article at [[:de:Kerstin Becker]]; see its history for attribution.. I did Becker as an example. TSventon (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Actually, I don't just merely translate the articles from German to English but try to adapt, improve and expand them. I also try to use sources as appropriate as possible. So, I'm not sure whether it's necessary. Takeru Watanabe (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
In that case you could use similar wording to Ipigott, for example "inspired by the Danish article Alice Vestergaard, creating article on the Danish journalist Alice Vestergaard" at Alice Vestergaard. I took my wording from Help:Translation#License requirements. It is useful to note if some of the text is a translation so readers can check the original wording, which is not always obvious if there are several language versions. TSventon (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense, referring to the German article when creating a new draft. But what if the draft or article is already created? Takeru Watanabe (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
You could do a dummy edit now, e.g. adding a space, with an appropriate edit summary as I did with Kerstin Becker. TSventon (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I understand the trick with the dummy edit. I would like to see your dummy edit as an example but I can't find your edit in the revision history of the site Draft:Kerstin Becker. Am I looking in the wrong place? Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
You were looking at the wrong time, perhaps I failed to click on publish earlier, you should be able to see my edit now. TSventon (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Splendid, I now have been able to check out your edit and will carry on. Thanks for your support. Takeru Watanabe (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Takeru Watanabe: I have looked quickly through all these drafts. It seems to me that on the basis of awards and critical assessment, all of them are notable enough for mainspace. I should point out that notability does not just depend on your own creations but on overall recognition in appropriate secondary sources. You might find it useful to check whether they live up to the criteria behind our Ten Simple Rules. I see from your talk page that in some cases you have already received reactions from AfC editors which you should try to take into account but as you have already created three articles, you can move your creations to mainspace yourself if you are confident they are up to standard. I would encourage you to become a member of Women in Red where we can try to help you along. You can join under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    Hello, Ipigott, thank you for your reply and your helpful tips. Also, thank you for having had a look at my draft articles. I will happily join the Women in Red WikiProject. Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

"El Paso librarian takes love of knowledge to Wikipedia"

Wonderful interview featuring Megalibrarygirl posted here yesterday, via elpasoinc.com. -- Rosiestep (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Librarian in Residence
👍 Like Way to go, User:Megalibrarygirl! Appreciate your work and have enjoyed collaborating, too. Congrats! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh fabulous @Megalibrarygirl! Well done! Innisfree987 (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to see this is unavailable in Denmark for legal reasons. If it's available elsewhere, please let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Ipigott try here at Wayback Machine. TSventon (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, TSventon, for this enterprising solution. The article presents many of Megalibrarygirl's activities and achievements but she was no doubt too modest to talk about all the assistance on sourcing she has given to others interested in developing articles about women. She has served for many years as our Librarian in Residence.--Ipigott (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll second that thanks, having also not been able to read the article from the main link, from the UK. The Wayback Machine is a wonderful thing! Congratulations, @Megalibrarygirl, on a splendid interview, and thanks for all your work. (There are a lot of us librarians and ex-librarians editing Wikipedia: I guess it goes with the territory of making information available to the people who need or want it. "Every person his or her book", or rather "Every person his or her Wikipedia article", to update Ranganathan's Five laws of library science!) PamD 15:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Bravo Sue! Lovely article. Really love that "writing about people who aren't necessarily good as a way to get more insight". I much prefer discovering people who have depth and complexities too. It makes all of the "gray-areas" of life so much more relatable. SusunW (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Nice image of you in the playground (sandbox?) editing :) --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for your kind words about the article! It was definitely a high point for me! I have been through a lot the past few years, but Wikipedia is always my touchstone. I am so glad that I met everyone working on this project and I'm looking forward to contributing more in the future! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

"Carmelita"

After creating the article on Jeanne C. Smith Carr, and coming across so many sources about her home, "Carmelita", I decided to write the article about that place, which she converted into something quite unique. My struggle has been with the article title. I wanted to name it "Carmelita", as that's how it's referred to in sources, but the quote marks made me skittish and WP:Article titles did give me confidence to go for it. Instead, I named it, Carmelita (Carr estate), though it's never been referred to in that way. Carmelita (Carr property) (now a redirect) might be better, or Carmelita (Carr house), or Carmelita, Pasadena, or Carmelita (Pasadena, California), or maybe something else. At this point, I think I'm too into the weeds to have a good perspective. Opinions on what to call it would be welcome. -- Rosiestep (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Carmelita (Pasadena) or Carmelita (Pasadena, California) seems best. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I like the latter more, personally, per existing naming conventions. SilverserenC 01:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it seems Pasadena, Texas, which I had never heard of, has a similar population size, so it had better be Carmelita (Pasadena, California). Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, @Johnbod and Silver seren. I've shifted it to Carmelita (Pasadena, California). --Rosiestep (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

TIME100 Women

If anyone needs ideas for new articles, it looks like there are five women on the TIME 100 list for 2024 who don't have articles yet: Rena Lee, Rachel Goldberg-Polin, Lauren Blauvelt, and Kelly Sawyer Patricof and Norah Weinstein. ForsythiaJo (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

And as a note, have we done checks of previous years' TIME lists for women who might be missing entries on Wikipedia? ForsythiaJo (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the ideas. I have had a go at Rena Lee. Impressive lady! Balance person (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I think I made one for Kelly Sawyer Patricof, and I submitted one for Norah Weinstein, so hopefully that gets approved. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Sawyer_Patricof. I'll work on Lauren Blauvelt tomorrow. Thank you! MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the update, I have imported the text of Kelly Sawyer Patricof into the main English wiki. I'll also take a look at Draft:Norah Weinstein to see if I can help improve/expand it. :) ForsythiaJo (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you SO much for doing that! I'm brand new to wikipedia (I read about the Project Women in Red recently and jumped on to try to help, so I didn't even realize I put Kelly Sawyer Patricof in the wrong place. So, thank you! MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I just made a draft for Lauren Blauvelt: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Lauren_Blauvelt Let me know any other ways I can help; thanks so much! MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Joey Wat

Hi all. I disclosed a COI on the Joey Wat page about a female CEO and requested an expansion of the early life section almost three months ago. I'm trying to comply with WP:COI by not making any edits myself. I was hoping editors here could evaluate the proposed expanded early life section and collaborate on other improvements. Coreyhcooper (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Coreyhcooper: I've updated Early life from the draft.--Ipigott (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder: Shakers in America: Wikipedia Edit-a-thon

Just wanted to post a quick reminder for anyone who might be interested that the Shakers in America Edit-a-Thon I'm doing with my choir will be this Saturday. The event page is currently live, and there's still time to sign up. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder! I added an article this afternoon for the event: Lillian Barlow. Time zones meant I wasn't really simultaneous with the other participants but I was with you in spirit. Penny Richards (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Ser Amantio di Nicolao, I uploaded several Shaker hymns to Commons and have more to upload in the days ahead after I'm back home from traveling. The hymns are ripe for Wikidata items, if they don't exist already. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Rosiestep and Penny Richards: I realize it's been a few weeks now, and I apologize for being such a laggard, but I wanted to thank you both for your participation and assistance in this. I think the event went very well, and people enjoyed it a great deal...not to speak out of turn, but we might be thinking about doing another one next year, even. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Blanche Mary Chaning

Is this poet and illustrator/artist notable? FloridaArmy (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure, but I did find some more sources that may be able to establish notability and could be used to flesh out the article: Anti-Vivisection society memoriam, The Presbyterian book review, Poem published in Time, The Literary News book review. ForsythiaJo (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@FloridaArmy: I added some content, sources, and a photo. Enough I think for notablity. You can probably pull more details (exact place of birth) from the biography by her brother, but I focused on other sources. Cheers, Rublamb (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@FloridaArmy: Given our prior collaborations, I went ahead and published. Rublamb (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Anyone for a German photographer (1884-1945)?

Suse Byk cropped up as the the photographer of Zinaida Jurjewskaja, my XYZ Musician, an Estonian (or German or Russian, according to sources!) operatic soprano whose career was cut short when she jumped into Schöllenen Gorge ("Fate of Opera Star: A Mystery That Agitates Berlin" in the Edinburgh Evening News, etc). Byk has articles de:Suse Byk and in Czech and Italian wikis. Here's a short English bio, from a site "Sisters of the lens" which might give other ideas to anyone interested in photographers. I can't summon up enthusiasm for Byk, though am still busy creating redirects from the umpteen spellings of Zinaida's surname (occasionally Sinaida!).

Next job is to find an interesting and notable LBGT+ woman, preferably a musician or an XYZ. PamD 15:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

That's quite a find. A goldmine on Commons too (including this and this). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I have made a start here Suse Byk but supper in the setting sun is calling me. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
This brief start certainly needs substantial expansion. There's a good, well-sourced biography in German. Why not draw on that?--Ipigott (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Because I was having supper and the German article is poorly sourced and I don't read German. Theroadislong (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Writing about a trans woman

Could someone more familiar with writing about trans people please cast an eye over Anette Egelund? (Re my yesterday's comment above: yes, I found an interesting and notable LGBTQ+ person to write about, even though she isn't a musician or an XYZ!)

There's a lot more about her life which could be added from the sources (I don't read Danish but feel fairly confident in working from a Google translation and comparing it with the Danish text if in doubt, as I know English and some German so it's not totally alien), but I'm not sure how to handle pronouns for someone whose political activity was before they transitioned, and so on. There are a lot of published sources giving both names, so I don't think there is any problem about "deadnaming" in using Hugo as well as Anette in the article (in fact the redlinks to Hugo in List of members of the Folketing, 1988–1990 were already piped to Anette). I'd be grateful for any help or comments. PamD 12:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The short answer is that we use the subject's current name, pronouns, etc. throughout, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity, which uses Elliot Page as an example. I am sure someone else will have more detail. TSventon (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Cordelia Camp

I picked this one off of a redlist, and I would appreciate some help getting it ready to be an article. I would also like a second opinion on whether they are notable. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Give me a moment. More references incoming. SilverserenC 00:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Alright, QuicoleJR. I've got a lot more work for you. :P There's probably more sources to find, but here's what I've got after a quick search. Definitely more than enough to show notability.
Sorry for dumping a bunch of sources on you, but finding stuff is one of the things I'm best at. Several of these you can just use as references for reviews of her published books, rather than them having to absolutely be used in the biographical text proper. SilverserenC 01:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I will add these to the draft shortly. Thanks for the help! QuicoleJR (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
By the way, I don't really know how the upload system works, so do you think that you could help with the picture? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I can, but it will need to be after you're done with the article and have moved it to mainspace, QuicoleJR, since I will need to use the photo in a non-free manner, which would only be allowed in the mainspace article about the person in question. SilverserenC 01:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. I should have it done in a day or two with those sources you found. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Were you still working on this, QuicoleJR? SilverserenC 02:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I got distracted. I'll try to finish it soon. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Silver seren: I published the article. I also think that your sources show notability for Camp's biography of Swain, so I'll put it on the to-do list. Thanks again for all your help. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay, QuicoleJR, I've uploaded and added in the photo and I also threw the references not currently in use on the article's talk page so they don't get lost when the section over here is archived. SilverserenC 20:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Secretaries of State of New Mexico

Attention @Elisa.rolle: and other interested contributors...

over on Commons, commons:category:Secretaries of State of New Mexico has the official portraits of the female Secretaries (which is most of them) uploaded; however, most are too new to be in the public domain through expiration of copyright. These images are not federal works, and unlike California works by officers of New Mexico are not automatically PD. I have therefore nominated the problematic photos for deletion at Commons, but local copies can be kept at Wikipedia if they have a non-free use rationale template attached to them. Thank you for your attention. Arlo James Barnes 22:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It is more or less impossible to get approval for non-free photos of living people on the English Wikipedia. The only way might be if there is some specific event that is so central to their notability that we need a photo of the event, rather than of the person. It would also be unlikely to pass muster to use such a photo, even of a deceased person, in the context of a list like the one in Secretary of State of New Mexico#List of New Mexico secretaries of state. However, we probably could keep a local copy for Shirley Hooper, Ernestine D. Evans, Betty Fiorina, and Beatrice Roach Gottlieb, at least. Additionally, the list linked above has many names of people who don't appear to have articles and maybe should. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
As I mentioned at the discussion page at Commons, the portraits between PD year and 1989 may still be PD through the various exceptions laid out at c:Commons:Hirtle Chart (published without notice, copyright not renewed, etc.), so this should be checked. Curbon7 (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Secretaries of State of New Mexico

Attention @Elisa.rolle: and other interested contributors...

over on Commons, commons:category:Secretaries of State of New Mexico has the official portraits of the female Secretaries (which is most of them) uploaded; however, most are too new to be in the public domain through expiration of copyright. These images are not federal works, and unlike California works by officers of New Mexico are not automatically PD. I have therefore nominated the problematic photos for deletion at Commons, but local copies can be kept at Wikipedia if they have a non-free use rationale template attached to them. Thank you for your attention. Arlo James Barnes 22:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It is more or less impossible to get approval for non-free photos of living people on the English Wikipedia. The only way might be if there is some specific event that is so central to their notability that we need a photo of the event, rather than of the person. It would also be unlikely to pass muster to use such a photo, even of a deceased person, in the context of a list like the one in Secretary of State of New Mexico#List of New Mexico secretaries of state. However, we probably could keep a local copy for Shirley Hooper, Ernestine D. Evans, Betty Fiorina, and Beatrice Roach Gottlieb, at least. Additionally, the list linked above has many names of people who don't appear to have articles and maybe should. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
As I mentioned at the discussion page at Commons, the portraits between PD year and 1989 may still be PD through the various exceptions laid out at c:Commons:Hirtle Chart (published without notice, copyright not renewed, etc.), so this should be checked. Curbon7 (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Calling for any European royalty/nobility history experts

A sizable batch of unreferenced articles on European monarchs and noble women have been tagged as "Unreferenced" in June 2024. If you have expertise as a researcher in this area and have access to reliable sources across various languages, please have a go at reviewing this list and adding at least one citation to the articles worth keeping...and give some thought as to what should happen to the rest. Because otherwise, the default outcome might be to delete or redirect to one of their male spouses...and maybe that's not always the right choice. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Phoolan Devi (again)

Hello, I've nearly got Phoolan Devi on the front page and there's a request for an image of her at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests/Phoolan_Devi. If anyone can point me towards a free to use image of Phoolan Devi, that'd be helpful, although I feel like users including @GRuban have already tried their best. Cheers! Mujinga (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Can someone good at 'formalizing' help me with the draft for Gianna Bryant?

Hello! First off, thanks for your patience and help, as I'm new to wikipedia and riding the learning curve.

I recently started a draft for Gianna Bryant https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Gianna_Bryant and I had no idea I was wading into such a tough/contentious article. I just went to the women in red redlist index, looked for a subject I was interested in (sports), and chose a name I was at least semi-familiar with and was surprised didn't have a page.

So, I made a draft, but apparently there was a huge discussion at the time of her death where the consensus was that she wasn't notable enough outside of her dad (Kobe Bryant), and her name would redirect to him.

However, when learning all this through comments and the Teahouse, I was told that if I could make a case that she's become more notable in the last 4 years that maybe things have changed and she would be notable enough for her own page.

Well, Nike's had 2 shoe releases in her honor, the WNBA now gives out a yearly award with her name attached, there was a basketball camp done in her name in honor of what would've been her 18th birthday, etc. So, with things that have occurred in the last 4 years, it seems to be that people are actually potentially accepting her notability at this point.

But now the issue is that my draft isn't written in a formal enough tone and that perhaps there's too much in the death section. (You can read the note they left at the top of the draft article.)

I'm not the best at formal writing (though obviously I'm working on it, if I want to help with this Women in Red project), but since this particular article is so contentious, I'm wondering if anyone out there has a desire to help make the article sound more formal, and potentially edit out part of the death section, and just generally get this up to wikipedia standards before I just keep climbing this (unintentionally) uphill battle alone?

Sorry and thanks so much! MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I took a quick look at your draft and did some minor formatting, however the content as it stands is totally unsuitable for an article it would need a complete re-write after WP:TNT. Theroadislong (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Most of the "Death" section is about the crash and covered in another article so needs to be removed. And you refer to "Mambacita" a few times but have never stated that it was her nickname (which I presume it was, to make sense of the mentioms). That nickname and its appearance as brandname might, possibly, be a reason to claim notability for someone who was otherwise a teenage daughter of a celebrity with little claim to fame. There was a statue of Kobe and Gianna placed on the site where they died just for a day in Jan 2022: has that statue been completed and found a permanent display? That sort of thing might contribute to her notability. PamD 07:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
This suggests that a statue is planned but not yet there. PamD 08:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi and welcome @MoreWomenOnWiki! I know it can definitely be tricky to get the hang of “wiki voice”, but it’ll happen sooner than you think! I made some edits to the first section of the body of the entry, in case that can help give a sense of the encyclopedic tone that’s needed (it’s rather different from the tone of a lot of the coverage of her death, I imagine). I also trimmed some of the detail out of the death section, removing things that weren’t explicitly about her. The next step I would say is to try to summarize that section more concisely; for example, the tick-tock of the helicopter flight isn’t strictly necessary to a WP biography of her; it’s meant to be an overview or summary of why she is notable, rather than granular detail like that. I hope these suggestions are helpful. Don’t hesitate if you have more questions. Welcome to Women in Red! Innisfree987 (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, Innisfree987. I may try my hand at some simpler/easier edits before I try working on this page again; we'll see. I appreciate your help! MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
@MoreWomenOnWiki Having now had a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Bryant (2nd nomination), which was almost unanimous in opting to redirect her name to her father's article, I think perhaps you should just give up on this article. In that discussion only one person, a now-blocked editor, voted "Keep": others were divided between "redirect" and "delete", but the closer went for "redirect" on the basis of the little bits of notability. It might be quite dispiriting to keep trying to get this article approved at AfC, and if it ws to get to mainspace it might well be nominated for deletion again. The previous version which was deleted in 2020 was well sourced and neutrally written, but the contributors to the AfD discussion agreed that she simply was not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I doubt that anything much has changed in 4 years. Sorry, but that's how it is. PamD 11:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey Pam, thanks for looking into this, but as I stated above (though I know my post was a bit long, so maybe you missed it), I didn't know about those when I first wrote it, but as I got the first denial, I was talking about this/learning more in the Teahouse https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse (which my understanding is a place with experienced editors) and they said that if things changed in the last 4 years, she may be notable enough to deserve her own page now.
In the last 4 years, she has had a yearly NBA award named after her. And she had 2 Nike shoes released in her honor (for what would've been her 16th and 18th birthday). She had a basketball camp played in her honor/under her name. Also, it didn't say these things in her deleted Wiki article (because I don't think these had happened at the time), but she had a tribute done by the University of Connecticut (the school where she was eventually expected to play), who said she was "forever a husky." She was an honorary member of the 2020 WNBA draft class, and the day school where she was currently a student at the time of her death retired her jersey number. So, I actually think a lot has changed in the last 4 years that should speak to her notability. And when I made that case in the Teahouse, someone even agreed that it seems she is notable enough on her own now. (Of course it probably needs more consensus than just one person, but it seems like enough has changed to merit a re-look/re-discussion.) And the most recent reason for deletion from the draft I made was style/tone, not notability (not to say that couldn't happen, but it doesn't seem to be the *current* reason).
I probably will do some smaller edits/get more comfortable on some more straightforward articles before resubmitting it, but I do think there's a strong case for resubmission if I can get the tone right. MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
OK, so we have (a) a well-written previous article which was converted to a redirect because she was then thought not to be notable enough and (b) some new information which perhaps makes her notable (the brands etc), and (c) a draft which has been declined twice, first for notability on 1 June and then for "tone" on 3 June.
The previous article was pretty good for tone, and well sourced too - eg it had her full name, which you hadn't included in your draft, and it explained "Mambacita" with two good references. It might be best to rescue it and add the new content, the additional claims to notability which have arisen since that 2020 AfD.
I don't know what the process is for rescuing an article which was previously moved to a redirect and adding more content to show current notability. I think it might be OK to revert to the version which was AfD'd, add a {{under construction}} template, and then carefully improve the article over a short period of time by adding the new content, without undue detail about the crash which is covered elsewhere, and stressing the new things commemorating her in particular. And making a redirect from Mambacita (which really ought to already exist and redirect to her father's article, as the nickname/trademark is explained and referenced there). But I'd be happier if someone else commented on the procedure. I think the page history of the earlier version needs to be preserved, as is pointed out in one of the comments at AfC, and this might be the better way to do it. @Robert McClenon and Anachronist: might be able to advise, as the two decliners? Since the conversion to a redirect there have been a lot of edits to the article, but the net effect of them was just to add a useful batch of categories. Presumably doing "Restore this version" for the 15:28, 28 January 2020 version would be the way to start such a reconstruction? PamD 13:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
The Mamba and Mambacita Foundation would be worth more of a mention too: see here and its home page. PamD 13:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
And another point I've just noticed: "Retrieved" should mean "I looked at this article online on this date and it supported the content I've added here". It's important so that if the online link stops working someone knows which version to go back to, or if it changes content we know that you were using what it said on date "x". You have a lot of references "Retrieved February 9, 2020" and similar, though you don't seem to have been editing that long. Does that mean that you just copied a chunk of someone else's work, refs and all? Or, I hope, that you followed up the references from another article, looked at the online source yourself, but then copied the actual formatted reference as being easier than working out how to do it (we all do that sometimes, it's not a problem), but without updating the "access-date"? I'm slighty surprised that neither of the AfC reviewers picked this up, but I suppose once you've decided to "decline" a draft there's perhaps no point wasting time looking at any possible further concerns.
There's a huge amount to learn about editing Wikipedia but it's an interesting journey. I'm sorry you've launched off with what turned out to be an unexpectedly contentious topic! Good luck with it all. I think I'm now just about persuaded that Gianna/Gig/Mambacita should have an article (with a lot of incoming redirects from all the versions of her name!) PamD 14:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
@Ipigott: I see you've just done major surgery on the draft. What do you think about the idea of resurrecting the original article, with its history, and grafting into it the new content? PamD 14:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
There's a bit of a non-sequitur: "In the 2020 WNBA draft, Gianna Bryant, Alyssa Altobelli, and Payton Chester were made honorary draft picks", but there's no mention of the other two girls elsewhere. Looking at 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash shows that they were included in "Gianna Bryant together with her father and family acquaintances died...", but if they're worth a mention then they need a bit more explanation! (This happens, of course, when chunks of an article are stripped out: loose ends are left.) PamD 14:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
@Theroadislong: It looks like WP:TNT has been done as you suggested, give it a look.
@MoreWomenOnWiki: @PamD: The recent changes to the draft are a vast improvement.
Merge in what you can from the history in article space, and expand the lead a bit so that it summarizes the body text, and it should be ready to go. Ping me when it's done and I can do the necessary things to merge the edit histories in article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Yep...well done everyone. Theroadislong (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
It looks like material from the deleted version is already there. Probably just one sentence needs to be added to the lead about the helicopter crash and legacies. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I was going to argue that it seemed unfair on the creator of the original article for them not to get the credit for the revived version... but they seem to be a blocked editor, so I don't care so much about their rights! PamD 17:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Blocked apparently for acting out after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Bryant (2nd nomination). That looks to me like a one-time incident rather than one of our long-term problem editors. Let's hope they did or will eventually return with a more constructive attitude instead of being driven away from Wikipedia editing for good. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
User:PamD, User:MoreWomenOnWiki - I see that an article has been accepted, which presumably answers the original main question, which would have been how to get the draft to be accepted as an article. I don't think that I will comment any further, because we have accomplished what we were trying to accomplish. You may ping me if there are any questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I will comment that I tend to be very cautious in accepting a draft when an article on the same subject has been deleted after AFD, and other reviewers are more willing than I to review and accept such a draft, especially if they have seen the deleted article and know that the new article is better. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • The article has now been moved to Gianna Bryant and the histories merged, so although User:MoreWomenOnWiki doesn't appear as the original editor, we do have a complete record of the various versions it has been through (creation a few times by a now-blocked editor, re-creation by a now-banned editor ... quite a saga!) I've added the {{Old AfD multi}} template to the talk page too, for completeness. I guess something to take away from all this is how important it is to check before starting an article or draft: if there is an existing redirect, have a look at its history to see whether there was a previous article which could be retrieved and improved. I've done quite a bit of work improving the article but it still has some bare URL refs I couldn't find the enthusiasm to fix. PamD 07:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Procedure (rules?) for creating a previously deleted article

Thank you PamD for going to all the trouble of re-establishing the article's history from previously deleted versions. I must say I was rather surprised to find that earlier versions had in fact existed and after over 18 years on Wikipedia am still confused about the procedure for re-creating a deleted article. I have now looked through Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages but could not find any specific recommendations on the need to re-establish an article's history. Does this apply to all deleted articles or only to those which have become redirects? It might be useful to draw up more detailed explanations, perhaps also adding something to our essays.--Ipigott (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott (Dealyed reply because some quirk means that I can't reply on WP Project talk pages when editing on my phone, and I've been away from my computer for a few days!) It wasn't me who re-established the history. I put in a WP:RM to get the article title back to its natural title of Gianna Bryant, and then others more familiar with situations like this (@Ahecht and Pppery:) decided that the history should be merged and did so. I'm sure the result is appropriate: it shows the entire complicated history of the article, including its previous creation, conversion to a redirect a couple of times, etc. It's perhaps disappointing for @MoreWomenOnWiki: that they don't get credited with the creation of the article, but everything now shows in the history, as it should.
I think we've all had a reminder that when creating an article, if we find a redirect occupying the title, we need to have a look at the history of that redirect in case it shows that there has been a previous article at the title. If there has been, I guess the appropriate thing to do is to create the new article there, overwriting the redirect, but I'm not sure how that "new" article gets picked up, if necessary, by WP:NPP - does it have a mechanism for spotting redirects which have been converted (back) to articles? Or should the new article be created in draft anyway, and then a histmerge done when the article is approved at RfC and moved to mainspace to replace the redirect? I really don't know. PamD 07:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
And I note that Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages, which IPigott mentions above, is only an Essay and a Failed Proposal. It certainly doesn't mention this interesting situation of "How to re-create an article which has been converted to a redirect at AfD": I don't know whether there's any advice on that anywhere else. PamD 07:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC),,
Thanks for your explanations, PamD. I don't understand the mechanics of any of this but from here, it certainly looks as if MWOW has received credit for creating the article.--Ipigott (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
That's good, and interesting. It's also credited to its original creator, here, but not to the editor who re-created it from a redirect in 2020, here. Goodness knows how this all works! The page logs show the various deletions and reviews, but unfortunately don't list the creations. At least the page history is now comprehensive.
In looking at the article again... I realised it didn't mention her mother Vanessa Bryant in infobox or text except as the source of a quote about a statue, although VB has had an article since Feb 2022, created by @TJMSmith: and tagged for WIR:222, Women in Sport. Shame on us all that we didn't spot this sooner and ensure that VB was included in the article! Now fixed. (OK, I added the quote about the statue and didn't think to check whether she had an article, so I'm at fault there.)
Has anyone got a source for her place of birth? It's in the infobox but not the text, and should be added, sourced, to the text. PamD 13:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Mrs. E. J. Ottoway/ Ruth Haller Ottoway

Ruth Haller Ottoway

Just uploaded an image to commons of Mrs. E. J. Ottaway (Ruth Haller Ottoway). She was vice president of the National Federation of Music Clubs at the time this photo was published in May 1927. I found this article on her later marriage to composer and conductor Nikolai Sokoloff in The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/1937/05/09/archives/mrs-ej-ottaway-wed-to-musician-married-in-the-home-of-mrs-olga.html It states she was chairman of the National Council of Women of the United States at the time of her marriage and that she was a leader in a number of civic/non-profits of note. She probably would make a nice little article if someone takes the time to dig for more sources. I added her image to Sokoloff's article.4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

CFD on Category:Women who experienced pregnancy loss

Hello everyone. There is an important discussion going on at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 6#Category:Women who experienced pregnancy loss. It's a complex topic with good arguments on both sides for having and not having such a category. Last year, the discussion (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 6#Category:Women who experienced pregnancy loss) ended in no consensus. Your input may be appreciated, especially with reference to relevant policies and guidelines, or similar discussions in the past that have reached clear agreements. Hopefully, we can have a nuanced conversation about it, and find agreement. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Customized training sessions?

Hello team: I'm interested in coordinating with experienced editors to have some custom training sessions for a group of mostly women, in a women-dominated skill/craft. This includes biographies of unheralded women in the field, but is not only bios.

I'm hoping to get grant money to support that. Is there a way to reach out to members who might be able to help create this? I'm thinking of zoom sessions, recorded, that our group can use. I'd welcome pointers to previous examples of this too. Thanks for any guidance. Mmangan333 (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, Mmangan333 and welcome to Women in Red. To answer your question, as a first step, you might find it useful to look through the essay Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon. I would be happy to assist you but am no expert in zoom sessions.--Ipigott (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, I have looked at the edit-a-thon materials and someday want to do that. But what I really need is upstream of that. I have to convince people to want to edit, and want to show them that it isn't onerous. They need the very basics of "Why wikipedia matters" and an overview of philosophy of editing. Also: why women and womens's work is underrepresented. They aren't ready to touch anything yet.
Also: some of them might never edit themselves (many are not tech-savvy or confident), but they could help us manage the project in other ways: review exiting articles, identify absent things, and suggest/prioritize the needs, offer pointers to the references, etc. So I'd like to create contributor roles for them somehow too. Mmangan333 (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Low-hanging fruit? Lady Layard

LADY LAYARD, christened Mary Enid Evelyn Guest, was born on 1 July 1843 ... from short bio, as intro to her 8,000 pages of journals, much of which are online. Currently only seems to be a para in her husband's bio Austen Henry Layard. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Help with new page creation for queer disabled woman artist/author

Hello, I hope this is the right place to post this. I am having trouble getting a new page approved for Draft: Maria Sweeney a living graphic novelist. My page has gotten rejected three times for not having reliable sources, however all sources are notable publications. I am fairly new to page creation and not sure what I’m missing. Can anyone assist and offer guidance? Kapyidu (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem may be Wikipedia notability, which is normally based on reliable sources with significant coverage which are independent of the subject. The sources for Maria Sweeney don't appear to be independent: The Comics Journal, The Philadelphia Inquirer and Publisher's Weekly appear to be interviews and Street Noise Books is a publisher's listing. Ashbury Park Press is not used as a reference, but appears to be independent, albeit in a local publication. TSventon (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your reply. That makes sense for why this would be disqualified, but I'm confused about the reasoning -- why would an interview be considered not reliable or independent? Interviews are a very common form of conveying information about a subject in journalism, and would be fact-checked by the publisher, all of which are independent publishers in my draft. Is there any way to use interviews for this draft? I appreciate your clarification, and I'll re-work to prioritize the Ashbury Park article. Kapyidu (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Kapyidu interviews can be used to add details, but they can not be used to establish notability. It's like just accepting that she believes she is important, if that makes it clearer. Independent, means an organization she is not affiliated with or which contains information she has provided. SusunW (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, SusunW. I know you did not make this rule, but I think this rule is misguided -- the subject doesn't commission interviews. The fact of being interviewed by the Philadelphia Inquirer is evidence of notability. And, given that interviewing is a common and low-cost means of creating content for journals and journalists, I worry this rule further marginalizes marginalized persons. Kapyidu (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The good news is that for novelists (and graphic novelists), the bar is actually pretty low. We can fill in the details of her life from the interviews, but she can be deemed notable through WP:AUTHOR as long as we can find enough in-depth reviews of her works (independent, not pay-to-play reviews, in publications such as magazines that have some level of editorial control rather than taking all reader-submitted content). "Enough", to me, would mean at least four reviews of at least two different works, but others' thresholds may differ. If she only has one novel so far (as your draft suggests) that won't work, and instead it would be better to focus on the novel rather than the novelist, but the standard is the same: multiple in-depth reliably-published reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@Kapyidu, I think there is some confusion about how ‘notability’ is being used. On Wikipedia, it is not used to mean how important someone is. Instead, notability is just whether one qualifies for a page in the encyclopedia, and the standard for that, in a nutshell, is whether there’s enough secondary source content describing the subject that we are able to write a page about them without resorting to original research. Interviews are primary sources (and I don’t think there is general consensus that they are fact-checked?) so they don’t help us with this purpose. I know this is somewhat different from what most folks expect when they first start editing. Reading WP:WHYN may be helpful on this. Even if this page doesn’t work out, I know you’ll get the swing of things in no time! Welcome! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
One more thought. It is true that because of bias in media coverage, this policy means there will be bias against marginalized people in who gets a Wikipedia page, but after many years of editing and hundreds of biographies of living people authored (overwhelmingly from marginalized groups), my experience is that it often doesn’t do a living person any favors to have a sparsely sourced WP page, because it frequently ends up happening that they get a flurry of negative media attention on a single episode (say, if they tweet something that draws opprobrium), and that episode ends up dominating their WP biography even if it’s really not a fair account of their life, just because there aren’t sufficient sources to describe the rest of their life and provide balance. Better to wait for solid sourcing that can develop a substantial entry that won’t later risk being so dramatically skewed by a minor incident.
Also, there are at least thousands of marginalized people who do meet the current standard and just haven’t had anyone write up a page about them yet, so I personally think the best thing to do is to start by writing those pages. We won’t run out any time soon! Innisfree987 (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I added a few refs and links. If it turns out that she doesn't quite meet notability right now, it sounds very possible she will in the future (she is quite young), so... maybe keep the draft in a file someplace, anyway, so it's handy when the moment arrives. Penny Richards (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your work on this draft! These are wonderful additions! Kapyidu (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Here's another source that can help from an issue of The Comics Journal. SilverserenC 00:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! This was one of the interview sources that seemed to cause an issue before, but I hadn't used the Google Books link. I'll add this to the external links. Kapyidu (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_143&oldid=1232459648"