Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

Mabel Atkinson, 1904 Classics lecturer at Armstrong College (now Newcastle University)

I've been pointed to this blog post on Mabel Atkinson, Newcastle's first woman Classics lecturer. The post is recent, being part of a project to highlight Newcastle's civil rights background. I'm about to go travelling, so would someone else like to kick off an article with notability based on historic value or add Atkinson to an existing red-list? --Fæ (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

She has an ODNB article: "Atkinson, Mabel (1876–1958), feminist and socialist". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |num= ignored (help) (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) PamD 22:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
And this at Glasgow Uni looks useful too. PamD 22:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
No problem with notability here. The ODNB has far higher standards of notability than Wikipedia. Go for it. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC).
There's even more complete coverage here, including a photograph. It's probably more useful for me to continue with Scandinavian articles but let me know if you need any help.--Ipigott (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott, thank you for that link, which clued me into her married surname of Palmer, which led me to this: Mabel Palmer. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ipigott, Rosiestep, Fæ, and PamD:. I am going to make a redirect from Atkinson to Palmer and I will try to expand it, but my internet is still winky. The Oxford piece makes it clear she had two separate careers under different names. SusunW (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
A nice illustration of how important it is to provide redirects from every imaginable version of a subject's name! I see that the Mabel Palmer article included mention of her birth name Mabel Atkinson from the start, but without a redirect. The ODNB article doesn't show her married name at all conspicuously: the sixth paragraph, of eight, starts "On 2 July 1914 in Kensington, Atkinson made, in Cole's words, ‘an unfortunate marriage’ to an Australian journalist, Andrew Robert Barratt Palmer (1886–1948). When war broke out he joined up; in 1920 she followed him to Sydney but left and moved to Durban, South Africa, in early 1921. Then began a second career, under her married name, teaching economics and economic history at Natal Technical College, Durban (later Natal University College) ...". It's great that we've now got the two identities linked.
Making redirects from full formal versions of names often leads to incoming redirects from former redlinks in things like lists of award winners etc which used full names, and redirects from maiden/married surnames, with all variations of forenames, are also important. Keep on adding the redirects! PamD 18:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
True dat PamD it is why I typically argue against those secondary guidelines, especially ones which give weight to single aspects of someone's life or publishing. With women, those guidelines are very discriminatory, because not knowing a name, can result in losing a ton of biographical information as well as "works". SusunW (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I've made a bit of a start but my internet has been down more than up today. If it comes back where I can actually work, I'll do more. But right now, I type a sentence and then have to wait twenty minutes for the internet to come back to save it. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad one little link helped to sort all this out. But I must say, I am amazed at the poor coverage of Armstrong College on Wikipedia. As a former student of both Kings College, Durham University (note the red link), and the later University of Newcastle upon Tyne, I am amazed at Wikipedia's poor coverage of Armstrong College. Maybe those of you who work mainly in English could try to make some improvements. There is absolutely no mention of Newcastle's greatest citizen William Armstrong who founded it. I know we should only be dealing with women here but from time to time, I'm really disappointed to see how misleading Wikipedia's coverage can be. But if I were to start correcting all the failings of the historical coverage of items like this, then I would have no time for improving coverage of women.--Ipigott (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ipigott:, yes the "dab page" at Armstrong College is a mess - not a dab page but an attempt at two stubs in one, the first of which needs to refer to William Armstrong, 1st Baron Armstrong. Might have a go at it some time, hopefully before a dab page purist guts the present page. PamD 22:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ipigott: In fact the most detailed history seems to be in Edward_Fenwick_Boyd#College_of_Physical_Science, to which College of Physical Science was piped in Newcastle_University#History. I think I'll leave it to someone more familiar with the labyrinthine history of the two universities and their predecessors. PamD 22:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Internet seems to be working today. I finished the expansion. If anyone else can add additional data, that would be great. I found no information on a building at Westville Girls' High School, but maybe someone can document that claim? SusunW (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Rape in Kashmir Conflict (again)

I'd like to bring interested members to the attention of yet another merger request for Rape in the Kashmir conflict. The merger proposal is here. See what you think and weigh in. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Chrissy Gephardt

Chrissy Gephardt has been nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrissy Gephardt SusunW (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Drafts for women in tabletop RPGs

I have a few articles that I moved to draft space to work on them, and was wondering if anyone can help me find sources to improve them. BOZ (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This is likely to be challenging, but drafts give you at least six months. I suggest you look for contemporary reviews and press from the mainstream media and/ or their home towns. Do you have access to high wire press or any other historical newspaper search sites? Stuartyeates (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

June 2017 offerings @ WikiProject Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's June 2017 worldwide online editathons.

File:Nefertari.jpg

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question re: wikidata

How does wikidata determine if the subject of an article is a woman? Categories? Hmlarson (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is only if the sex or gender field is female. SusunW (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmlarson: There are bots which examine the categories appended to new articles in the English Wikipedia in order to create a new Wikidata entry including "female" or add it to an existing Wikidata entry. If no obviously female categories are present, the Wikidata entry is then usually coded manually or on the basis of information coded in a box.--Ipigott (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

A couple of drafts on academics

For whomever has the inclination to improve them, here are a couple of long-lingering draft biographies on women academics. Both are clearly prominent and well-published in their respective field, and better sources (such as reviews of their work) could almost certainly be found:

In trying to move this one to the mainspace, I seem to have lost your editing summary. Perhaps someone can restore it.--Ipigott (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Not just that - the entire history seems to have been lost somehow. I don't understand how this happened. Could an administrator look into this? --Hegvald (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I found the history and asked Bishonen for help in rejoining the fragments of article history back together (she has done that kind of thing before). --Hegvald (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Pamela Clemit is now a redirect to Pamela Clemit; but before moving it there, Ipigott had first moved it to Draft:Main:Pamela Clemit [sic]. I don't blame them in the least, I wish I had a penny for every time I've done a move like that; it's the over-helpful interface that trips us up. However, Ipigott, it would have been better to go on to move Draft:Main:Pamela Clemit, now the bearer of the history, on to Pamela Clemit. But I suppose I can merely merge the histories of Draft:Main:Pamela Clemit and Pamela Clemit, ignoring Draft:Pamela Clemit. Let me think for a minute, because it makes me a little nervous. Courage, Bishonen! Thank god none of them have talkpages, because they're the worst. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC).
Done. The history is now at Pamela Clemit, complete with a stupid move in the wrong direction by me for all to see. So it goes. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC).
Thanks Bishonen for your help. Next time I make this type of move, I'll be more careful.--Ipigott (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Arghh. I've asked for help on ANI. Bishonen | talk 21:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

Please note the possibility for confusion between this Barbara Wright and another Barbara Wright in the same field, Barbara Wright (translator). (I made that mistake a while ago.) --Hegvald (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Wright clearly passes WP:PROF by virtue of her membership in the Irish Academy and European Academy. I moved the draft to Barbara Wright (professor) and (per Hegvald) added a disambiguation note at the top of the page. The article could still use improvement, though, and I have to go offline for a while, so if anyone is interested please go ahead and work on it without worry about interfering with any edits from me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

photo help

I need help on a photograph for the article Ukrainian Women's Union. The caption on this photo [1] reads "This work is in the public domain in Ukraine. This work is in the public domain in Ukraine, because it was published before January 1, 1951 and the author (if known) died before that date. If the author was rehabilitated posthumously after, the copyright on his works is valid for 70 years after rehabilitation (Article 28.6). Reason: reverse the law of Ukraine on Copyright and Related Rights of 1993 and the expansion of the term of copyright from 50 to 70 years in 2001

Ukrainian or Soviet work that is in the public domain in Ukraine, according to this rule is in the public domain in the US only if it was so in Ukraine in 1996, that was published until 1946 and its author died this date and copyrights were registered in the United States. (This is a common retroactive effect of the law of Ukraine on Copyright and Related Rights of 1993, Ukraine's accession to the Berne Convention in 1995, and US law 17 USC 104A with the critical date of 1 January 1996" EXCEPT, that is baffling to me, as the photograph depicts an organization of women who were not living Soviet Ukraine but instead, at the time it was taken in 1937, lived in Poland. The organization was formed from ethnic Ukrainians living in Poland, so wouldn't it be Polish copyright that was in question? I don't understand the politics of the copyright and really just want to use the photo. It matters not to me if it is in commons or must be loaded as fair use, but I don't know how to load it. Is it or is it not in the PD? Can it be used on the said article? SusunW (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

If the photograph was taken in 1937 and then published, it looks to me as if it should be public domain, whether it originated in Poland or Ukraine. You can simply upload it onto Commons on the basis of this. Although the book was published in 2010, it should not alter the copyright on the photo. There are also lots of other old photos in the book which you can view by turning the pages.---Ipigott (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Ipigott. I guess my question would be, how do I know if it was published in 1937? On the other hand, the publication of it in 2007 (the date on this book) would indicate that 70 years had passed, so maybe that is why they published it? The PD info for Poland says "published in Poland without a copyright notice prior to May 23 1994", but how do I know if there was a copyright notice? I truly struggle with this stuff, as is apparent. Takes too much time away from writing. Uffffffff I'm just going to load it as fair use and move on. If it is eligible for commons, someone there who is more knowledgeable can confirm all the legalities. SusunW (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The main thing is indeed that you can use it to illustrate the article.--Ipigott (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Ipigott. Yay! Photos really do make the articles more human ;) SusunW (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sophia Parnok

I think that the article we have on Sophia Parnok is in dire need of work and was wondering if for PRIDE month we wanted to collaborate to improve it? Maybe even take it to good article? There are many, many sources in English. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] I have no doubt there will be others and surely for anyone with language skills there will be other language sources. Anyone game? Pinging some I hope will be interested, @Another Believer, Ipigott, Megalibrarygirl, Rosiestep, and Victuallers:, but would welcome help from anyone willing to improve it. SusunW (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Yay! I worked through a few sources to flesh out her life up to her first publishing. Am off to do real life stuff if anyone else wants to jump in. SusunW (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I added a few little bits; I like collaborating too.Penny Richards (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
SusunW: As I've explained before, my Russian is pretty rusty and I think my time is better spent on finding sources and developing articles where I can draw on my knowledge of Scandinavian and Western European languages. But if you need assistance with any specific problems, just drop me a line.--Ipigott (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Yay Penny Richards add away. There's much to be done. Heck, I haven't even made it through one whole source yet. LOL Ipigott no worries. I think there's plenty of English sources to keep us busy. Thanks for the offer of help if we get stuck, I may well take you up on it ;) SusunW (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Another Believer, Ipigott, SusunW, Rosiestep, and Victuallers:, I'll be happy to assist. I have JSTOR access, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Yay! Megalibrarygirl If somebody wants to start working through the "Marina Tsvetaeva period" that'd be great. There are lots of sources on that section. I think we also need to then do a section on her the "Censorship period" (1917-1931) and probably a "works" section. I thought I might work through one of her later amours and see if that yielded any useful info. SusunW (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Chrysanne Stathacos up for deletion

Chrysanne Statchacos' article is up for deletion. She is a very well-known artist with an international exhibition record decades long, as well as major grants & fellowships, and museum collections. Please contribute to the discussion HERE. Netherzone (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Xxanthippe, the second sentence is not canvassing. She is a well-known artist with an entry in North American Women Artists of the Twentieth Century. Her being well-known is merely a statement of fact. Please assume good faith of Netherzone and do not try to create controversy where there is none. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep.--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2017 (UT

Interesting article on "How To Get More Women On Wikipedia"

I just came across this article by Lily Silverton on Refinery 29. It gives a pretty good overview of the problem, with quotes from Roger Bamkin and myself.--Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

In this connection, I note that now that Press has been moved away from the main WiR page, it is only getting about one page view per day compared to well over 100 for the main page itself and about 50 a day for this talk page. Even worse, our page on Research is only viewed once every few days. Under these circumstances, it hardly seems worthwhile to maintain them.--Ipigott (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Coverage of pre-20th century women

I was pleasantly surprised to receive Rosie's invitation to work on pre-20th century women in June. The topic obviously covers a vast variety of women and their works, addressing all walks of life and areas of achievement. Over the past few days, I have been looking quite carefully at the Wikidata lists for women from Scandinavia and countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Given the huge number of notable women who have not yet received articles on the EN wiki, I was wondering whether it would be advisable to try to ensure the inclusion of as many as possible over the next month by writing short, informative articles rather than the longer, start-class or higher biographies most of us seem to prefer. One of the reasons I suggest this approach is that I constantly come across articles in foreign-language encyclopaedias which are brief but informative. If highly respected biographical dictionaries and lexicons adopt this approach, why shouldn't we try it out too? At a time when the number of new articles per month on WiR is on the decline, it seems to me it might be both preferable for the project and for the overall enhancement of the all important English language version of Wikipedia to add three or four informative stubs a day rather than just one longer article. Furthermore, the existence of a stub might well encourage editors interested in the countries in question to add a few details. Worth a try?--Ipigott (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I like this idea, but the thing that drives me absolutely bananapants crazy about doing this is the inevitable drive-by AfDs and follow-on work to save the article. Especially when the sources are in a foreign language - seems like there's a ton of folks out there that don't appreciate that if you're doing a WP:BEFORE search on a, say, a Spanish person you might want to search Google Espana. Any tips on how to head that off at the pass? I don't have the "autopatrolled" flag on my account yet, despite the fact that I've been here ~9 years. (I'm slow and methodical, I guess). --Krelnik (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Krelnik On the autopatrol thingy, it is really straight forward. Create 25 articles which aren't deleted and apply here Autopatrol request If you are uncomfortable nominating yourself, just ask someone here to do it for you. As for not getting articles nominated for deletion I would say the number one factor is stating in the lede why someone is notable. If one starts off with she was the wife/daughters/sister of X rather than she was the first licensed veterinarian in X, it is likely to catch some patroller's eye. Next make sure you have multiple reliable sources. Few women's biographies can be written based on only 1 or 2 sources. And you are totally right about searching for sources where the person resides. We have run unscientific tests. What Ian or Rosie or I find in a google search are completely different--he is in Europe, she is in the US and I am in Mexico. It totally makes a difference if you switch your search to say google.nl when looking for a Dutch woman. SusunW (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Also Google Books. See Fanny Eckerlin - what you're describing is a phenomenon I have found quite a bit in writing about pre-20th-century opera singers. (Or even early 20th-century ones - see Ida Quaiatti for an example.) Neither of them has ever appeared in a musical dictionary, to my knowledge, and yet one sang leading roles at La Scala and the other was a prima donna in many European houses (and apparently took lead roles at the Met for one - forgettable - season).
Personally, I see nothing wrong with those shorter-type articles. They're as good a starting point as any. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
It really hones skills to document Notability and include Reliable Sources in the short article (e.g. <1500 characters), especially if you're doing translations. This sounds good to me. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, I will give it a shot. Been working on redlinks among the names in my local state's women hall of fame, I'll try a few as stubs with good notability and sourcing and see how it goes. (And heck it will kill two birds by getting me to the 25 articles I knew I needed for an autopatrol application - I think I'm at 16 now). Thanks for the tips. --Krelnik (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Have a look at some of the ones I've created on Template:Virginia Women in History - Inez Pruitt, for example, or Cynthia Eppes Hudson. That's all you really need, lengthwise; notability is established and a few facts are given. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Krelnik: I think you are far less likely to run into AfD problems when writing about pre-20th century women than when dealing with living people. If you follow the excellent advice given above and include at least two good sources, you should be able to avoid difficulties. I like the idea on your user page about creating two women's biographies for each new one on a man. It's an approach which could be more widely disseminated, perhaps in one of Rosiestep's future presentations. I see you have already written a number of well presented articles but if you run into any problems or need any kind of assistance, just drop me a line.--Ipigott (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott Agree, I've noticed that non-BLPs are easier to fly. There are other advantages too - more time for book sources to develop, images you can use for free because they are clearly out of copyright, and so on. My state's hall of fame only honors women who have been gone for at least 10 years so that makes it easy. Thanks for the tips! --Krelnik (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Non-BLPs are also easier to defend against the standard AfD argument against any article that dares to describe the subject's accomplishments, that it must be "self-promotion". —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
They are also immune to the WP:Too soon argument. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC).
I too support the idea of shorter well-referenced stubs. Indeed, I often think that is what I am going to do, but after I've chased down the 7 or 12 sources needed to create a well-rounded picture of the career of the kinds of forgotten women I am most interested in (and to sift out the errors that often appear in competing newspaper stories), I wind up wanting to write the longer type of bio just to feel that the result is commensurate with the labor that went into it :) Alafarge (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Totally, Alafarge I believe that I am pretty incapable of writing stubs because one has to work so hard that the puzzle of the rest of the story mushrooms ;) SusunW (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, for me it's easy. But then, I'm lazy. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Most of the articles I create are short stubs, often just a sentence or two. If I spot an obituary in the newspaper, and then find we don't have an article, I start one. Without time to expand them all, the focus is on the those I find most interesting. One year on, Lilly Dubowitz is still two sentences, but cited with obits in The Times and The Guardian, she looks bulletproof deletion-wise. Another two-sentence one started about the same time, Cynthia Cooke, with just a Daily Telegraph obituary, was picked up by others and taken to DYK. Edwardx (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Verifying awards

I created the article Ecrans de Sable which was directed by Lebanese woman Randa Chahal Sabag. The source that I have in the article is 4 pages long and the film is her first feature, but I wouldn't be surprised if an overzealous editor would send it to AfD. The director's article shows two awards, but I can't verify them. I found a source which said it won an UNESCO Award, but I found out that the source was wrong and it was actually for one of her other films. I was just wondering if someone would have better luck verifying at least one of those awards or could find at least one other source with significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not fluent in French, SL93, but a lot of WiR members are polyglots. I'll see what I can dig up. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. The main reason I created it for was that UNESCO award from the Venice International Film Festival and it's annoying that the magazine source I used had the wrong film. I appreciate your help. SL93 (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Dispute about feminist philosophy journal

There's a dispute about a feminist philosophy journal at WP:AN. It's specifically about what kinds of sources are regarded as RS for the inclusion of women's names, which directly relates to the content gender gap. Please see here. SarahSV (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The dispute at AN is about an admin's behaviour. But anyone wanting to comment on the content dispute is welcomed to bring the topic up at WT:JOURNALS, although I would advise people to read read WP:JWG and User talk:Randykitty#A request for background. It is specifically not about women nor the gender gap, it is about whether or not academic journals articles should list the editorial board's members because / in spite of WP:PROMO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Limited editathon success in Boulder

Despite the enthusiasm expressed by Abigail Wise in her article "Closing Wikipedia's Gender Gap Is the First Step Toward Inclusion in the Outdoors", I'm afraid success with article creation at her Boulder meetup was very limited. Of the eight new articles drafted, only two, Clare Marie Hodges and Angel Collinson, reached the mainspace. The others have not progressed beyond the draft stage:

Draft:Donna Carpenter: CEO of Burton Snowboards. Refused by DGG despite reasonable sourcing.
Draft:Women's Adventure Magazine: apparently never submitted.
Draft:Blair Braverman: dogsled racer and author. Refused by Gtstricky despite reasonable sourcing.
Draft:Camber Outdoors: non-profit in Boulder. Apparently not submitted. Still weak.
Draft:Rose Marcario: CEO. Refused by SwisterTwister in April, now vastly expanded and resubmitted.
Draft:Junko Kazukawa: runner and cancer survivor. Refused by Robert McClenon despite independent sources.

I have gone to the trouble of listing these here as I think the overall outcome of this event shows how difficult it is to organize successful editathons. Maybe some WiR enthusiasts can help these articles along or offer advice.--Ipigott (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Reading through the submissions, it points again to why myself and others advise to never submit articles to AfC. What the reviewers are saying are opinion. Guidelines are straight-forward: Encyclopedic = comprehensive. Notability=significant coverage over time in independent RS. The reviewers aren't acting as coaches to create articles, they are acting as gatekeepers to prevent article creation. Several of these are easily notable and a few others have additional sourcing to make them so. What is needed on most of them is a lede which states why the subject is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention". SusunW (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I know squat about sports, but I cleaned up Junko Kazukawa and moved it to mainspace. Clearly notable. SusunW (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to work on Braverman next. Maybe @Megalibrarygirl: would look at Marcario? I don't know if there is some protocol that the reviewer at AfC always has to be the same person, but I seem to recall that Sue is an AfC reviewer. SusunW (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
In general , it will not be the same reviewer. If the procedures are followed, it's essentially random. However, anybody can choose to review anything from the waiting list. The purpose of reviewing is not to get perfect articles; nor is it to reject articles. The purpose is to screen out articles that are not very likely to pass AfD until they are sufficiently improved . DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
In the last year, I have taken more interest in deletion nominations (AFD, CSD, PROD), a flawed process so broad in its sweep that it zaps good beginning articles along with the ones that never should be on Wikipedia: WP:SPEEDY. My very first article was hit by a PROD as soon as I clicked the Save button. I find it rather counter-productive for Wikipedia that new editors who are genuinely interested in contributing are rejected by the click of someone's mouse finger. A lot of potentially good editors, and potentially good articles, are lost. I've tried to save a few, but if the article creator already abandoned Wikipedia it becomes a lost cause. — Maile (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree, Maile66: hitting a new article with a delete so quickly is a huge deterrent to editors. @SusunW: I'll take a look at Marcario. I am also terrible at sportsball articles. ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I totally agree Maile66 with the "flawed process" and "A lot of potentially good editors, and potentially good articles, are lost." It is bass-ackwards. We are supposed to be creating an encyclopedia, not screening out "articles that are not very likely to pass AfD". Heck, right at the beginning of the deletion policy it states: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". So far, both of the articles I have worked on certainly meet the definition of notability and a review of the sources would clearly show that. AfD is not about the quality of the writing, or even about sufficient improvement; rather, it is about removing articles without notability, reliable sourcing, which are copyvios, etc. which seems to be the redundant role of AfC, per the above comment. Clearly the naming of the process as "creation" would indicate something else. And thanks, Sue. SusunW (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
That is the explicit purpose of AfD, to get articles improved to the level they will pass AfD. What else should it be doing--helping people spend hours working on material that will not pass AfD? It's part of the process of getting articles approved. It tries to remedy the deficiencies of deletion processes by giving a much longer time for improvement before the test of an afd. It doesn't lose potentially good articles. It gets them improved so they can stay in WP. (And when AfC is done right, the usual problem is notability, not details of writing--the usual fault is that either an article doesn't sufficiently show notability , or that it's promotional) It is not supposed to try to improve detail unless they're so bad the article will make a negative impression. If all we wanted to do was remove non-notable articles, we wouldn't need AfC: deletion process does that. AfC takes when properly done an enormous amount of work in guiding people to do articles of sufficient quality.
The encyclopedia is not served by adding articles on non-notable subjects, and the only effective definition of notable in our context is "kept by AfD". So that's the standard that has to be used by anyone giving advice about articles--that unless it will be kept in a discussion, the subject is not yet ready for an article. That goes for AfC, for editathons, for informal advice. To get more articles on notable women, write on the ones that are most clearly notable. Otherwise people tend to write on the ones they happen to know about, and doing that is setting them up for disappointment. An editathon especially has the obligation to ensure that the articles written there will be successful. Otherwise the editathon has an overall negative result, in discouraging new editors. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Are you possibly referring to WP:DRAFTS? Because the only purpose I see at WP:AFD are ongoing debates about deleting articles, "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." And I don't see anything about improving articles. And what I have personally experienced there, with the exception of a SNOW situation, are debates - sometimes heated - about why an article should be deleted, not how to improve one. Quite frankly, I believe we have seen on this project where an AFD tag is where a new editor throws in the towel and walks away from Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
DGG, the AFC process is proving piss-poor at getting articles improved to the level they will pass AfD, because they're adopting a higher, less clear bar depending on the whims of editors, while ensuring new editors have an initial negative experience of the project far more than if they had to actually take their chances that someone might nominate their article for deletion. This ensures that the maximum amount of editors get scared off while articles which would actually probably be fine if anyone here created them get rejected because they're from new editors. But more to the point for everyone else - this is why we need processes for editathons (especially on WIR-related ones) that don't use the AfC process, because we're just defeating ourselves by doing that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
"The encyclopedia is not served by adding articles on non-notable subjects" couldn't agree more, but neither is it served by deleting articles which are notable or running off new editors. Help, Assuming Good Faith and coaching on how to find reliable sources to keep articles away from AfD occurs on this page on a regular basis with a very clear intent of encouraging new editors. SusunW (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

A Few Politically Incorrect Comments

I would like to offer a few comments, although it is clear to me that it won’t make any difference, and that the comments that I make may be politically incorrect, because it appears that there is a politically correct position. The comment is made that I declined an article despite independent sources. That is correct, but I had not been told that independent sources were the only criterion for acceptance. I don’t think that it is fair to scold me after the fact when I didn’t know what the rules were, but I do see after the fact that this was a case where independent sourcing was apparently the only test for acceptance, and that I should have ignored sports notability guidelines. I hadn’t known that at the time. I declined the article because it didn’t appear to me to meet sports notability guidelines (and my decline so noted). I also note that I wasn’t asked to discuss my decline. If I had known that there was an edit-a-thon that had an objective of getting certain articles accepted, I would have been glad to ask other reviewers at the Teahouse for their thoughts. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that Junko Kazukawa was improved and moved to article space. Okay. I don’t have a problem with that. I do have a problem with being scolded after the fact, but that doesn’t matter, because there evidently was a politically correct position. Actually, there appears to be a two-part politically correct position. First, articles submitted through edit-a-thons are supposed to be accepted. Second, more generally, it is clear to me that the WMF prefers quantity over quality. It appears that the WMF would rather have six million articles, of which three million are crud, just to pick numbers arbitrarily, rather than having five million articles, of which two million are crud. I would like to thank User:DGG for comments that recognize the need for quality control. I personally don’t think that the primary objective for the English Wikipedia should continue to be expanding the number of articles, but I know that that is what some editors, and the WMF, want. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I will point out that when I declined Junko Kazukawa, it was a two-sentence stub, not what is now in article space. Perhaps rather than the takeaway that the reviewers are biased, an alternate takeway could have been that when the subject is notable, the draft article should document the notability adequately rather than just being a placeholder. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The interaction between NSPORTS and the GNG is disputed, and likely to remain disputed. (I do have a view about this,that meeting NSPORTS is the basic requirement, but AfDs have gone in various directions). In a situation like this, the safe advice is to make sure that both criteria are met. There are thousands of notable women athletes who will meet both, and a beginner should do what is safe, not what is likely to set off a complicated argument about the interaction between incompatible guidelines. Similarly for painters, I always advise that the meet both WP:CREATIVE and the GNG. An experienced editor may want to try borderline cases; I've written some myself, and some stay in, others not, and I can deal with that. But this particular point has nothing to do with political correctness (though perhaps some such considerations have been a factor in some AfDs) --it is just a matter of following safe practice when giving advice. A teacher should not lead a new person into what is likely to be an upsetting experience. This applies whatever the level of desired quality. The people with experience will be debating that sort of thing indefinitely. They should do it themselves, not by proxy. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "political correctness". We have new editors writing articles on topics which pass WP:GNG (and would get kept through AfD on that basis if nominated), and you're both rejecting notable content and scaring off editors because of personal opinions that have bugger all to do with Wikipedia notability guidelines. (For example, you might well yourself nominate articles that pass WP:GNG but not WP:SPORTS, but it's usually a recipe for an easy keep.) The "upsetting experience" is all on you. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
If you are going to criticise other editors then at least give diffs so others can see if your complaints are justified. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC).
Both of the above users admitted to ignoring the GNG in favour of their own personal opinions in their paragraphs above. Hence the problem. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read my comment again. First, I was explicit that this is not a matter of what is sometimes called "political correctness" (which is this context would be giving lower standards for articles about people in a field because they are females). I am saying rather it is about encouraging newcomers to write articles which might not be accepted in WP. My own view of what ought to be accepted in WP is not a factor here. Rather, its the reality of what articles are always accepted and which are challenged,often successfully. At this point any article about a sportsperson that meets GNG but not NATHLETE is likely to be challenged, and so is any article about someone who meets NATHLETE but not the GNG. The results of such AfDs are in both cases unpredictable. It's wrong to confront new editors with this sort of problem. They should be writing about people whose notability will not be challenged. (whether challenged rightfully or wrongfully is irrelevant). DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
DGG If this explanation is what was meant by "politically correct" then it is offensive. No one suggested that the standards for articles on these women be lowered. In fact, if you read this page with any regularity I am like a broken record telling people that the number of sources required to confirm a woman's notability must be 6-10 times more because coverage on women is not as extensive. I have also cautioned that if adequate sourcing should not be found, help should be asked for before the article is live to prevent AfD. Kazukawa, which is who McClenon was feeling reproached over, meets Sport and GNG, so your statement that anyone asked for or encouraged any standard to be lowered is out of line. And I totally agree that anyone's personal opinion is irrelevant when it comes to applying guidelines. One may always be influenced by their beliefs, but that does not mean that they cannot strive to improve an article they personally would never have written. SusunW (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I have said the exact opposite of what you seem to think I said. Don't just look for buzz words; I am agree with you completely that pc in that sense is irrelevant here one way or another. Neither I nor Bob said here that anyone argued for a lower standard. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
No, DGG, you have said exactly what I stated, though you may not have meant what you said, or we are out of sinc with replies. I asked what McClenon meant by "there evidently was a politically correct position". Your words "political correctness (which in this context would be giving lower standards for articles about people in a field because they are females)" do indicate that someone asked for the standards to be lowered. He further stated that "articles submitted through edit-a-thons are supposed to be accepted", which no one has advocated for either and "the WMF prefers quantity over quality", which somehow indicates that Kazukawa's article does not meet his quality standard. Maybe McClenon should answer my question himself, as maybe though well-intentioned, you muddied the waters? The problem here is that there is an insinuation that something happened that did not happen. No one asked for standards to be lowered, all files to be approved, nor quality to be thrown out the window. Political correctness had zero bearing, however you define it, on evaluating whether these articles meet WP policies and guidelines. SusunW (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I have to confess that I have not been able to grasp the force of the issue. Despite the strong views of some of its members, WiR has always been a fairly WP:Civil space. I hope it can be kept that way. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC).
I have no idea what "there evidently was a politically correct position" means. I didn't move the article because it was politically correct. I moved it because she meets the notability requirement to have done something unique and there are sufficient independent sources to confirm that it meets GNG. While meeting Sport is irrelevant, as she meets GNG, it could be argued that she meets criteria 3: finishing 3rd in Leadville, 6: 11 ultramarathons and 48 marathons in venues such as Boston, NYC, Mount Fuji Marathon, the Ultra-Trail du Mont-Blanc, etc. and 7: though it is impossible to confirm with the American Ultrarunning Association webpage, because the world record section has not been updated since 2011, but there are multiple sources confirming she was the first to complete the Grand Slam and Leadville Series in a single year. The data for 3 and 6 were added by me, so clearly weren't there for anyone to evaluate when it was submitted, though the information for 7 was. Robert McClenon, I am quite certain that I neither scolded you, nor even looked at who the reviewer was. I looked at sourcing and the article content to determine if it could be improved and whether it would meet GNG. My general comment that reviewers were not coaching but acting to prevent article creation, seems to be born out by your own statements that the number of articles on WP should not be expanded, but if you interpreted that as scolding I apologize. In truth, the world is constantly changing with new things being accomplished all the time. How could what is included in an encyclopedia not also then change and expand? SusunW (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I think Robert said that he agrees with accepting the article once you had improved it. That's what AfC is there for, to get articles improved.Whether the original version would have passed AFD is doubtful, unless it were improved during the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I suggest steering clear from tarnishing all and sundry with the allegation of "political correctness". It's a bad faith allegation and will just cause drama. I confess to have been "politically correct" most of my life, even when this created waves. Though I blunder about in areas where I'm ignorant of the best language to apply, I don't see trying to remain politically correct as something I should feel ashamed about. Move on, more good faith, even if you feel "scolded" - which by the way, is a jibe with a long history of being directed at women; so best to avoid that too. --Fæ (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
As to good faith, and to bad faith allegations, my point is precisely that it did appear to me, and does appear to me, that there were questions of whether the reviewers were acting in bad faith by changing the standards, and that I was saying that the reviewers were acting in good faith, applying the guidelines as best they could. In my particular case, I think that the draft as submitted was inadequate. I thought that I was being accused of bad faith for not accepting a stub that had "independent sources". Independent sources are not the only criterion; at least, I wasn't told in advance that they were the only criterion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
For as long as I've known the phrase (over 30 years), "politically correct" has been code for "some people have been trying to treat people of all types with equal dignity and speak about them respectfully, and I don't like that". Why someone would self-identify as politically incorrect, especially here, is beyond me. It is basically proclaiming to the world "I am a bigot", and proclaiming to Wikipedia "I am incapable of being a neutral editor". (I should clarify that I make no such judgement about Robert McClenon specifically; this is intended more as a suggestion that he might not want to use that wording.) —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I am saying "There are certain views in Wikipedia that are held by some editors and are not themselves discussed reasonably and are used to criticize or prejudge the views of other editors. These views in Wikipedia constitute Wikipedia's political correctness." I am saying that I assume that my views, which I believe are neutral and reasoned, will be dismissed, because I can already see that I was criticized and prejudged. That is what I meant. Rational discussion has apparently been foreclosed because there is an established position that should not be questioned. In this case the first established position was apparently that the articles submitted by the edit-a-thon should have been accepted, and that, if they were not, the problem was that the reviewers were at fault. Second, it is the standard view that quantity is more important than quality, and that the most important goal remains increasing the number of articles. I thought that the reviewers were being judged harshly without considering whether they were applying the guidelines; I still think so. There was a theme, that persists, that the primary objective should continue to be increasing the number of articles, with their quality only a secondary consideration. That is what I meant. I am aware that those views are unpopular with some Wikipedians. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Robert McClenon I believe you are mistaken, you were not judged. The only thing that was evaluated was whether the articles met guidelines for inclusion. No one asked for nor advocated for all articles to be approved, standards to be waived, nor articles of poor quality to be approved. What I personally did advocate for was that reviewers coach new editors. We shall disagree that Kazukawa did not meet sport when you declined it. I believe that she did because of her "national record" as the only person to have completed two series events in a single year (even though it cannot be verified with the governing body because of their poor maintenance). That you disagree is certainly understandable being unable to verify it with the governing body. I err on the side of inclusion and you on the side of exclusion, which is merely a difference of opinion, not judgment. In general, secondary guidelines penalize women because they advocate for standards that most media do not abide. Women's sporting events, for example, receive far less coverage than do men's; Women entertainers, writers, etc receive far less coverage than do their male counterparts; Women academics are penalized because name changes obscure their publishing efforts and the fact that the majority of men cite other male academics, etc. GNG clearly states that secondary criteria are "alternative guidelines" and as such they are biased toward inclusion of women, because media coverage is biased toward inclusion of women. Quite the contrary to asking for women to be held to different standards than men, I advocate that all people be held to the same standard, thus secondary guidelines which are prejudicial should never be used. If it takes more sourcing to prove that a woman is notable, then more sourcing is required, not a lower standard, IMO. SusunW (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
FWIW I think McClenon's choice to decline Kazukawa, in the form it was nominated, was reasonable. It had enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG, but no actual claim of significance in the article (only a list of events she'd participated in) and no explanation of why runners would find her accomplishment significant. The lack of a claim of significance is a red flag that would likely have led to attempts to delete the article, and AfC reviewing should be about getting the article to the point where it not only is notable, but also that it looks notable. The article in its present form is much improved. On the other hand, McClenon's decline rationale, and his ongoing claims that the article as nominated did not pass WP:NSPORT, are clearly wrong, because WP:SPORTBASIC is more-or-less identical to GNG, and the article as nominated clearly passed. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
David Eppstein I concur that there was no claim of significance, thus my initial review comment that "What is needed on most of them is a lede which states why the subject is 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention'." It is a frequent failing on new articles, which seems to me is easily rectifiable, simply by stating the obvious, or the "what should be obvious" from the content. If I, who know nothing about sport, could identify the uniqueness of the subject, a simple statement about the significance could have led to approval, rather than rejection of the draft. SusunW (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I endorse all the good points by SusunW and agree AfC is best avoided when running an editathon. If an article should end up there then veteran editors should pull it out and get it into mainspace instead. For example, I did that for an article created by a BBC journalist at their 100 women event and then worked to get it through DYK too. The DYK process tries one's patience and AfC is yet more petty bureaucracy which should be circumvented per policies such as WP:BOLD; WP:BURO; WP:IAR; &c. If anyone gives you a hard time then refer them to the example of Mzoli's – a precedent which was extensively covered by the press. Andrew D. (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this. There;s no point in using AfC, which just complicates matters, gives erratic results, and at best delays acceptance. The people running the editathon should be knowledgable enough to do the screening themselves, and should be willing to do it. Any individual contributor is not really to be blamed for submitting an article with borderline notability -- they cannot be expected to know better. The volunteers at a editathon can be expected to know what our current standards are. They don't have to like our current standards (as I've said many times, I don't at all like most of them myself, for one or another reason). but they do have to not use the occasion of an editathon to challenge them. The point of an editathon is to assist new users, not to throw them into our battles. No matter what I think of the GNG, I would be doing very wrong to let someone submit an article that did not meet it (except in the one or two narrow fields where there is an accepted alternative). If people submit articles that get rejected at something I am helping to run, it reflects on either my control of the situation or my knowledge. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is unfair both to the participants in an edit-a-thon and the AFC reviewers to submit the work of the edit-a-thon through AFC. The coaches or organizers of the edit-a-thon should be expected to ensure that the articles are good enough to go into article space. If the products of the edit-a-thon are CSD'd, that reflects badly on both the organizers and the participants. The products should be good enough to survive AFD, and should be obviously good enough so that they will not be taken to AFD. There is no reason to send the products of the edit-a-thon through AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Gentlemen, you fail to grasp that Wikipedia is a volunteer effort. We do monitor new users and attempt to assist them and we also discourage anyone from submitting articles to AfC. One can no more force editathon participants to register or send their new articles to the sponsor than one can prevent them from being submitted to AfC. As WiR editathons are primarily virtual, we could not possibly control that. On site edit-a-thons are different, but still, the sponsor cannot control the actions of the participants. If, as happened here when our project was notified about these files, we are asked to assist, we do. "The point of an editathon is to assist new users" is incorrect. The point is to create or improve content, though here at WiR, we regularly assist each other. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Category deletion discussion that may be of interest to some of you (copied from WP:Women)

Howdy. Through my film and tv editing stuff, I became aware of this Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 6#Category:Female characters in television. It seemed like a category in which your project might cross paths with the tv project and I thought some folks might want to comment. Cheers. Millahnna (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Millahnna. We obviously need to maintain these categories, in addition to all the other categories we have on women. Not too long ago, Category:Women translators was deleted as a result of a discussion like this, causing me days and days of recategorization!--Ipigott (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Alphabet run

I entertained myself in the past month by writing 26 consecutive women's biographies in alphabetical order, one for each letter. Here's the list, starting May 7 with Alma V. Lafferty and ending today with Zelda Seguin Wallace. It was fun, a good little challenge; and most of them have pictures too. Improvements to all are both possible and welcomed, of course. - Penny Richards (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

That is so cool - I've been seeing your tweets of each article on Twitter but it never dawned on me you were doing them in alphabetical order! Nice work. --Krelnik (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! - Penny Richards (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
26 interesting start-class articles in a month is pretty good going. You've also helped us along with our pre-20th century women. Well done!--Ipigott (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a really cool idea. Never thought of doing that. SusunW (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Wow! It's as much as I can do to write one article per editathon - and 2 of May's were only done on 1st June. Well done. But today I've concentrated mostly on tidying up articles for newly-elected MPs, mostly women, in the aftermath of United Kingdom general election, 2017. And after staying up till 6am to watch the results. PamD 16:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Penny Richards, 26 women's biogs, one per letter, in consecutive alpha order, all within a month. I'd say that is a Women in Red world record! Congrats! --Rosiestep (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all! It was a lot of fun. And thanks to all the folks who build worklists, too! (Especially the China worklist, which was very handy when I was looking to write an article that would start with X.) - Penny Richards (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Amazing! Perhaps we could add some similar challenges for this planned contest!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Samiha Ayoub

While creating the article on Egyptian actor Mohsen Sarhan, I came across one of his wives who is notable and was referred to as Arab theatre's leading lady. There are plenty of reliable sources for Samiha Ayoub, but I don't think I would be able to create a proper article on her. This is just an idea for an article of a notable Arab woman if someone wanted to give it a go. SL93 (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, SL93. I'll make sure she's on a redlist. There are a good number of English sources on her. I'm often interested in writing about Arab women, so I might take a stab at it. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. I would give it a go, but her acting career has been for so long that I'm not confident in my current article writing abilities for an article about her. SL93 (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting new article on coverage of women classicists

An article by Victoria Leonard on "How we doubled the representation of female classical scholars on Wikipedia" has just appeared in Times Higher Education.--Ipigott (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Really nice article and she cuts to the crux of the matter. I love this, "rewriting inclusive history has never been so easy and has never had so much potential for change". Perception in many ways is our reality. If we see so few women included in WP, the perception is that women weren't part of history-making. The more that we can show notable women were not just passive participants but catalysts, the more we can change the perceptions. SusunW (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a cool article! I'm glad people are recognizing what we are doing. However, the article does make the claim that "Professors" are automatically notable, and we know that's not exactly true. I think the writer was on the right track, but I hope that claim doesn't bite any would-be editors! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that too Megalibrarygirl which clearly unless independent media or articles about the professors, rather than their work have been published, is not the case. SusunW (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Was really glad to see the spotlight on women classicists and how the coverage is improving on Wikipedia. Need more of these stories! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Just an idea

If I wanted to organize a WiR wikithon, how could I go about it? (Those days I live in Korea, and there is a ton of systemic bias affecting Korean content, lots of gender inequality here...). I have some contacts with local Wikipedians (not much, as I don't speak Korean well), and I could try to suggest an event for them, but I'd need some how-tos. In the past I helped them introduce Wiki Loves Monument to Korea. This seems like another cool idea. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Having never set up an editathon, I cannot really direct you, but @Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl: can probably offer pointers. I would suggest that creating a redlist of targets is essential. Crowd sourced lists with reliable sourcing links provide a good starting point. Wikidata lists to articles which might appear on other WP projects can be helpful as well. I have no clue how the template for creating articles from the Wikidata list for the Art from the Collection of the Met editathon was created, but it's a very cool tool, as it creates the major headings and inserts a RS from the get-go. SusunW (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Having a redlist or wikidata list is very important. Are you going to be conducting the editathon in English or Korean, Piotrus? I can help you set a up a meetup page, too, if you need help with that. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
These are all good points. Do you have a particular month in mind when for holding the editathon, Piotrus? We have some events already on our calendar, so maybe take a look there for ideas? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd be able to do it in English only; if I get help from the Korean community I'd expect they'd translate whatever we set up into Korean. As for the time, I'd think fall the earliest. A redlist of articles to create would be very useful, sadly, I don't know where to start. But on a related note, members of this project may find useful my User:Piotrus/List of Poles, it contains red links to many notable Polish women that still need an article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Piotrus As you know, I work on a lot of non-English language women. What I generally do it look for an article or two as a jumping off point and back into finding women from there So for example, I know women almost always in every society traditionally were trained as nurses and formed women's groups. So, I look for articles on nursing schools and women's groups. Here's one on Salvation of All Women Hospital aka Nurse Training School of Pogŭ yŏgwan, [14] it was started by Mary F. Scranton. It gives names of several graduates (and photos!) I then start looking for links to see if there are sufficient RS to create an article on any of them. I search names in English and the native language and often look for the combination to help, so would put in both the hospital name and Scranton to search. (Is there a nursing association with historical documents?) Then I write an article on the organization and see what women affiliated with it have sufficient links to develop into articles. The organization article serves as an "anchor" to link the women. This article [15] says that the first women's organization Chan-Yang-Hoe (not sure how to style it, but probably Changyanghoe, variants given here [16]) was founded in 1898 to create a school for women and work on banning concubinage. [17], [18], [19]. There are multiple groups listed after that, which again, I'd search to scour for sources and women tied to them. For example, the last source, lists Yoon Hee-Soon, a women who trained other women to fight the Japanese. We found historic dictionaries for our editathon on black women that were really helpful. Do these exist for Korean women? Does that help at all? (and thanks for the link to your Polish notables. As you know, I work on Polish women too ;) .) SusunW (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Myra Brooks Welch

It's unfortunate that Myra Brooks Welch is notable for her poem which was adapted into a film, but I can't find much about her. I can't even verify her year of birth and death with a reliable source. SL93 (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Got you covered on DOB/DOD. There was a biography written about her [20] According to this, [21] there was a chapter written about her in a book "Brethern Trailblazers" by O. W. Garber, but I cannot find any mention of that book anywhere. She published a lot in the Gospel Messenger [22] SusunW (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the research and your work on the article. SL93 (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
SL93 de nada. Maybe you can find the biography in a library somewhere. There isn't a copy that I can find in Mexico. SusunW (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I will see what I can do. SL93 (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a basically unadvertised RfC going on right now into potentially banning red links for persons on Wikipedia. Might be of interest to people here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Thanks for bringing our attention to this one. I'm pleased to see there is strong support for keeping red links on people.--Ipigott (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible new source?

See this book: Notable American Women. Not sure if everyone on here is already on Wikipedia.... 223.227.96.107 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Listing just 7 women born after 1900, note that this book is all about pre-20th century women, which is this month's focus. 223.227.97.23 (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Dispute over lead sentence of trans woman page

There is a dispute over the lead sentence on the trans woman page; see talk page discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Women's March on Portland -- collaborate?

Women's March on Portland

Hello! I've worked hard on the Women's March on Portland article, but I've stretched myself a bit thin lately and I am struggling to finish expanding this article using the 16 sources found here. I could really use a little bit of encouragement to finish this expansion and promote the article to Good status. Are there any project members who are willing to read this article, then take a look at one or more of these 16 sources to see if they can be incorporated into the article to any capacity?

I'm comfortable taking on the good article review, or co-nominating if someone is interested, but my main goal here is just to integrate as many sources as possible beforehand. As an added bonus -- this article is LGBT-related, so work would also be in support of WiR's ongoing LGBTQ campaign and the Wiki Loves Pride collaboration. Sorry if I come across as lazy, but really I've been working quite hard on-wiki lately and I could use a hand here, if anyone's interested! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The article seems to be coming along quite well. I am nevertheless surprised to see no mention of the dispute about an amount of over $20,000 which came in from sales of tee-shirts.--Ipigott (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing this link, and for your improvements to the article. I'll add this source to the talk page for future expansion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Doris Frankel

I want to get Doris Frankel ready for DYK, but I'm having trouble finding sources. Just seeing if anyone would be able to help and/or want a DYK credit. SL93 (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I just added a few references and links, with a few extra sentences for length too. - Penny Richards (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate it. SL93 (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

June Julian

Would anyone here mind having a look over at draft:June Julian? It has been declined at afC twice, was then accepted but later moved back to draft for some reason. Recently it has been resubmitted by a completely uninvolved editor. It would greatly help if someone familiar with the subject matter could tell once and for all whether the subject is notable, and add the required sources, if any are available. 223.227.119.216 (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Will look! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Judith Palache Gregory

Judith Palache Gregory is up for deletion. Was just created for Wiki Loves Pride. Take a look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

World Women Contest

Just to let everybody know I've secured $4025 to run Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest, aiming to see articles created on every country on the planet. I believe that this contest could potentially create a lot more articles than normal during the month it will run, probably September or October. I'm planning on keeping the rules simple, pure new article creation, minimum 1kb readable prose, and no unsourced paragraphs and I'm hoping to get a bot coded to perform those standard checks and alleviate massive amounts of time running it. I have some further plans and ideas on where to go after that but I think for now let's just see what such a contest can produce. Naturally we'll need to significantly boost the missing articles bank and expand it to every country to prepare for the contest.

I know there's a lot of editors within the women group who don't like contests or don't think that they should be used for women articles but I see it simply as more of an editathon with rewards for hardworking individuals and a way to attract more contributors who might then potentially contribute more women articles long term. The plan is to allocate a $15 prize to whoever creates the most articles for every country. The default prize will be an Amazon voucher to buy books but I know some countries don't have mailing service so I will be flexible. If people win enough then I will be handing out paid for subscriptions which people want. The winner of the contest will be the person who creates the most articles for the most countries, all to the expected minimum length and quality standard. If we could start to generate interest and preparation for this contest I would appreciate it, we have all summer. I propose we create Wikipedia:ContestBot and find somebody to programme a bot which can be employed to patrol the contest pages when people submit articles. Later contests could/should also focus on destubbing and improving quality of existing article, but I think for now let's focus on pure creation and see how many articles can be produced in a one month contest. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I see this as an important step in the right direction. Whether or not editors are keen to receive prizes for their efforts, I'm sure many of us will be keen to participate in creating new articles and assisting in promoting the contest(s). It would be good to draw up some basic ideas about the scope of the contest and the dates it will run before the end of the month so that we can let as many people know about it as possible before the summer break. It's just the kind of new incentive we need to encourage more concerted efforts on the creation of women's biographies at a time when interest in Women in Red is beginning to lag.--Ipigott (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
You know I'm in. I loved Awaken the Dragon and Africa Destubathon. Prizes are fun, I've enjoyed them, thank you, but I really just like to see lists of new/improved articles building and people working together in a focused way. - Penny Richards (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Great, I enjoyed seeing your articles coming in for the contests too! Yes, it will be interesting seeing articles done on some countries which are less popular on here, with a prize allocated to all 195 countries it should see content produced for everywhere. If we could raise an extra $500-1000 we could also have a prize for every women's occupation so the contest would also likely see a broad range of women's topics produced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

If some people within this project don't want their prizes we can always set up a Book Fund where people who need books can request books and we use the funds to buy them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm keen on creating women's biographies so count me in. Some questions: --Rosiestep (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  1. Will the contest be accepting articles in any language, or English only? Iberocoop, CEE Spring, and Wiki Asia Month have annual women's contests in multi-language so those participants might be a great group to recruit but they write in lots of languages so that's the thing.
  2. For clarity... Is "1kb readable prose" the same as 1,000 characters? If yes, that's very doable, e.g. somewhere between Stub and Start class.
  3. It would be good if you have at least a draft page up before July 5th (WikiWomenCamp, Mexico City) to make it easy to promote at that event. I will also generate interest at WikiConference North America (August, Montreal), Wikimania (August, Montreal), Wikimedia Diversity Conference (October, Stockholm).
  4. Just FYI, I heard that the UN#HerStory event was successful in terms of content creation because it occurred in August, when a lot of northern hemisphere people are off work and have time to write; but that might be too soon for your purposes.

Yes, 1000 characters readable prose. In my experience sometimes it's difficult writing a 1500 char article on say a minor sportswomen off the cuff, 1000 char is a reasonable starter length with some sourced facts. Of course people can add a bit more if they want. We can always host contests at a later date to expand articles anyway and include destubbing. For this though I want to max out new content and see what can be done in a month. Any language will be tricky (as the bot will need to register entries and it will make it tricky with multiple pages on other wikis as well), but we could potentially involve Spanish and French wikipedias.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll definitely write women's bios for such an effort. Count me in. SusunW (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I just popped over to read my email and see that this contest grant (and the 9 other awarded grants) are being talked about on Wikimedia-l. So the promotion has already started. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

"Contest toolkits and prize funds https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Contest_toolkits_and_prize_funds Led by a prolific English Wikipedian, Dr.Blofeld https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Dr._Blofeld , this project aims to equip prospective contester organizers with toolkits and design ideas, enabling them to customize their own campaigns. In addition, the project will include a large contest to boost the geographic diversity of representation of women on English Wikipedia.[3] [4]"

Thanks for the links Rosie and support Susun. Yes I'm intent on a contest which can be run fairly easily and which can be replicated by others, particularly on other wikis and something which Women in Red can copy and potentially use to work for different women's occupations at a later date. For now though let's jsut focus on one contest. Miyagawa and Cwmhiraeth might be interested, though I know it isn't a subject which Cwm writes about. If we can start spreading the word around anyway I'll add a participants section on the contest page so people can start signing up. I'd be up for holding it in August but we're going to need a lot of work drawing up big enough lists. Countries like US, UK and Germany etc might have more bios than Burundi or Vanuatu, $15 isn't set in stone for every country, depending on the missing article bank the prizes might be adjusted to give more to the countries which might have more competition. We'll find a way to work it anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Sign up here if you're interested in contributing towards this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Will you be creating more Wikidata-generated lists for other countries, and maybe for other universities? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Yep, count me in. I haven't been doing much writing lately, with the exception of a couple of articles for last month's Women in Sport (and that was inspired by the work in the Wales contest from last year). So this is just the sort of thing to re-spark my interest. Miyagawa (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I am so in! I'm not sure how much time I'll have that time of year but will definitely give it a go. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld: Can you direct us to a bot which checks the length of an article so that we can establish when we have reached 1,000 characters? I believe other contests have advertised these but I can't remember where they are. It would be good to have a link from the contest page.--Ipigott (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep: While I fully support extending the coverage of WiR to wikis in other languages, I think we should be careful about replicating contests for other languages at this stage. I suggest we try to get the very best out of the English-language contest first, working as intensively as possible over a one-month period. If all goes well, we can then think about extensions with suitable funding for other languages.--Ipigott (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if there is one currently operational, but I believe Asia Month used one, perhaps Rosie can ask about that. If not we'll have to ask one of the experienced bot coders to create ContestBot or something. BTW I've started on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest/Missing articles, helped needed, I think it'll be much more convenient building one list. I have a feeling that due to uneven missing content by country we might have to rethink the structure and perhaps group into sub regions of the world and give higher prizes combined.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It'd be really useful for this if some of the redlink lists could get fleshed out somehow as well - I'm usually a politics editor, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Politics is looking very sad right now. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It's going to be a huge task to compile lists of red links for all the countries of the world, especially if we are to find names which are sufficiently well referenced to support articles. The Wikidata lists are useful for the non-English speaking countries which already have a reasonable presence on Wikipedia but there are many small countries where it is difficult to find notable women apart from those who have gained a name in sports. Writing articles of 1,000 characters or more on those is not going to be easy. Maybe, as you suggest, we should think about grouping some of the countries together, particularly the small island communities.--Ipigott (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a population minimum could be set? Anything below a certain limit either gets grouped with a larger country or with other smaller countries until the population minimum is hit? It's not even just the islands - I figure that you'd want to group Vatican City with Italy, for example. Just be aware of certain political sensitivies about particular groupings. While I wouldn't complain about grouping Gibraltar with Spain (it'd be for the purposes of calculation bonuses after all), I'm sure that you'll get at least a couple of irritated British people complaining. Likewise rather than grouping the Falkland Islands with either Argentina or the UK, I'd simply group it with the other Atlantic Ocean Islands and Island chains. I could work up a list of potential combinations if you like. Miyagawa (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
My two cents, The Caribbean should probably be a single area and encompass the CARICOM countries of Latin America, i.e. Belize, Guyana and Surinam, as well. The biggest drawback to that is that Wikidata lists, which sometimes have Dutch, French or Spanish-Caribbean entries, will rarely include the Anglo-Caribbean and tons of notable people of the former British colonies are not on WP. They should not be linked with Latin America, as most of those countries are far bigger and sourcing is not equivalent. (Would that the OUP Dictionary on the Caribbean could be made into a red list, but I shall just work my way through it.) I'd also love to see some kind of link like the Art from the Collection of the Met editathon which preloads a template with sections and a RS on the red list. I have zero idea how they did that, but it is a really cool idea and makes creating an article much easier. SusunW (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind clustering together sub regions but I think a whole continent might be too big. I suppose we could split the Caribbean into north and south though, two parts. Either way I'm still going to need help with further developing the lists.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll be getting the grant in two installments and unfortunately the first part won't be enough to cover the prizes. The second half will be paid in October so I think it's probably best we run it in October so people can get their prizes at the end rather than waiting a few months. As long as it's all done by the end of the year. In the meantime who shall we approach for a bot? @Rosiestep: did you mention the contest to Kirill and the others and the potential merging of contests BTW?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld I very much like it being in October. That leave us to maintain the ideas board topics of Canadians / Indigenous Women in August and Latinas in September. I can't help you on the technical stuff. As you know, that is way outta my league. SusunW (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Susan, yes gives us more time to prepare as well.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Good resource

A good resource for potentially notable women is the Who's Who Women of America series. My local library has multiple volumes, but they are for reference only so I can't check them out. It's still a good resource for me and I may have to see how much they cost. SL93 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Vauhini Vara

Journalist Vauhini Vara is up for deletion at AfD here. Netherzone (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017 at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons.

File:60C0074BA4FF-1 Джемма Халид.jpg


(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Adele Gilani

Need some help to expand and find some more and better sources for female abstract artist Adele Gilani who is currently at AFD and in danger of being deleted. Please help with sourcing if you can.Thanks. Antonioatrylia (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Christina Gerhardt

This woman has created an autobiographical article sourced only to her university webpage, but also writes as a journalist "Tina Gerhardt" and looks possibly notable - anyone interested in upgrading the article? PamD 08:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_28&oldid=1149601944"