Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 85

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 80

←

Archive 83

→

Draft:Moki Cherry

I just restored this draft; she looks like she might be notable. Anyone want to tidy this one and get it into mainspace? Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

She's notable and the article is way better than the Swedish version, but IMO the references need to be show that she is, which is not happening right now. There's more than 20K ghits on her on Google, although most of them seem to focus on the whole family and particularly Neneh Cherry, even when she's not the topic of the article (great journalism...). Also it might be a good idea to hit up Wikimedia Sverige to see if they can help considering they are the GLAM bunch :) -Yupik (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I added a few links to references in both English and Swedish on the draft talk page. @Ipigott:, could you help out with the Swedish refs? -Yupik (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Yupik, I added a couple of refs to the article and moved it to mainspace. If anyone can afford the time, it would be useful to add more in-line links.--Ipigott (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Calliopejen1, for bringing this to our attention and Ipigott for the additional work. I find it so sad that this article was declined at AfC and immediately put up for speedy deletion as a result. How many good articles like this have we missed because they failed AfC? :( -Yupik (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Yupik: Lots, in my experience. There is a discussion about this right now at AFC, mostly in relation to AFC's atrocious performance with an apparent educational project relating to Korean writers. Please add your views there. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. I recently approved a denied article on a notable woman academic and a surname disambiguation page (there are hundreds of such pages and they don't require notability...and this one was denied twice for notability issues). I found Margueritte Harmon Bro in my physical copy of Who's Who In The Midwest and I wanted to see if she was notable for Wikipedia. I found plenty of material in searches for notability and I requested the AfC draft to be undeleted...which revealed an article that was denied for notability despite multiple reviews of her work. I did add more reviews, articles about the writer, and that her book was recommended by a state's department of education...but much of the work was already completed by the new editor who I doubt will be back. I'm completely unimpressed with how the Korean drafts were handled by reviewers. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@SL93: comments welcome ----> Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Major_AFC_fail_re:_Korean_literature. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It is because so many editors and even admins, whether malicious in intent or not, apply their subjective interpretation as to what WP:GNG means or its purpose rather than treating it as literal. I have seen this application used a hundred times in the last month to deny articles and delete existing ones. Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Going to Water (Cherokee term)

I want to get this out there for everyone to see. I am controversial but not above apologizing when I am wrong. I can be polarizing but only because I feel that it's impossible to "ride the fence" any longer. I don't sugarcoat anything and I call it like I see it. That is abrasive to some and I understand that. I am comfortable in my own skin. The only place I give my opinion is on talk pages and in response to others comments or when I feel it's needed to spur movement in a direction. I am a warrior by nature even as I am a lover of peace. I am always ready to fight but it won't happen by perpetuating ignorance. We win by sticking together on topics that unite us and having thoughtful and meaningful discussion on those that divide us. But we, meaning those seeking to end the biased treatment of women, can not compromise on the core principles of why we are here. Every article matters. Any attempt to stifle women's topics or relegate women to obscurity must be met with a resounding response. Too many times we draw a line in the sand and when it is crossed we draw another line and when it is crossed we do it again and again until we find ourselves capitulating over and over. We must say there is a line that can not be crossed and when it is threatened we must respond resolutely with truth and facts with less feeling. So often the subjective opinions of others enters their reasons for a decision here on Wikipedia when there are things that are certain and the primary guideline is to be taken literal. I'm tired of giving in. Either we have the stomach to fight or we don't. Those are my thoughts, for what they are worth.Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Movement Strategy - What Are Your Choices For Implementation

Hello Women in Red friends,

The time has come to put Strategy into work and everyone's invited to participate.

The Movement Strategy Design Group and Support Team are inviting you to organize virtual meetings with your community and colleagues before the end of October. The aim is for you to decide what ideas from the Movement Strategy recommendations respond to your needs and will have an impact in the movement. The recommendations are available in different formats and in many languages. There are 10 recommendations and close to 50 recommended changes and actions or initiatives. Not everything will be implemented. The aim of prioritization is to create an 18-month implementation plan to take some of the initiatives forward starting in 2021.

Regional and thematic platforms are great ways to prepare and share ideas. Prioritization is at the level of your community. Afterwards, we will come together in November to co-create the implementation plan. More information about November’s global events will be shared soon. For now and until the end of October, organize locally and share your priorities with us.

You can find guidance for the events, the simple reporting template, and other supporting materials here on Meta. You can share your results directly on Meta, by email, or by filling out this survey. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us if you have any questions or comments, strategy2030wikimedia.org

We will be hosting office hours to answer any questions you might have, Thursday October 1 at 14.00 UTC (Google Meet).

MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiData Question

I am confused as to why I find no personal VIAF or LCCN for Alma Vessells John, but her organization has both VIAF, LCCN. Should these be linked to her personal wikidata item, since it was her publishing medium? SusunW (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

SusunW - Could it be due to the fact that Wikidata is also all-volunteers, and that you just created her Wikidata page today? I don't think this happens automatically, but that those are entered over at Wikidata by volunteers. Correct me if I'm wrong about how that all works. — Maile (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Maile66 I don't think it's a wikidata thing that's causing the confusion, its that VIAF/LCCN don't have a personal identifier for her. I'm just trying to make sure that it isn't a problem to add her business identifiers to her personal page. (she's deceased, so it isn't an ongoing business), but I don't know how Wikidata works in that regard. SusunW (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to add the Alma John Workshops Association IDs to Alma Vessells John's wikidata item. Were you to wish to store those values in wikidata you'd need a new item for them, presumably linked back in some way to the AVJ item. Cure is to wait for a VIAF for the individual, I'm afraid. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Tagishsimon thank you. I didn't link it because I didn't want to cause a problem. Seems weird that she has no personal entry but I guess given her era, not so odd. SusunW (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I started a Wikidata item (Q99740610) on her organization. I identified John as the founder. TJMSmith (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

BrassyWomxn

Hi All, I'm getting involved with this Edit-a-thon, which is part of Art + Feminism's programme, and I thought it might be of interest to others too? It's being run by the BrassyWomxn collective that aims to "foster the improvement of content on female, trans, and non-binary brass players" e.g. for Euphonium players, 100% with bios here are men. The dashboard is here. The Facebook group is here. They have various documents: this is the call for action; there's a form if you want to edit (or can support a new editor); this form is being used to gather nominations (I added mine to wikidata too). Happy editing (Lajmmoore (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC))

There are a few suggestions in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Music#Instrumentalists - I see a trumpeter, a tuba player... PamD 14:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Missing_articles_by_occupation/Musicians has more - most people are just called "musician", "brass" doesn't appear, but searching on "trumpet", "horn" etc is productive. But no Euphoniums. (Euphonia?) PamD 14:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @PamD: that's super helpful - I've passed the links on to the group! Lajmmoore (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm in! Started Leona May Smith this morning. Penny Richards (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Co-hosting this edit-a-thon and we kicked off today. New to editing + edit-a-thons and really appreciate all of the support from this group! Yourworstemily (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Question - one of our new editors made good progress on the draft for Ethel Merker. Would someone be willing to review and advise on next steps? TBH I've not gotten to the Draft to Article process yet so not sure how the page move function works or what the best process it. TYIA! Yourworstemily (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi! An initial draft for Ethel Merker is now pending. Welcome any tips, and would super appreciate a quick rundown of the process of making a new article live, out of draft form. I'll work on Helen Kotas next.Nocatrio (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Nocatrio, Hey! Congrats on your article - a nice thing to add is an Infobox. If you are in Visual Editor, go to Insert, then Template, then use the search bar to find "Infobox Musician" (or similar there's a few optins). Once there you can add details to different bars (do click on Add more info for more choices)! Lmk if you need help Lajmmoore (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Deep L

Hi. Just to alert editors who might use google translate and sometimes get some awkward translations, use DeepL check out this. I've noticed major improvements in translation while learning, so highly recommend it if you haven't heard of it!† Encyclopædius 16:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Yandex is also very good and recently added Papiamento to the languages it translates. IMO, Systran still is best for Dutch, but thanks for this Encyclopædius, can never have enough translators in one's arsenal. SusunW (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SusunW. I've noticed the German google translate translations are still often clearly not right in particular. Deep L is German so should be the best translator for that. Even Spanish Google still has trouble with things like quotes, I know I've had to ask Ipigott a few times to proof film reviews! This is why I hope to become proficient at reading at least six languages and not have to rely on automated translations! With things like sources in particular it is very valuable to be able to use a range of language sources and read it directly.† Encyclopædius 16:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopædius: Interesting addition. If you are really interested in progress, check out GPT-3, now acquired by Microsoft and liable to revolutionize NLP, including translation tools. But if quotes, etc., are really a problem, remove them before you use translation tools. I can remember offering advice along these lines in the early 1990s. See "Formatting" and subsequent sections of Systran development at the EC Commission. I've just been reading this again for the first time in over 20 years. I had completely forgotten "Live to screw". Great fun in those days!--Ipigott (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

That's amazing! So you really contributed to the evolution of this!! Grammatical homographs, spot a lot of them in Spanish which often throws me off!† Encyclopædius 07:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

(Whispers to Encyclopædius, I have long felt Ian should have a WP article, but because of our close relationship I don't think I can write it). SusunW (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@SusunW: Why are you whispering, chica? That truth needs to become a part of our daily vernacular until Ian has a well written biography here.Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

That's very kind of you all but I really don't think there's any need for a mainspace article. I've received more than enough recognition from editors here for my efforts on Wikipedia. I have in fact avoided appearing physically in editathons, conferences and major Wikimedia events and (despite invitations) have not participated in video tie-ups or on TV or radio programmes in connection with our coverage of women and their works. Indeed, in all the years I've been on Wikipedia, I have never met another editor or spoken to any on the phone or over the social media although I have always been happy to communicate in writing. Since my retirement some 15 years ago, I've done my best to avoid the press and have actively discouraged publication of photographs and news items. So there's really not too much out there in the way of secondary sources. That said, I'm really touched to think some of you feel I deserve a biography.--Ipigott (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Your humility is so noted...SusunW, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find a way to get a picture of Ian. I will create a shadow company that will pay several "reliable" media organizations to publish articles about Ian so we can use it to create a sourced biography. I will tell them to make something up in the case where facts can't be presented but make it good. I am sure they are familiar with how to do that. By the time Ian files an AfD we will have secured enough votes to override him...why am I typing this here so he knows our plans?Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Tsistunagiska I would never fail to honor Ian's request to not have a biography. BLP and all that. But you did give me a good laugh. SusunW (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@SusunW: Good, it had the affect I was looking for. Hopefully Ian finds it funny too. I've had to be so serious on here recently. Honestly, when I've gotten off Wikipedia the last week or so my daughter and I have done silly dances just to let loose and be funny.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Now who was it who started talking about fake news all the time? Someone on your side of the pond, if I remember correctly. I'm sure he'd be proud of your evolving expertise. As for me, I always find there's lots of fun on Wikipedia -- but that's probably because I'm getting too old to bother about all those "serious" issues.--Ipigott (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Refreshing to see a Wikipedian who doesn't want an article about themselves! I've now reached about 7400 words saved in total the six languages which is amazing progress I think even if I haven't memorised them all yet! No language expert recommends learning even two languages together let alone six like I am but I find short periods of daily reading and listening and translating a few phrases into the six languages I can already speak and write a bit in all and understand even bits of news broadcasts. I get bored of only focusing on one or two, and motivation/consistency is the key I think. This is working very well for me.† Encyclopædius 11:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Honor killing

We have dozens of articles about women who were the victims of murder, categorised as "Honor killings", and referred to as such in article prose. Should these refer to "so-called honor killing", or use some other term?

Do you know how much I hate it being called "honor" killing as if any killing has "honor", especially these type killings. I cry every time I have to kill an animal as a subsistence harvester. There is no honor in it. In fact we sweat-lodge and "Go to Water" to purify and say prayers for the animal because of it. I would love for someone to come up with another term that is applicable. Unfortunately "Honor Killing" has become the normal term in describing these kinds of horrific events.Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Since that term refers to the killing of more than just women, the whole category and its parent article should really be called "shame killing", which is currently a redirect there. It would be unencyclopedic, though tempting, to create a category for what it is - "backwards ignorance killing". Perhaps we should just use the term Femicide. — Maile (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Florence Müller

This draft was created by a sock account but I believe she is still notable enough for this encyclopedia. I am putting off deleting it incase anyone wishes to work on it. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Josefina Guerrero

Caught this new article while browsing New Pages, and it's being discussed at DYK. I created a DYK and stuck a WIR template on it, since this definitely fits the September doings. The article itself could use a little boost, if anyone is interested. Just thought I'd mention it here. What a heroic story this woman had - she got leprosy, and her family pretty much abandoned her. She then enlisted as a Filipina soldier and spy, helping US forces defeat the Japanese in that arena in WWII — Maile (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Maile66 I can add a fair-use image (the one that is on the nationalww2museum site), but only after it has run as a DYK. Any idea when that will be? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair use image is OK in the article, even while it's in the DYK queue. We just can't use a fair use image in the hook. It will probably be more than a month before it appears on the main page. I think go ahead and add the fair use image to the article. — Maile (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

image added to article

Done WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. The image, and the infobox, really adds to it. There is a suggestion on the nomination template to hold it for Wikipedia Asian Month (November) 2020. I like that idea, also. — Maile (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Barbara Fallis

This was just declined, probably in error in my view. Anyone want to adopt it and get it into mainspace? Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1: Done! Good catch. - MapleSoy (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Ljubica Arsić

This is a pending draft with unclear notability... also poorly sourced. Anyone want to work on it? Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Jelena Patrnogic 2

1. Seems likely to be a bad decline, please have a look! Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1 and Tagishsimon: This one appears to be a mess. There are two identical drafts, both were rejected and then suggested to be merged into an article that may have existed but doesn't now? Which draft gets approved? She may be notable as an artist but needs cats and possibly additional sources.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I promoted what looked like the slightly longer version, and redirected the other. Jelena Patrnogic. Calliopejen1 - this is a good game, would recommend :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

2. Someone might want to double check Draft:Susan. M Landon for notability (draft hss serious issues otherwise as well). Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

3. Draft:Christie McDonald seems to be a bad decline (named chair for WP:PROF. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Promoted as Christie McDonald. Could do with better cats. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

4. Draft:Sofía Montiel declined, seems very likely to be notable.[1] Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Priscilla Quintana

Check this one too. It looks like the originator made significant additions to sources after it was declined.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Some of the sourcing was totally inappropriate for a BLP (public records, wikis, random dodgy sites)... I removed the poorly sourced BLP information. No opinion on whether she's notable or not - I don't normally work on actor articles. The previous reviewer stated she probably meets NACTOR, though. Spicy (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Promoted to Priscilla Quintana to be on the safe side. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Kathleen Collins

I noticed this on BLPN Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kathleen L. Collins - article combines multiple people. I intended to look into it myself but any help would be appreciated. Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: It appears that all information about the less notable Kathleen L. Collins was removed and the article was moved to Kathleen Collins. There may still need to be some clean-up but it looks like the majority of the main issues were corrected.Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Lyla Mae Olson

Another bad decline for your attention.... probably can be accepted straight away but I didn't read the whole thing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1:: Oh wow, there is one sentence that needs citation and the whole article gets denied for it? Eek!! Let's get this article in mainspace.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Done and done! Thanks, Calliopejen1. You are amazing!Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I found these both on User:SDZeroBot/Declined AFCs, which is a new report that a bot operator made at my request. In the past, I've mostly rescued drafts at the G13 stage (after the contributor may be lost), but now I'm going to make a practice of reviewing these reports on a daily basis (when hopefully the contributor could still see their article being accepted). You all may want to do the same. I generally click on the articles about dead people; the living people articles tend to be mostly junk/spam, but you could check the ones about living women to see if you agree with that conclusion... Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Nice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Authority control with Spanish naming customs

Hello all. Could someone help me with a couple authority control and Wikidata questions?

I recently created the article Pilar Pallarés by translating the page from the Spanish Wikipedia. I read on the Women Writers edit-a-thon page that authority control should be included at the foot of every biography. I did that, but nothing showed up. Fair enough, if she didn't have relevant identifiers in Wikidata... but she does. I tried manually specifying the information based on the instructions at Wikipedia:Authority_control, but got a "Warning: Page using Template:Authority control with "ISNI", please move this to Wikidata if possible (this message is shown only in preview)" message. I went to Wikidata for the first time, followed the tutorials (I am trying!), and added es Pilar Pallarés to the Wikipedia section. I searched the archive here but didn't find any responses that seemed to fit. I read Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/Wikidata but I have such an incomplete understanding of Wikidata that it's meaningless to me.

My questions are:

1) If I create a new English Wikipedia article, should I add it to the Wikipedia section on Wikidata? Did I do this correctly?

2) Why isn't the authority control box visible on the article page?

3) The full name of Pilar Pallarés, with Spanish naming customs, is Pilar Pallarés García. I created this as a redirect page. Should I put the authority control there instead? Wikipedia:Authority_control says "If necessary, create a new redirect to carry the template" which sounds like a yes. Her page on both the Spanish and Galician Wikipedias is Pilar Pallarés, and I was consistent with this on the English Wikipedia page, but also want to mention the possibility that I made the wrong call on this.

I appreciate your help. Enby (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Enby: You did it correctly. The identifiers didn't show up for me on the English article either until I purged the cache by appending "?action=purge" to the URL. This happens sometimes for some reason. Nick Number (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Enby: Thanks for writing about this Galician poet. The presentation looks fine to me. For biographies, it's useful to add DEFAULTSORT and categories showing the years of birth and death, including Category:Living people if applicable. (See my edits.)--Ipigott (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick Number and Ipigott! Enby (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Beautifully written, Enby. I was seeing if it mattered which project template was used on the talk page and it doesn't appear so. Ipigott Do you know? For the metrics, are all articles written in 2020 counted towards the #1day1woman initiative despite whether the specific template is on the talk page or not?Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Tsistunagiska: Our key metrics as recorded by WHGI reflect the proportion of female biographies on the EN wiki as presented on Wikidata. The wikiproject templates do not influence this overall result but it is nevertheless interesting to see to what extent our WiR priorities have encouraged coverage of women. Some editors post new articles on #1day1woman without using the template. Indeed, some of our most active contributors simply post the basic WIR wikiproject without further specification.--Ipigott (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Hmmm, interesting. I've seen articles, and begun doing it myself, that have a template for the monthly project they were created under and the #1day1woman template as well. I was just curious if there was a beneficial reason it was done that way.Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Tsistunagiska: I think it's always useful to add the appropriate WiR template. It allows us to see how effective our priorities have been and also draws attention to the wide scope of our initiative.--Ipigott (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Maria Fernanda Ampuero

Hi, almost a month ago I created the article for Ecuadorian writer Maria Fernanda Ampuero, but recently I noticed that it wasn't coming up in the google results, so I looked at the source code for the article and realized that it had a robots metatag set to nofollow,noindex. Does anyone know why is that? That metatag is what prevents it from showing in search results, and its something that no other article has. Is there a policy about that tag or something? Thanks a lot for your help.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh I just found the answer myself XD, new articles are indexed 90 days after creation.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

That's weird. nofollow is afaik used on external links, but not as a robots.txt for an article. Only "policy" I can find is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nofollow and it is of no help. Possible Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might be the better place to ask the question. --Tagishsimon (talk)

New writer articles

Hi all, would appreciate your help in expanding/cleaning up these newly accepted AfC articles about women writers:

Thank you! - MapleSoy (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I just accepted Petronella Breinburg. She is notable—has an entry in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Children's Literature—but the article could use some TLC. Spicy (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Spicy: I've added her to Breinburg and italicised some of her book titles in the article. PamD 08:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Marian Anderson at DYK - need help

I did the GA review on Marian Anderson. Ahsoka Dillard was the nominator of both the GAC and DYK. Gerda Arendt approved the DYK nomination. A slip up by me is now causing a delay in the promotion of DYK Marian Anderson. I'm wondering if anyone here can help. At the GA review, I noted that two sites had copied the Wikipedia article verbatim, one with acknowledgement and one without. Unfortunately, I did not specify on the GA review what those sites were. My memory is that the WCSU site had very clearly attributed their bio blurb to Wikipedia, but now the attribution is no longer on their website. I do not recall what the other site was. My errors. The article passed DYK, but is now not being promoted because of that issue. Can anyone come up with evidence of what two sites copied Wikipedia, either by date or otherwise, and help at the DYK review. Any assistance there is appreciated. — Maile (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Wayback Machine has only one saved version of the WCSU page (June 22, 2020), and it doesn't show any attribution to Wikipedia, unfortunately. If you completed the GA review in late August/early September, I'm guessing you would not have seen an attribution at that time either. I'll see if I can find any evidence of other sites copying. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

That is so weird. It's one thing to overlook adding a link. But I wouldn't have mentioned on the GA about either of the sites copying, if I had not see it with my own eyes. There's a lesson to be learned here ... document, document, link it. — Maile (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

For sure! It's so easy to lose stuff. I've found two other copies: (1) this Black Kudos blog post clearly attributes its text to Wikipedia, and (2) this Crossrhythms article from June 24 2009 appears to have taken text directly from the June 18 2009 version of the Wikipedia article. Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. — Maile (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Maile66: the usual way of showing a backwards copy when there is no attribution is to figure iut the version that was copied from Wikipedia, then show that the Wikipedia page evolved to have that text. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your help and advice. — Maile (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump, sexism, misogyny, and other matters

I write to raise what may or may not be an issue, but I suspect it is, hence I write... I have worked a little on the Donald Trump article, where a couple of months ago I introduced the section Donald_Trump#Comments_about_women. There was no mention of the issue before. The article itself is vastly too long, of course, so the section I introduced has been whittled back to its present form. I suspect a gender bias (though all in good faith!) has overly-minimized this and related issues on the Trump biography, and have raised the issue on the Talk page: Talk:Donald Trump#Underrepresenting Trump's "deal" with women? A gender bias?. I write to solicit an alternate gender view of the issue; perhaps post on that Talk page. (There are a few female editors who work on the article, but not many, that I can tell.) (We have "RfC"'s...I am wondering if there would not be a value for "RfGC"'s - Request for Gender Comment?) (Long ago I was to attend a major scientific conference. They posted the speaker's list. I looked at it, "that's interesting." Every woman at the conference, but none of the men, noticed that there were no female speakers; a revolt ensued. Gender bias...my awareness (about my lack of awareness) was raised.) Bdushaw (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

If the main biography is already too long, it may be useful to create a separate article on Trump's comments/dealings with women. It could then be linked from the main article.--Ipigott (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Beatrice Lumpkin

Anyone want to help write the bio on this nasty woman who made recent headlines for trolling at the age of 102? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Carmela Troncoso

I am searching for people helping with this article on Carmela Troncoso that has unfortunately been multiple times rejected due to my initial inexperience. However, I think that Troncos deserves to be mentioned as she is an security expert and LGBT+ activist, and as such help with the implementation of crucial technology for the mitigation of the COVID-19 pandemic and in journalism. Thank indeed for your contribution! Quaenuncabibis (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I've accepted the draft. I believe she meets WP:PROF based on citations of her publications (see Google Scholar profile). TJMSmith (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello TJMSmith, thanks a lot, also for the other approvals. Much appreciated! Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Technical help

Not even sure if I know how to explain this, but when I put the template for the STEM editathon on this talk page and press the linked "STEM edit-a-thon" it takes me to the 2019 page, not the 2020 page. Can someone fix that? SusunW (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Fixed diff. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

You totally rock Tagishsimon! Thank you. SusunW (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Susun, that must have been my mistake. Cutting and pasting can sometimes be dangerous. I'll try to be more careful in future.--Ipigott (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Not to worry at all Ipigott. You do so much for us here. It was a small thing, easily fixed by someone who had the skill to do it. I appreciate both of y'all for the work you do for us. SusunW (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Jazelle Barbie Royale

Inviting improvements to the newly created Jazelle Barbie Royale, please. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Women

Hi all, I am slowly working on adding entries from this reference book to Wikidata. Wondering if I can get help making a page like this to show the entries that are missing articles? The Wikidata item is Q99851765. Thanks! - MapleSoy (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Consider it done! Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Women. Gamaliel (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Amazing! Thank you, Gamaliel. - MapleSoy (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

MapleSoy Glad to help! Are you adding these manually? I could help speed the process up a bit depending on how much information I can extract from the book. Gamaliel (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Gamaliel: Yes, manually. If you can think of a way to speed up the process, I'm all ears; I've made it to K! I'm finding it tricky because the Chinese names are all listed in a glossary at the end of the book, and the transliterations don't always match what is currently in Wikidata, so I'm having to do a bit of research for each name. - MapleSoy (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

MapleSoy: Oh wow, that sounds laborious. I found a copy of one of the volumes, but the Chinese characters aren't cutting and pasting clearly, sadly, but I'll work on it and see if I can get them to cooperate. If I can get them into OpenRefine intact I might be able to automatically match some of them with the right Wikidata items. Gamaliel (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see (without having access), the second volume looks as if it might be particularly useful. As far as I know, the only generally accessible biographical dictionary is Harvard's CBDB which is not so good on the 20th century. Are there any others, even in Chinese, which are easily accessible? I know there's Baike Baidu but it's not very reliable.--Ipigott (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The one I have is the Antiquity through Shi volume. I don't know what's going on with this (legally obtained through a library) PDF but I can't cut and paste the Chinese characters. I don't have this problem with other texts. Tried updating the character sets on Windows but that didn't do it. Maybe someone with more familiarity with these issues can help. Gamaliel (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I was able to access Gu Shenying. I'll try some of the others.--Ipigott (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I've finished adding all the 20th-century women to the list. Thought I'd highlight a few interesting ones that are missing articles!

Chi Jishang, b. 1917; geologist and petrologist; made a number of important contributions to the study of earth sciences in China
Li Shude [Wikidata], b. 1929; violinist and music educator, known as Taiwan's Godmother of Violin
Jiang Lijin [Wikidata], b. 1919; award-winning organic chemist
Xian Yuqing, b. 1895; historian, poet, and painter
Yang Fuqing (computer scientist) [Wikidata], b. 1932; led the development of the first large operation system in an advanced programming language in China; organized China's first conference on software engineering
Zhong Yuzheng [Wikidata], b. 1930; leading figure in the field of chemical disarmament; first woman scientist to be promoted to the rank of general in the Chinese military

A preview of the biographical dictionary is available on Google Books, but if anyone has any difficulty accessing an entry, you can send me an email and I'd be happy to share! - MapleSoy (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodi O'Donnell-Ames

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if anyone can do an assessment on this article but it might be worth looking at. I haven't done too much research but thought it might be worth a look as it's an article created recently and may feature a woman who passes WP:GNG. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@SusunW: I did a quick search for her and got so many hits. She's written two published books that I can find. Perhaps putting your scholarly sleuthing skills to work here will reveal more than I could find.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems like a straightforward WP:COI case to me; not something I'd be inclined to lend any assistance to. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a news search turned up a few items, but their quality is not really impressive. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: That's fine. No one is compelling you to assist with an article you can't agree with or even making an assertion you have to. Your opinion is there is a COI. You have no proof of this so all we can go on is policy. She meets WP:GNG just by the few independent sources I can find. I agree that the majority are primary sources and that could be an issue outside of the fact we actually have published books that have received independent reviews which further makes the argument for notability.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Tsistunagiska, You have no proof of this just look at who claims the portrait of the subject as "own work". Then notice how she's wearing the same dress in the profile photo of her bio here: https://speakerhub.com/sites/default/files/user/profile_picture/2020/09/14/jodi-odonnell-ames.jpg. same resolution, same exifdata, also edited with Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 9.3 (Macintosh). Same photographer? I think so. Vexations (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I've improved the tone and trimmed out WP:PROMO. I agree that she likely meets WP:SIGCOV. AFD is not for article clean-up...TJMSmith (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vexations: If you found it then the creator of the article could too. Photographs are found on Wikimedia Commons. If you believe a picture is a copyright violation I suggest going there and making your argument. I would most likely support you there. The picture will be removed from the article should it be deemed to be a copyright infringement. If the person who uploaded the picture then comes forward and says they were the photographer who took the picture you would have a strong case for WP:COI. Until then it is all conjecture centered around a possible copyrighted photo. Wikipedia, as I have been told countless times in my arguments, is an encyclopedia with policies that are supposed to be taken objectively and literal. Looking at the facts surrounding Jodi and her expertise in dealing with ALS as well as her education of the populace on the disease by speaking to media outlets and being the subject of independent media pieces on top of the published and reviewed books she has written, she clearly passes WP:GNG. The assertion the nominator makes that significant coverage can't be found by searching Google is false. All other things mentioned, including alleging that an editor has a COI issue with no definitive proof, are simply opinions that are unsubstantiated and go against Wikipedia's longstanding "good faith" practice. I am all for opinions. I share them frequently. If proof is brought forward I would still say draftify it and allow an independent editor or group rewrite it. She seems like a remarkable woman and I can appreciate her fight.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The bootom line, Tsistunagiska, is that paid COI articles are a blight on wikipedia. If you reward their editors, you encourage more of them. The likelihood that this one is not paid COI is vanishingly small. You can choose to disagree, or not to see what's obviously before your eyes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: The bottom line is you saying it a thousand times doesn't make it true. An opinion is irrelevant in the face of policy. If you can't prove a policy issue then you have no case. Again, I can say the moon is made of cheese. It doesn't mean anything unless or until we have an astronaut come back covered in cheddar. Is Jodi notable? Yes! Does she have significant coverage? Yes! Are there independent verifiable sources cited which cover the subject of the article? Yes! Your assertions it was created by an editor paid by someone to create it is pure conjecture. You have no proof and personally, it is an affront to "good faith" practices that I and many editors here hold sacred. Until definitive proof is brought forward I will stick to policy because that is the only constant we have to lean on.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

My reading of WP:GNG - "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" tends to predispose me to exclude coverage which arises out of organisational PR. You may be happier with a lower standard. I think that low standard damages wikipedia, especially where the article is itself just more PR fluff. If you 'good faith' the abuse of wikipedia then you simply roll over and let those who game the system win. That is a poor outcome. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Again, that is your opinion. I have been told on multiple occasions that, as an editor and Wikipedian, I am to take the policy at face value. No conjecture, no opinion can supersede Wikipedia policy, period. Your reading of text does not make it policy. Passing opinion off as a reason to delete or discredit an article as a PR stunt is disingenuous to the purpose of Wikipedia. This encyclopedia is not here to serve the wishes, opinions or views of Tagishsimon or Tsistunagiska. Simply put, by the letter of the law and without personal bias or conjecture, does she meet GNG? Yes, anyone doing a quick Google search can see she is a notable woman who has written independently published and reviewed books. Your attempt to try to discredit me by saying I am blinded to reality because I don't interject my opinion as fact in this case and your direct assault against my "good faith" principles in regards to new editors is disheartening and quite offensive. I haven't personally attacked you in any way, in fact, specifically avoiding that because I had gained a great deal of respect for you from our previous engagements.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

{od} I am going to walk away from this now because I don't want to engage in this kind of rhetoric and attempts to discredit a woman who has done so much for ALS research including her assistance with families and children whose parents suffer from this gut-wrenching disease by bringing national and international awareness to it. We have written, edited and even fought for articles on women here in this program who have done as much or even less in their lifetime to this point. If you want the last word then so be it. My vote will not be changed by conjecture when it is put up against policy.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Jamie Peck (podcaster)

Hi! Sorry if this is a newbie question but my twin told me about this group and your guy's efforts to get more articles about women on this site, as a feminist i thought it was great! I even wrote a draft article for Draft:Jamie Peck (podcaster). I wanted to make sure If someone wants to look at it i would totes be down for the extra help! I don't really know what i am doing tbh (0u0;;✿) ~𝓜𝓙𝓛'𝓼 𝓔𝓿𝓲𝓵 𝓢𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻 (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a very accomplished article for a newbie. You'll possibly be aware of WP:BIO1E. I'm not sure how this article rises above that bar. You'll say GNG. I won't buy it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Women's football/soccer season articles nominated for deletion

Three season articles for Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to join the discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bring back Daz Sampson: I have no issue pointing out the elephant in the room. Would this even be discussed if it was a male team? It was an excellently written article with the proper reliable sources about a notable subject team within a professional league.Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. Multiple men's club season articles have been deleted recently for the same reason that this one has been nominated, such as this, this, this or this. Number 5 7 22:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tsistunagiska: is correct about the revulsion most neutral onlookers would feel about such overtly discriminatory practice. After all, WP:FPL is a perpetually incomplete essay with no relevance to female teams or athletes. What we have is a tiny cabal of "football lads" who took out a red pen and drew a line around their favourite local teams and leagues. It's disingenuous nonsense because it includes Scottish Championship, for example, which is not and never has been "fully professional". So it's intended to add a fig leaf of objectivity to systemic bias and is very jealously-guarded but, seen as such, it should have little if any bearing on a discussion like this. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: I noticed the same people voted on those articles. Don't pretend your objectivity on this subject. All of them meet WP:GNG in regards to reliable independent sources. In regards to WP:NSEASON, it specifically states "top professional" not "fully professional". Those articles clearly state that the clubs played in their respective "top professional" leagues, whether semi-professional, meaning not all players are paid a full time wage to play, or fully professional, meaning all players are paid a full time wage to play.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to note that, up until recently, relative to the over-all length of time "professional" sports has been opened to women, they have not been given the "full time" status due to the very clear bias against them. If we are going to truly destroy the barrier and acknowledge the wrongs that have been committed against women in every facet of life we must correct this issue starting here and now. Men have been paid "full time professional" wages for sports even while women's "professional" sports were relegated to "semi-professional" pay. Are we then to further the bias against these women's professional sports teams while elevating the men's professional sports teams simply based on how often or how much we deem they were paid? Does the volunteer/semi-paid player on those teams work any less to be the best they can be in their respective sports in their league? They are professionals because they are at the top of their game, regardless of whether men decided to pay them that way or not. Shame on anyone who perpetuates the blatant bias I have seen over the last two days and then comes here declaring they work to destroy the barriers of the past.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps people who know about women's football should campaign for a third bullet point in WP:NFOOTY (which is part of the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) guideline and not the private property of the established football project), to provide an appropriate "presumed notability" criterion for women's football, given the different history of the game (eg the FA's suppression of women's football after the first world war because it was too popular and detracting from attendance at the men's games, before its recent resurgence). PamD 23:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Good idea Pam. At the moment there is a very sinister 'purge' of women's football articles, with these dubious notability criteria being used as a pretext. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@PamD: I would agree with that except that its wholly unnecessary if editors quit using their subjective opinion in regards to notability and simply followed WP:GNG. If an article has verifiable and reliable independent sources that clearly define and discuss the subject and is visible to a significant part of the world then it meets the notability requirements and should have an article. NOTHING supersedes that. In any case we fought as hard as we could but the biased forces against women's sports wins again and another loss to women and our history, albeit recent, is wiped away from this encyclopedia either by ignorance or a willful desire to maintain control over the narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsistunagiska (talk • contribs) 14:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You're not kidding, @Tsistunagiska:, that deletion was a travesty and probably worth a deletion review if I get round to it. The closing admin was not 'involved' in the sense that he didn't vote in that particular discussion - but he is a card-carrying member of the stuffy boy's club at WP:FOOTY. He therefore has a vested interest in policing/perpetuating this nonsense! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bring back Daz Sampson: We have been challenged to take the article(s) before review. The women's football haters fraternity stands by their biased opinions it seems.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Tsistunagiska:. Now at deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Active#9 October 2020 Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bring back Daz Sampson: Thank you for the DRV. I left a nice little comment under yours. Been stewing over this deletion for some time now ---Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - and thank you for your restraint in the face of some extremely annoying provocation. I'm holding my tongue because the dice are already loaded against us here and I need to be careful I don't talk myself into another ban! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Denise A. Rangel Tracy

Anyone see anything that would help this pass WP:NPROF or WP:BASIC? Unfortunately, I don't think I do. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: With your experience, I thought you'd be a good judge of this. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. I see she won a AWM Service Award. TJMSmith (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

My default reaction is: Why do editors so often create articles on the young up-and-comers when there are still so many missing articles on well-established or no-longer-active academics with much more easily defensible records? You're setting yourself up for confrontation and disappointment that way. Be more patient, give them time to achieve something before you set them up in this way. Mathematics is always difficult because it has low citations in general. Assistant professors are difficult because they haven't had enough time to accumulate impact as a scholar. In her case, that means two publications with single-digit citations, far out of reach of WP:PROF#C1. The service award is a better shot (for say WP:PROF#C2), but still not a good shot, because the Association for Women in Mathematics is a much smaller organization than the bigger national mathematics organizations in the US (the American Mathematical Society, Mathematical Association of America, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics), and because service is never considered as significant as research and teaching. For the same reasons, being on the AWM executive committee isn't going to count for much. The best you're going to hope for is human-interest media coverage of the playing cards, and even then you're going to run into WP:BIO1E issues. Unless media coverage of her can be turned up that covers more than one story about her, from sources that are both mainstream and not connected with her (none of which are in the article now), this looks like the sort of article that if unprodded would certainly go to an AfD, and that I would most likely vote delete on in an AfD, not because I want to delete articles about up-and-coming female mathematicians but because I can find no way to argue that this article meets our standards. And I think relaxing the standards would be a mistake, as it would more greatly encourage coverage of and by publicity-hungry (and usually male) self-promoting junior faculty than it would of people like Tracy who appear to be trying to make a difference but haven't yet been documented to have already made a difference. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: The answer to your "Why... ?" seems to be "because they were introduced to editing at an editathon which didn't take enough care to guide newbies toward the "well-established or no-longer-active academics with much more easily defensible records", but let them spend, perhaps waste, their time on less verifiably notable people." Sad. PamD 06:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

When running editathons, I have found it better to create a list in advance of suitable people that one has researched in advance and are confident will survive any AfD. And lists of articles in need of expansion, referencing, etc. Edwardx (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone see a good article for this image?

It's a lovely image. Person in question isn't notable from what I can tell, but I think it's... in the vaue spirit of this project to get attention on this sort of thing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 08:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Adam Cuerden, it's lovely. Perhaps it can go in Mechanical calculator since it says the image is for a calculating contest? SusunW (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Vexed that I've not been able to identify the machine being used. Not a Comptometer, I think. Has a carriage rather like a Monroe, but their 1920s machines had closed cases not open frames. Not Burroughs also. Sad. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

What it looks like to me is a Smith Premier typewriter. Key identifying marks include the three rows of dark keys above three rows of light keys on the keyboard (striped patterns of keys are very common on calculators but almost always by columns rather than rows) and some lettering near the top of the machine that looks like the end of the word "Premier". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you have it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I found an article about the event: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9614230m/f5.image.r=machines%20Magic%20City?rk=42918;4

Duplicate Wikidata entries

There are duplicate entries for the opera singer Fan Ruijuan on Wikidata. Both the Chinese and the English articles are linked to Fan Ruijuan (Q8958431) but there is also Ruijuan Fan (Q94357951) with various ac links. I am not sure how to sort this out or indeed whether there are any wikidata conventions on how to list Chinese people (by family name or given name). Can anyone help?--Ipigott (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure about naming conventions (beyond, for label and alias, cover both options), but we're now down to a single item, which is the main thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I ran into this issue yesterday after creating the article Niki Etsuko -- Wikidata already had a "Etsuko Niki" entry, but a new "Niki Etsuko" entry was created automatically. I ended up merging the two entries into the older one (which seems to be the usual convention). I figure it's fine either way as long as the rest of the Wikidata entry correctly lists which parts of the name are surname/given name. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Rose Bayuk

I ran across her as I was looking into the Methodist-Kahler School of Nursing. If anyone is looking for an article to create there are some sources for her. 1 2 3 I'm sure other editors here could probably find more scholarly sources for anyone wanting to write about her. The ones I provided are from a quick search.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Started a Wikidata entry: Q100273876. TJMSmith (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Journalist notability

By chance is anyone interested in digging for better sources for the Seung Min Kim page? Unfortunately I can’t find much in the way of independent secondary sources but would be sorry to see it deleted if I’m just missing something. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Clara McAdow

If anyone can help find sources for Clara McAdow, a women's suffragist from Montana and possibly a mine owner, it would help out some of our fellow editors. Thank you, everyone.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few newspaper articles (via Newspapers.com) that might help:

Died Worth Millions
She's a Rarity, Even in the West
A Woman Who Knew How to Make Money Note that article continues below image.
She Made the Mine Pay
Mrs. Clara McAdow

Eddie Blick (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's an image:

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 18:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I started a Wikidata entry: Q100273791. TJMSmith (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone working on a draft for her? I'd be happy to write up a stub. Jessamyn (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl and Jessamyn: I have to bring Megalibrarygirl into the discussion here. They are the one who initiated a request to help find sources so they may be creating an article on Clara. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tsistunagiska and Jessamyn: I'd love it if a stub is written up. I can add to it. :) I'm doing a lot of women's suffrage work right now. I was inspired by a historian who said basically, the Civil War which was 4 years or so has tons of media and attention, but the suffrage movement in the US which was more than 70 years is barely a blip. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jessamyn: There you go, lovely. I think you found your next article. Thank you both so much. This has been a little ray of light and a joy researching myself. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, will try to get a stub up this week sometime. Jessamyn (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Not sure if I am doing this YO right, but this stub is started. I used all the sources above except the "She made the mine pay" one which was hard for me to read. Clara McAdow Jessamyn (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jessamyn: this is brilliant! So glad to see her online now! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jessamyn: Great job! Thank you so much for creating the article. You are amazing! --Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Marie Davenport and conflicting sources

Hi all, if anyone has any advice about dealing with discrepancies in sources, that would be very helpful. I've done some editing on Marie Davenport and added a couple of sources. Another editor is also working on the article. I've summarised some discrepancies on the article's talk page. It relates to the circumstances around a reprimand by the International Olympic Committee. Could also do with thoughts about how to represent that incident as part of the subject's athletic career and trying to ensure the article is balanced, particularly from people more experienced than I am on sports articles. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Perry McAdow House

Is it just me, or is this article a really good example of a business version of the Matilda effect? Clara McAdow barely gets a mention, when the sources I've seen credit her for the couple's fortune Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 19:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup. There's also a weird syndrome amongst folks that specialize in NRHP articles, an area that I dip my toe into a bit. Those specialists seem so focused on those articles, you kind of wonder whether they are understanding the actual park service documents they are using as sources, rather than just transcribing them. Usually if the property is named for a person, the nomination form will have biographical details and serve as a good source for another article.

That was how I ended up writing Mary Blair Moody. I totally stumbled on Dr. Mary B. Moody House somehow, and immediately thought, "wait a sec, if it was worth naming this historic house for this woman, why doesn't she have an article?". After like 30 minutes of googling it was obvious she was a slam dunk for notability, and there was already even a photo of her in Commons and a bio of her in WikiBooks.

Which just makes me wonder about the person who wrote the house article. How uncurious do you have to be to write an article about a structure named for a person and not at least investigate whether that person should have their own article too? I know, I know, people specialize. But please. At least they could have popped in over here and suggested it to someone. This kind of goes along with my other pet peeve about NRHP WikiGnomes which is that many of them tend to write article entirely sourced from the NPS document(s) and the articles end up being very mechanical and boring. "The house has a hipped roof and four columns". "Yeah, sure, I can see that in the photo, but tell me about the people who lived here and why do we care to preserve their house?" --Krelnik (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

What really gets me, though, is that [2] for example, makes it very clear Clara was almost solely responsible for their fortune, the brief summary at the National Historic Register attributed them as both having made their fortune through gold mining, and then the writer of the article attributed it to Perry! Female erasure by degrees! I've fixed it a bit now, but it's really not great that we did that so long. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 21:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay. It's one source, but I expanded it a bit, which I think helps a lot. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 21:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing against Perry but, wow, before you included her she was barely mentioned and it was her fortune that secured and built the house! As a note and not to take away from the fact Clara lived at a time when women were still considered "second rate citizens" even as the tide was slowly turning, an exorbitant amount of pressure was applied to men and especially those who were considered as not taking care of their families (disabled) or living up to the standards, usually set forth by other men. It very well may be that Clara, not wanting her husband to suffer from the presumed shame of not being able to provide for her, simply allowed the narrative to slant the way it did in an attempt to cause no harm to her husband. Either way I would have petitioned it be called the McAdow House and let readers and visitors make their own judgement call. Great find Adam Cuerden!! --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As one of the NRHP editors who's also part of this project: point taken, and it's definitely a blind spot. I'll occasionally write an article on someone associated with a historic site, especially when the site is mostly notable through its association with the person, but I don't do that as often as I'd like. I think that when we have long lists of notable historic sites and an easily accessible source in the nomination, it gets a little too easy to churn out articles based on the one source instead of looking into the broader context of the sites, which might mean doing more work to establish a person's notability and find multiple sources about their life. (And a lot of the houses named after people are more notable for their architecture than their owners, so sometimes looking into the owner is a dead end.) I'll keep this discussion in mind for my future editing though, and I think it's worth sharing with WikiProject NRHP too. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

That said, it must be noted that a big part of the problem in this spcific case was that events were more unusual than the NRHP editors thought. So a note that the couple made their fortune in mining (which is already over-emphasizing Perry, but since Perry financed the initial stake in the mine, it's not entirely wrong) turned into a presumption that Perry did all the work. It's understandable, but not great. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 05:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I acknowledge that Wikipedia says it isn't here to right great wrongs of the past, however, as I have pointed out in arguing for keeping articles on indigenous people and especially indigenous women, we aren't asking Wikipedia to right a wrong then. We are asking that we not continue to perpetuate the wrongs by deleting and denying the creation of these articles. There is a difference. Wikipedia can not create something that isn't there. Luckily in this case, we have irrefutable evidence that Clara did the majority of the work running the mine and increasing the fortune of the family, eventually selling it for a large sum. We can't change the name of the house here to make a point. That would be righting a wrong. We can include the information about Clara in the article which is what was done. Excellent work Adam Cuerden and thank you, Krelnik and TheCatalyst31 for the amazing work you do in writing articles on these topics.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As the creator of the Dr. Mary B. Moody House, perhaps I am in a unique position to comment specifically on Krelnik's observations. Firstly, when I created said article, I noted from the outset the significance of its occupants, and was actually happy to see that Krelnik picked up the thread. This type of content is one that any number of other NRHP-specialist editors do not always add, resulting in the "mechanical and boring" stub articles which may be mainly of interest to architectural historians, historic architecture aficionados, and local historians, but apparently not Krelnik. And yes, I do sometimes say to myself "that person ought to have an article", but (as you say) it's not my specialty, or particular interest, to write about random historical figures, either well-known or undeservedly obscure. I expend significant gnome-like effort to keep one small piece of WP neat(er) and have my own peeves about editors who should "do just one more thing", or be more thorough/careful in their work, or whatever, when they happen to be in the right place to do so. We each try to make the place better in our own way. Chacun à son goût. Magic♪piano 15:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Ute Frevert

This is scheduled to be G13 deleted soon if no edits are made. Does anyone want to adopt it? ~Kvng (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the content was moved into article-space in April. Ute Frevert. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, thanks, I've cleaned that up ~Kvng (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Casey Calvert (actress) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Casey Calvert (actress) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Calvert (actress) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Notifying here, due to redlink turned to blue for pages:

Thank you, Right cite (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Speed skating gender gap closed

Always nice to see a small milestone. This year I created over 500 articles about women speed skaters. There was a gender gap, but has now been closed (same amount men/women — see Category:Speed skaters by nationality). Also, I mainly created articles from early speed skaters, digging into old books and old newspapers. From all the Dutch women at Wikipedia for instance are now >33,3% born prior to 1950 (and not finished — see for example Template:Kortebaan speed skaters (women)) and many more early speed skaters than the Dutch Wikipedia. I will continue creating articles about speed skaters. So hopefully next year the gender gap is the other way around with double the amount of women ;) SportsOlympic (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Very good work, SportsOlympic. I've seen many of them as I've been adding wikidata items & sitelinks to en.wiki bios. Didn't know women's speed skatering, as a sport, had such a very long history, but e.g. Trijntje Pieters Westra (1783-1861). I commend you, especially, on taking the trouble to try to describe the woman, as well as sources allow; and ditto adding images, rather than doing cookie-cutter sports articles. A lot of hard work, but much appreciated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes wow, how remarkable! Job well done SportsOlympic! Innisfree987 (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Remarkable work, SportsOlympic! Cordless Larry (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed many of your contributions, SportsOlympic, while reviewing new articles but I had not realised there had been quite so many. I see that since the end of March, you have created 770 biographies, nearly all of them on women. That's a tremendous achievement. It's thanks to contributors like you that we are slowly catching up in some of the important sports sectors. Keep up the good work and let us know when you've reached your next milestone.--Ipigott (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Add my name to the list of congratulations, SportsOlympic. And I learned something - I didn't realize that speed skating had existed at least since the 19th century. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations SportsOlympic That's amazing work! SO COOL. (Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

Draft:Perin Bharucha-Chandra

This is scheduled to be G13 deleted soon if no edits are made. Anyone want to adopt it? Seems like a plausible article but draft has some issues. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks interesting. I will try to spend a little time on it. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I trimmed a lot of copyvios and moved the article to mainspace Perin Chandra. TJMSmith (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

"10 years of helping close Wikipedia’s gender gap"

Thanks, Jami (Wiki Ed) for including us in your fine piece regarding Wikipedia's gender gap. We are glad and grateful to partner with Wiki Education Foundation in this important work. To the next 10 years! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course, Rosiestep! You know I adore the work y'all do (I'll include myself, on the rare occasion these days ;)), and I'm so grateful for groups like this doing incredibly important work. To the next 10 years! Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Jami (Wiki Ed) An interesting article which rightly presents some of the outstanding results of Wiki Ed and its associates. We are always pleased to welcome both instructors and students from the Wiki Ed community as we realize how much they can contribute, not only to articles but to general awareness of the gender-related shortcomings of the encyclopedia. In addition to the groups covered in the article, we should not forget activities outside North America such as Jessica Wade's initiative to cover women in science, events organized throughout the world by the Swedish authorities such as the recent editathon in Washington D.C., and the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Women/en Wiki Loves Women programme which has provided major incentives for improved coverage of women in Africa. Furthermore, there have been important initiatives concentrating on the versions of Wikipedia in other languages, e.g. WikiDonne and its associates, which have helped to identify women who deserve to be covered in the English version too. It might be wishful thinking at this stage but it would be interesting to see whether there is any interest from Wiki Education in creating partnerships with these and similar initiatives throughout the world.--Ipigott (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As a very new editor to Wikipedia, and this project, there was a strong hesitation not to respond but that isn't my nature. The desire in me for you to know the affect you have had on my short stay here, coupled with the simply phenomenal piece written, overruled my hesitations. The work that so many have done to not just bridge a gap but fill it in and close it is not lost on me. The first response I had was one of awe and humility as I saw and felt the impact many of you have made. The second was that of a fire kindled within me and a distinct call to action. Make A Difference! Thank you, Jami (Wiki Ed), for hearing that call and taking action. Thank you, Rosiestep, for hearing that call and creating this project. Thank you to so many others who heard the call and stood with this project through the years. We are still standing and, though the gap is wide, nothing can ever diminish or take away from the progress made and nothing will stop us from continuing. The call is still being heard and answered. Whether it is baby steps or leaps, the key is moving forward together in unity for a common good. The two of you, as well as most I have met here in this project, like Ipigott (whom I adore), exemplify that and your dedication to closing this gap is infectious. It breathes energy into us to keep pushing upward and forward to new heights and new frontiers. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Inspirational message, Tsistunagiska. Thank you for sharing. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Tsistunagiska!! You and so many people are making a world of difference, not just here on Wikipedia, but in the actual world! :) This space is such a lovely one for reminding us why we do it. Ipigott: I absolutely hear you and am extremely aware there are so many individuals and groups around the world making Wikipedia better! Since we're celebrating 10 years of Wiki Education's Student Program, where the students are in the US/Canada and primarily editing English Wikipedia, I did focus on ENWP and highlighting just a few groups doing incredible work. I certainly did not intend to convey that others aren't doing equally incredible work, especially all over the world and in other languages! We have partnered with other initiatives when the opportunity arose, and I can't say what the future will look like in terms of collaborating more closely with other groups and organizations (not because I won't say but because I don't know!). However, you may know that Wiki Education had to cut back our staff earlier this summer, and we're still at extremely limited capacity to do the work we've already committed to. I certainly hope that changes in the near future so we can explore other ways to engage with other Wikipedia/project communities. Thank you for engaging here and being sure to highlight others in the movement. Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Jami (Wiki Ed): I certainly did not intend to sound so critical. I just thought there might be additional opportunities for expanding the outstanding work Wiki Ed has been doing in North American by fostering collaboration with similar communities of instructors and students around the globe. On the basis of the model you have developed and the achievements you mention, it looks to me as if the Wikimedia Foundation might well be happy to provide support for such extensions, especially as they are keen to improve global coverage of Wikipedia. I certainly think it might be worthwhile bearing these possibilities in mind for future action. I'm not too sure how this could be arranged but others might have suggestions. As a first step, it might be useful to develop a presence on Meta.--Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott, Ah, I see! Primarily, other regional-based chapters and affiliations run education programs in their countries/languages. We do collaborate with them via the Wikipedia & Education User Group, and we've long collaborated with education leaders in dozens of other countries/regions, even before that user group existed. We'll certainly continue doing that work and sharing the resources we have (like the P&E Dashboard), but a lot of these groups are already doing innovative work with Wikipedia & Education (some were running education programs before we were!). Thanks so much for your support and kind words about the work we've been doing! Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Jami (Wiki Ed): Please excuse my ignorance in these matters and thanks for your explanations. Sorry to keep taking up so much of your valuable time but can you point me to some of these initiatives outside North America? I spend quite a lot of my time encouraging wider collaboration on initiatives bent on improving coverage of women in different versions of Wikipedia. As you may know, we are currently supporting research on improving statistics on progress on women's coverage through the Hamaniki project. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott: No need to apologize for asking valid questions! Here's a link to the User Group's page on Meta, where you can find some of the educational initiatives. I'm not sure how many have explicit gender gap projects that are active right now, but I'm certain some do (for example, I know the Wikimedia France team works closely with Les sans pagEs). Hope that helps! Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Jami (Wiki Ed): Thanks very much for this useful information. It certainly looks as if some of my suggestions have already been satisfied. As far as I can see, what still remains to be done is placing more specific emphasis on encouraging stronger participation of female students as editors in order to achieve better coverage of notable women in languages other than English. But as you say, some of the other Wiki Ed language groups are already treating this as a priority although this does not seem to be reflected in the reports on the Meta site. Nevertheless, it is promising to see that our WHGI statistics appear to reflect strong general interest in improving coverage of women in many different language versions of Wikipedia. What is less clear is the extent to which students are specifically involved and what proportion of the articles are unique new contributions rather than translations from English and other major languages.--Ipigott (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding Dungodung, Chair, Wikipedia & Education UG, in case he'd like to add anything to the conversation. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)