Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 86

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80←Archive 84Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87Archive 88→Archive 90

default sort for a Pakistani name?

Does anyone here know the correct formatting of a Pakistani name? Specifically, I wrote a stub for Rabiah Jamil Beg. When I went to add her to the List of Pakistani journalists I realized that the names there were listed in a variety of ways (alphabetically). The List of Pakistani actresses seems to be alphabetical by what a westerner would consider first name. I'd appreciate any guidance. Thanks WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Pakistani name suggests the general form is a given name, sometimes a middle name, and a surname. I don't see anything on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists pointing to a Wikipedia preference for lists ordered by first name versus ordered by surname / family name, but I think we tend to the latter. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Generally the order is much the same as for English names, but certainly WP lists of Pakistani people seem often to use the alphabetical sequence on the first name rather than the family name. Watch out for Begum, which is usually a title rather than a name. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Tagishsimon and Johnbod. I am going to leave it as DEFAULTSORT:Beg, Rabiah Jamil. I will also add her to the list of Baigs. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

CC BY 3.0 license

I was reading the page about Louise Varèse and I found this notice: Collection: Louise Varèse papers | Smith College Finding Aids". findingaids.smith.edu. Retrieved 2020-07-14. This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 3.0 license. Out of curiosity, something changed in the last months? since what I was told when I was using the same sources (the Biographical content of the Finding Aids of Papers at university website) was that CC 3.0 wasn't allow on Wikipedia (only Public Domain was allowed, that I think is CC0). --Elisa.rolle (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Covered here. CC-BY-3.0 is very much allowed on EN Wikipedia and Commons. iirc Wikidata is CC0 only. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Dilys Price OBE, world's oldest skydiver, has passed away

As far as I can tell, she should be notable. Anyone up for writing at least something quick about her? She has plenty of coverage (50K ghits in English alone; I didn't check in Welsh), holds a Guiness World Record, has been awarded an OBE, etc. Right now, Dilys Price is a redirect to Fireman Sam#Townspeople and I think that's a shame. (I'd do the article myself, but I have 30 days left to turn in my thesis ":D") -Yupik (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go at a short piece. Will ask for help over the redirect/disabiguation if I need it.--MerielGJones (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I have made the Dilys Price page into a disambiguation one, but how do I create one with the title Dilys Price, since the redirect/disambiguation one still has that name? I have drafted text about her ready to go in.--MerielGJones (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Pages sorted out now, thanks to ColinFine at the Helpdesk.--MerielGJones (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
You've done a wonderful job on the article, MerielGJones. I've learned even more about her just by reading your article :) Thank you so much! -Yupik (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you MerielGJones for creating this article. I had no idea, what an amazing woman! Netherzone (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Maddalena Mariani Masi

I'm really not much of an article creator anymore, but, frankly, the creator of the title role of a notable opera lacked an article? Well, that cannot stand! Any improvements would be appreciated. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 00:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Denelezh down

Is https://www.denelezh.org/ not working? I am using Google Chrome and for a few days it keeps saying ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC) @Envlh:--Ipigott (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, dead service; server not happy - https://twitter.com/denelezh/status/1315318842692898817 --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I've reached out to a couple of folks associated with Denelezh, asking for an update. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The server hosting Denelezh crashed a few days ago (short technical description: I noticed that Denelezh statistics were no longer updated automatically and that its hard disk was in read-only mode; I restarted the server, but it fails and goes in rescue mode; with Wikimédia France, we tried to solve the issue, but with no luck at the moment). We don't know when we'll be able to make the service available again (a complete re-installation may be needed). The good news is that I was able to make a backup of the data, so we'll be able to either make a complete re-installation of Denelezh, or in the worst case scenario (because it would take at least several weeks) reuse it on Humaniki. Cheers, Envlh (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Hanif Al Husaini: Just as well Humaniki is on the way. It looks as if a prototype might be ready in December. In the meantime, we have WHGI and WDCM (with similar stats to Denelezh in the LH margin).--Ipigott (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Brodden

Hi, can anyone help out here? I had to delete this unsourced BLP, but I won't object if anyone re-writes it. Dennis Brown has helpfully found a few sources. See here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Help with a draft (women in science!)

I wanted to introduce a new user to this WikiProject and also ask if someone could mentor her since she's newer to editing. The user is Iacornflake and she's working on the draft Draft:Carolyn Lawrence-Dill. Full disclosure, there is a conflict of interest here but Iacornflake is going about this the right way. She just needs some guidance when it comes to editing science biographies. She's very interested in editing science related articles and about women in science in particular, so I honestly couldn't post here fast enough to try and woo her to our awesome WikiProject!

Welcome Iacornflake! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

An article about a plant biologist too! I'll take a look. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Moved to article-space. Carolyn Lawrence-Dill. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks for the help and encouragement, folks! I'll do what I can to fix up that first submission, then get better engaged here. Yay! Iacornflake (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Keezy

DJ Keezy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (AfD)
  • I just added a WIR template to this article so hopefully it shows up in the AfD section but if not here it is. If anyone has the time or wants to help search for sources then please do. The current sources are heavily local. You can also take part in the discussion. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate article – needs to be merged please

When searching Wikidata to link Jane Powell (stage actress) to the relevant QID, I discovered that an English Wikipedia article already exists in the name of Mrs Powell. The content of the new article needs to be incorporated in the 2015 article and then a redirect created. Oronsay (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Merged. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Many thanks! Oronsay (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

Maria Bakalova, currently a redirect.

Have not been able to find her on other-language Wikipedias using a Cyrillic-characters search, but someone who can read Bulgarian may well find more biographical info in that language. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Michelle Sagara help?

Can anyone lend a hand at Michelle Sagara? She's an author, with an article that seems to be heavily edited by someone with a COI. I've removed the most obvious promotional content, but it basically reads like a fanpage or a bookstore page - and I'm not sure if all the book prose should be scrapped or not (since it currently makes up most of the article). - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I will try to do a library search for references this weekend. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I did not find anything that helps. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@IdRatherBeAtTheBeach: Thanks for looking, I appreciate it! Hopefully more sources will be found at some point. - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Whisperjanes: Added a couple sources and a few additional tidbits about Sagara. Very difficult to find info! Feel-flourish (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Feel-flourish: Thanks for adding that info - I had a hard time finding sources as well, so I'm glad you found some :) - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Yimon Aye

Hello, anyone willing to have a look at the draft for Yimon Aye before I resubmit it again? Many thanks! Cheers, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Quaenuncabibis: Thank you for that article; promoted as Yimon Aye to save you having to resubmit. I gently remind you that you don't have to go through Articles for Creation; you can just move your drafts to article-space - or even start them in article-space. Or continue to go through the pain & pleasure of AfC. Note the category changes - yours were much too general. Should a WiR category-gnome wish to improve them, that would be ace. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Quaenuncabibis and Tagishsimon: Thank you for creating and promoting this article to mainspace. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon:, thanks for the promotion! Due to my COI I was advised not to move the articles myself to the article-space. That is why I opt for the "pain & pleasure AfC". ;) Then, you are right about the categories: Many thanks for the adjustments! I will be more specific in the futur. --Quaenuncabibis (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Tsistunagiska:, thanks for you appreciation! --Quaenuncabibis (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Quaenuncabibis: COI noted. I've promoted all of your outstanding drafts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon:, many thanks indeed! I will keep writing! :) Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Long, interesting article on Wikipedia

Those of you who have an hour or so to spare might like to spend it on What We Know And Can Agree On: Wikipedia At 20 by Simon Garfield which appeared on the Esquire site on 20 October. It includes a few interesting titbits from Katherine Maher on the need to expand coverage of women, e.g. "She is proud that women gather frequently for day-long editathons to improve this figure, and flags up the site’s recent focus on improving and expanding articles concerning women’s health and the history of the black diaspora."--Ipigott (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thank you!! That was a great read. It is so easy to lose hope and get discouraged. Katherine is right that Wikipedia tends to be brutal on new editors and while I agree that we need to maintain the integrity of encyclopedic content, we also need to be able to apply common sense and keep an open mind to change. There is a constant "war" between inclusionist and deletionist with a mix of "good faith" editors and vandals in-between. The one thing I love about this project is that it stays focused on a target and keeps its participants informed. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Thank you for alerting us to this. My first impression was that I had no idea we were leaving behind such a noble and living project. My second impression as I read, was that we have all encountered the persnickety among us - or perhaps we are the persnickety mentioned therein :-) . But maybe the best take-away from that article is that all the Deceased Wikipedians have contributed nothing in vain - they all mattered, and their efforts live on. — Maile (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia @ 20

Those who enjoyed reading Garfield's article might also like to take a look at some of the items included in Wikipedia @ 20. Particularly pertinent to the interests of Women in Red is Toward a Wikipedia For and From Us All by Adele Godoy Vrana (AVrana (WMF)), Anasuya Sengupta (ASengupta (WMF)), and Siko Bouterse (Siko (WMF)). And our many librarians might like Wikipedia and Libraires by Phoebe Ayers (Phoebe) which among other things addresses "systemic bias". There'll probably be many more taking stock of Wikipedia's first 20 years between now and mid-January. Maybe we should start a list of those of interest to Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Also well worthwhile reading is Wikipedia Has a Bias Problem by Jackie Koerner (Jackiekoerner) with lots of creative suggestions, summed up by "If there is any hope for truly achieving the sum of all human knowledge, the next chapter in Wikipedia’s life needs to meaningfully address the inequities perpetuated by bias."--Ipigott (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I highly preface this by saying it is my opinion but I agree with Jackie that Wikipedia will have to directly address bias and inequality in coverage of specific topics (genders, races, religions), especially those from a historical context. There is a difference between righting a great wrong and acknowledging it exists while putting policies in place that allow for the inclusion of less covered subjects that otherwise would possibly be covered more today. There has to be enough coverage to create an article, I think we can all agree on that, but in discussions I have been involved in there are those who advocate for a more purely expert driven encyclopedia where no latitude is given to potential or existing articles regardless of the systemic bias the subjects may have or continue to face. They call it holding Wikipedia to a "higher standard". I literally had an editor say, in essence, if you want articles on women, women's sports or indigenous people, whom they acknowledge have and continue to face systemic bias, included or kept then change society first. Wikipedia only follows what the norms of society are at any given moment. Meaning because systemic bias has and does exist in society it is justified for Wikipedia to echo that systemic bias in its encyclopedia and policies. I find that to be dangerous ground to make a stand if that is the case. It has to be addressed eventually. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
For historical figures, one of the problems is digging up past records and ensuring they are accessible. Thanks to those of our editors who recognize the limitations of Google and similar search engines but know how and where to find useful sources, we are beginning to chip away at the root of the problem. We are also gaining more expertise in finding pertinent information in other languages which helps to move the current focus on the English-speaking world to other communities around the globe. But we still need to overcome the existing barriers to acceptance of primary sources, especially in cases where editors have no interest in promoting the individuals they are covering. The emphasis on secondary sources has its merits but as we all know, it also has serious limitations. Let's hope Women in Red will continue to combat unreasonable attitudes towards inclusion in the coming years. If we succeed, there is a good chance that women will slowly achieve their rightful place in the knowledge we are compiling on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There's four new images relevant to us. From Women in Red articles (both passing):

From.... how the hell did her article only appear in 2016, and thus be relevant to our project?

And from "Potentially full of Women in Red" (now an FP):

I suspect Verdi's adopted daughter, Maria Carrara Verdi (sources vary a bit as to her name thanks to marriage and adoption and all) is most likely to be relevant, possibly Giuditta Ricordi (Giulio Ricordi's wife) as well. Verdi's sister-in-law, Barbarina Strepponi doesn't appear to be that encyclopedically significant, but I may well be wrong.

As I haven't done this for a while, I'll remind everyone this is not a voting guide, it's meant to be informative, so that images can be distributed appropriately to help promote unjustly forgotten women. If WP:FPC is your thing, I don't want to block your participation there, but this isn't a canvassing tool, and should not be allowed to become such. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 07:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Fatima Al-Socotra

Hi All, I've started a draft for the poet Draft:Fatima Al-Socotra and I used google translate and Arabic sources (which I've done before for other women) BUT in this case, I'm a bit confused as to whether I've got her name right, as I've seen her elsewhere referred to as Al-Zahra Al-Socotra. I also have another question, about a specific source, which I put on the talk page Draft talk:Fatima Al-Socotra. I wondered if there was anyone with a better knowledge of Arabic than me who might be able to take a look? Thanks (Lajmmoore (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC))

Update on gender imbalance per country

Hi! I was on a wiki-break when the Reducing gender imbalance meetup took place, but I'm glad it was done! I have moved the Gender imbalance per country table to the project and updated it. The meetup was noticeable in the statistics, specially in countries with a low number of articles, for example, Tuvalu female-to-male ratio changed from 5,6% to 7,0%, Togo 10,6% to 11,4%, Portugal, 14,7% to 15,3%, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 12,9% to 14,1%, Tonga 7,9% to 8,6%, Qatar: 2,7% to 2,9%. The gap actually got worse for Pakistan, since biographies about men are created at a far higher rate than women biographies. Good work everyone! :D --MarioGom (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom, Thanks for the update! I really enjoyed this challenge and would love to do it again. I've kept the list of the bottom 20 above my desk, and am working my way through as and when I can. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Cindy Whitehead published, need history merge

Today I learned about merging histories and avoiding copy/paste. If anyone who has privs and knows how to merge histories could they please take a look at [1]? Thanks!

I copy/pasted from the draft, made my edits, and got it through AfC. I didn't know about the whole move/history merge thing and I'll do it better next time! Big thanks to Johano27109 for including so many great reliable sources in the initial draft, this made re-writing much simpler. Still lots more to add to this one over time I bet.

Also, I don't know much about the Talk page banners/flags/etc and which ones to add and how, if anyone wants to point me in the right direction I'd be grateful. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

History merged, thanks everyone! TheMusicExperimental (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

TheMusicExperimental just fyi, a history merge is a fairly complex process that requires admin tools, so you could not do it anyway. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Dodger67, much appreciated! TheMusicExperimental (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

New article on Jill Bonner — what happened to her?

Today I made a new article on physicist Jill Bonner, but the story of her life as described in the article tails off kind of inconclusively. She was listed as a professor of physics by the University of Rhode Island in their 1998–1999 catalog, and not included in the physics faculty listing (not even as emerita) in their 1999–2000 catalog. That's the last I can find out about her. If anyone has any ideas how to find out what happened to her then or later, I'd appreciate it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

She seems to have co-authored a paper in 2008. See here. And what about this?--Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Those two are actually from 1976 and 1986 respectively. I don't know why the links have different dates for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
At a guess, the anomalous dates may be the years when those documents became available online. Sifting through the Google results for uri.edu, I'm seeing a lot of documents in their "digital commons" that Google tags with their upload dates, not when they were published as journal articles. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Submitted to AfC Yazmin Aziz (musician), Malaysian pop/r&b

Hey everyone, I have another page that I'm working on as a rescue from a failed article creation. I've done the basic setup for it and also outlined the subject's notability requirements in the associated draft talk page. I would love any feedback/edits you might have to offer: [2] TheMusicExperimental (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits everyone! I submitted this one to AfC this morning, fingers crossed. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Article is now live. Thank you all! TheMusicExperimental (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Submitted to AfC: A Delay is Better (album by Pamela Z, works by women)

Somewhere in the list of WiR redlinks I saw that there was a request to get an article up for Pamela Z's (only) solo album A Delay is Better. Since that genre is absolutely my wheelhouse I have taken it on and made a draft [3]and Talk[4] for it.

I'd love any feedback, I especially wasn't certain which wikiprojects beyond WiR to include. I've made a statement about notability on the Talk page which is becoming my habit to help avoid the GNG/not-notable smackdowns. I haven't done a Works before so definitely open to insights there.

TheMusicExperimental (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the opening paragraph, where you bludgeon to death the idea that the album might not be notable, kinda works. Duly promoted. A Delay is Better. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
And normal reminder. You do not have to go through AfC. AfC is mostly for people who do not know that AfC can be avoided. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much Tagishsimon! I've found that with the AfC it's less likely to be immediately get smacked with Speedy Delete. I've been through a bunch of notability "conversations" in the past and I've adopted the technique of just getting that part out of the way and also listing it out in the Talk page. It's not pretty but it gets the thing into the world with the least drama. :) TheMusicExperimental (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Fanny Mendelssohn peer review

I've put Fanny Mendelssohn up for peer review as I think it could be not far off GA quality....all comments welcome.--Smerus (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Smerus: It's coming along very well but I am intrigued by the huge number of compositions. Unfortunately the List of compositions by Fanny Mendelssohn does not shed much more light on them. Is it possible to provide more background, especially on how many of the unpublished pieces still exist and where they are held? It would also be interesting to know how many of the unpublished works have been performed and how they were received. And what about recordings? Maybe further info is available from "The Mendelssohn Project". I see from here that in 2009 there were plans to record all Fanny's music but can find no evidence that this was achieved. Indeed, activities seem to have ceased in 2009. Maybe Stephen Somary could provide further details. If you have already looked into all this, please excuse my curiosity.--Ipigott (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this Ian - can I copy it to the peer review page as others may also have input to your points?--Smerus (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Smerus: Of course, please include it there too.--Ipigott (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

#MedievalWiki

Hi All, In case people are interested, Medieval Wiki is running a week-long initiative starting this week, to add more women and improve content. There's crowd-sourced ideas on their project pages. It's run by @Medievalfran: and @Bethanymay:! Cheers Lajmmoore (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Lajmmoore: Thanks for letting us know. I see there are a number of red-linked women, unfortunately without sources.--Ipigott (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for spreading the word @Lajmmoore:! We do indeed have a whole host of red links on our to do list, and many pages that could do with improving. Extra suggestions very much welcome too! Medievalfran (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Lajmmoore: I've added the glad it worked out okay, good job! Wikipedia:WikiProject MedievalWiki/Wikidata Redlist to the WiR Redlist Index (diff). :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Dilys Price heading for the front page as a DYK

Not only did MerielGJones write a great article about Dilys Price, it's heading for the front page as a DYK at midnight UTC on November 8! Congratulations MerielGJones! <3 -Yupik (talk) 05:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yupik Thanks for the feedback! Also to Ritchie333 for the the DYK idea. --MerielGJones (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Credit has to go to Yngvadottir for suggesting the idea to improve the article on my talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you to Ritchie333 and Yngvadottir too! :) -Yupik (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Ladies

Do we have a category (or catgories) for women who are or were entitled to use the title "Lady", by dint of a British honour, such as a knighthood, granted to their husband? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this Category:Wives of knights which is found in this parent category- Category:British women by rank TJMSmith (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo for new article White House images

I started an article on WWII vet and centenarian Millie Bailey. This article, [5], features an image of Bailey at the White House by the official WH photographer David Lienemann. I know all WH images are in the public domain but I do not know where to find the images from this visit. Any help is appreciated! TJMSmith (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Found this - https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/photos-and-video/photo/2015/05/president-obama-welcomes-vivian-bailey-oval-office --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
This also - perhaps a screengrab. I'm not certain of the licence; presume it is PD, but. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/05/29/west-wing-week-052915-or-high-fives-everybody --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/copyright PD or CC3.0, I guess. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! I think I will probably try a screengrab of that video. TJMSmith (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Khanyi Dhlomo

This article is in a bit of a sorry state, and has been tagged {{db-spam}} twice, but I think there's a potentially decent article to get out of this with the help of someone with the right sources. Can anyone assist? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

A good read

I check up on a few living women who have articles here just to see if there are any changes or additions that can be made to keep the articles current. I happened to check on Kimberly Teehee today and found a transcript from an npr program from October 7th 2020. Anyone interested in indigenous women and the representation of indigenous people in the US might find it an interesting read. Here is the link to that transcript. Otsalanvlvi (We are all brothers and sisters) --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yuki Kislyak

Hello! Please help me defend an article about a woman, a vocalist of a popular Russian musical group. The article contains links to reliable, high-profile sources, federal portals and the media. Outright discrimination occurs again. Help! Protect! Николай Назаров (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Николай Назаров: You're a single purpose account on en wiki and against rules you are canvassing. These are not things that attract any support. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: You are seriously mistaken, I have no personal interest other than an interest in justice, there are no requests and agitation. And there is a page that meets the requirements for relevance, with links to federal Russian, reliable sources, and there is clear discrimination on the basis of gender, which apparently continues here. Wikipedia was created for knowledge, and has specific rules that are not always enforced and correctly interpreted by individual participants. Wikipedia is not a place for discrimination against beautiful women, Wikipedia is not a place for a feeling of power, my interest is only in justice and I am glad that there is such a project as "Women in Red" I joined it a couple of months ago, and I will continue to try to achieve justice in this question! I ask professional, fair users to also come to the rescue in my question, without any propaganda and bias, only on the basis of the rules and purposes of Wikipedia! Николай Назаров (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@Николай Назаров: You are without a shade of doubt a single purpose account on en wiki. Remember, we can all see your edit history - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2
Also, and again without any doubt whatsoever, against rules you are canvassing. We have seen a great deal of canvassing over the years. We know what it looks like. It looks like your post above.
Now, you are welcome to contribute, and I look forward to your contributions to justice in the matter of smashing the patriachy. I would, however, gently, advise that you take some time to read and understand rules when they are brought to your attention in the context of you breaking them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

November edit-a-thons from Women in Red

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thanks for however you came up with Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast. Off and on, I've been cleaning up and sourcing filmographies sporadically for years, learning as I go along about format and sourcing. Most of the nitpicking format stuff, I learned at FLC. I've been putting the WIR banner on their talk pages lately, not knowing if it was part of this effort here. Now it officially is. I worked for a number of years in the entertainment business, not as an entertainer. It was one of those awakening of consciousness experiences, in that I learned first-hand how those images we see up front are standing on a lot of shoulders of people who need acknowledgement. These women are so much more behind the scenes than that momentary entertaining image we the public see. — Maile (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser

A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've made something for people like me who have a million half finished sandboxes to help be a bit more organised and play around with the idea of having a wiki page that works a bit like the apps menu on your computer. I'm guessing some of you have quite a few articles in draft space as well :)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:John_Cummings/sandbox

If you'd like your own there's some instructions down the bottom on how to copy it (just find and replace my name in the wikicode with yours) but also feel free to poke around on my one to see how it works.

All feedback very welcome, ideas for making things clearer, new sections, etc, the instructions (at the bottom) need some work so feel free to ask questions there or here or wherever. I'm not sure where to put it yet as a tool people can use, any ideas?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

John Cummings: Interesting approach. In particular, I like the way you have organized your draft articles. Many inexperienced users seem to be encouraged by members of wp:Articles for creation to create new articles as Draft/Article name. This can lead to various problems: it leads the creator to believe this is the standard approach to article creation; it entails (often negative) reviewing by an AfC member after being queued for several weeks; it leads automatically to deletion after six months if the article has not been moved to article space. Your approach (user name:Articles/Article name) is far safer. It allows you to jot down preliminary ideas and links to sources before you start drafting a well-presented candidate for article space. And you can work on as many as you like for as long as you like. Perhaps we should consider recommending the approach in our essays for new users interested in creating biographies of women.--Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I have to say whatever this is, it's not very user friendly, or even obvious what the purpose is. This needs to be incubated more, and then it could be templatified so the user would only need to put {{subst:TEMPLATENAME|USERNAME}} on the relevant page and have all the links and functionality working without having to manual find/replace "John Cummings" "John+Cummings" and "John_Cummings". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Took a first stab at Template:Sandbox organizer. Still a few kinks to work out with substitution, and then we can focus on functionality once the purpose of the organizer is clearer. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
There have been instances in the past where users keeping drafts for long periods of time in user space had their drafts forcibly removed to draft space and discussions of their behavior initiated at WP:ANI. Some editors feel strongly that drafts belong only in draft space, and other editors feel strongly that the only use for draft space is to keep spam away from article space and then delete it. When I have content that I think needs long-term incubation, I have taken to storing it off-Wikipedia until I am ready to upload it as an article. It is less convenient (no preview) and less collaborative, but avoids the draft gatekeepers. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Jazz

I've noticed - very belatedly, but better late than never I suppose - that the article on Jazz contains over 20 images of male musicians but only one of a woman. There is a nascent discussion on the article talk page (currently at Talk:Jazz#Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2020, but may need to be moved if the discussion develops). Would editors on this project like to contribute to the discussion? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle: I certainly sympathize with your views but this needs to be handled with care. One of the main contributors to this article over the years was Jerome Kohl who is sadly no longer with us. I'm not sure who could take on the rather challenging task of adapting the text in order to highlight the contributions of women, perhaps OnBeyondZebrax. Any other volunteers? Perhaps Gerda Arendt has some suggestions. It's just occurred to me that if we were to work on one section at a time, it might be easier to give more attention to how women have contributed. I was also wondering, Ghmyrtle, whether you would be interested in devoting some of your time to this.--Ipigott (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but not for me. I raised the particular issue of the balance of images, though I'm sure that the text could also do with improvement. I could raise the issue at WP:JAZZ, but my sense is that one or two editors do not encourage new interventions at those articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the problem with Jazz is that the main contributors to the article no longer edit on Wikipedia. As it receives up to 4,000 page views a day, it would certainly be useful to do some serious work on it. I see there are many instances of content being added without supporting sources, especially those related to African-American music. Vmavanti seems to take a serious interest in the article. Perhaps he would be willing to make general improvements while adapting it to give more weight to women. I had hoped that your posting it here might have revealed wider interest from some of WiR contributors but I fear most of them, like me, spend most of their time creating new articles rather than improving existing ones. Perhaps this discussion should be copied to the Jazz talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Euphemia Vale Blake at Wikidata

Euphemia Vale Blake is the correct spelling; not Euphenia. Though I tried, I don't know how to deal with the necessary merges or redirects. Can someone please help? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Euphemia
Euphenia
Sorted --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I've left https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Woman_of_the_Century/Euphenia_Vale_Blake as is, although it is now linked to the correctly spelled author entry. Not sure if that's an OCR error or a reflection of the source; have not found a source yet :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Tagishsimon. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/A Woman of the Century, now with extra column linking to the Woman of the Century entry on wikisource. Possibly that source is not the most reliable; it gives different place of birth & date of death for Margaret Foley to those amply referenced in wikidata. The same extra column pointing to the source article trick can be performed on any lists the items of which have wikidata properties (IDs, 'described by source', 'full work available at') that point to the source. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I am working on a translation of the French Wikipedia article on the French afrofeminist author and poet Kiyémis. There are two words important to her biography that don't translate from the French: afrofeminist and grossophobe. Both words have pages on French Wikipedia that describe the terms and give context for why similar English words do not accurately translate the French word. Afrofeminsm is not the same as black feminism(which is what afro-feminism redirects to), and grossophobe is much broader in meaning and scope than 'social stigma of obesity' or 'fat shaming'. Is it OK to use the untranslated French terms and link to them in my article? IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Grossophobie is fatphobia (grossophobe = fatphobic / fatphobist). Afroféminisme is also afrofeminism, however Americans have typically hijacked afro to mean black, rather than African. You can still use these words even if the English articles don't follow the dictionary definition of those words. You can always use links like afrofeminism if you want to emphasize the 'africaness' of the feminism. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
IdRatherBeAtTheBeach: There is no requirement to translate word for word. When I find an interesting article in another language on Wikipedia, I always look for background sources before embarking on an English version. I suggest you do the same.--Ipigott (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Headbomb and Ipigott. From your suggestions, I gather that linking to the French Wikipedia isn't an option.
I feel strongly that I am neither culturally nor racially qualified to translate afrofeminism into an English word, and that attempting to do so risks being unintentionally insensitive/offensive. I think the best way forward is to take Ipigott's suggestion and not attempt a translation. If necessary, I will use the term untranslated and unlinked, with enough context to hopefully enlighten the reader.
I do agree that social stigma of obesity/fatphobia are sufficient translation of grossophobe, and I will use them. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Preaching to the choir...

...but I just wanted to say that I'm dang proud of the work we do in this project to eradicate these multiple cruddy ways of talking about women via their appearance or without using their actual name. The work we do on this wiki often spreads to other wikis via translation, so at the same time we're having an impact on a lot of other language communities. Perhaps some day it will trickle down to the press too. So takkâ, giitu, späʹsseb, thank you <3 -Yupik (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Queens of Industry

Hi Everyone, I started a page for Queens of Industry, which was a phenomenon where different industries elected their own representative beauty queens: Queens of Industry. I've struggled with categories for it, and I also couldn't think of a suitable infobox? I don't generally do these more thematic articles, so help and pointers very gratefully received! I imagine there's a lot more that could be included, but thought this was an OK overview to start. Lajmmoore (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

There probably won't be a suitable infobox, so don't have one - they are very far from obligatory. Surely we have enough "beauty" contest categories. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Lajmmoore: That's a really interesting article and an eye opener for me. Maybe some of your textile queens deserve articles of their own -- in line with Textile arts.--Ipigott (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Seconded. Great article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Thirded! This needs to go to the front page. -Yupik (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Talking about textiles, Yupik, I was wondering if we should not be covering some of the missing Sami women. It looks to me as if Outi Pieski with textiles applied to her paintings and her interest in gátki could be a candidate. Can you recommend any others supported by valid sources?--Ipigott (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Shana and Robert ParkeHarrison

Credit currently goes to Robert for this couple's photography. There is a draft for Shana. Probably best handled as a merged article covering both together. There's already been some discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Australian women's soccer players

Category:Australian women's soccer players bears watching. It is currently under attack by multiple WP:NSPORTS afficianados who usually keep women athletes out of Wikipedia by insisting that only players in the top leagues can have articles, but this time (because the league they play in is the top league in its country) are now insisting that only fully professional leagues (which don't exist) are good enough. I've unprodded a couple dozen of these this evening, but one is still under AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to sort this out, David Eppstein. Hmlarson has participated in related AfD discussions over the past few months, unfortunately with little success. I see Angela Fimmano is the one still at AfD. It seems to me to be something of a test case. We should keep monitoring the AfDs and Prods listed on wp:WikiProject Women's sport.--Ipigott (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Ipigott and David Eppstein As you know, the articles need to meet WP:GNG and this should always be referred to in the AFDs. Some editors prefer to remain hyperfocused on pointing to their WP:FPL essay -- which many of the same editors "manage". Some of the older W-League player articles I've seen don't appear to meet WP:GNG, which takes precedence over WP:FOOTY -- appreciate the extra eyes! Luckily, most of those articles are on Everipedia.
Instead of falling into the recurring game of DISTRACTION played by what I assume are easily-threatened -- and dare I say competitive! -- men in AFD, I'm using this as an opportunity to focus on EXPANDING articles about CURRENT W-League and Women's Super League players. Many of these leagues' games are now broadcast internationally with increased global news coverage. IMO, that's likely part of the drive to delete historical articles in part as distraction. There are a number of WP:WOSO articles I've nominated for good articles if anyone's up for what should be fairly smooth reviews: so far, Sam Kerr (AUS), Vivianne Miedema (NED), Nikita Parris (ENG), Denise O'Sullivan (IRE), and Crystal Dunn (US) are available. Hmlarson (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
cc SuperJew and Bring back Daz Sampson who are knowledgable in this area. Hmlarson (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it is definitely a silly systematic bias that a one-line stub about a player who was subbed on for 2 minutes in a so-called fully-professional league is not even tagged for deletion, but a stub about a player playing for multiple years in the top level league available to her in her country is sent straight to PROD. However, the only concrete thing to do right now is as Hmlarson said, to expand player pages and make sure they're covered and pass WP:GNG (example here for Grace Macintyre). --SuperJew (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
[edit conflict] @Hmlarson: As you know, this "articles must also meet GNG" standard is never applied to male professional athletes. Instead, participants in AfDs evaluate male athletes only by whether they have played in the top-level league for their sport. Insisting on it now only for the women athletes is a sexist double standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, well aware and choose to spend my time in much more productive ways these days. But if you think you have the support needed to create a WP:WSPORTS notability guideline(s) to include top leagues and tournaments in general that won't be derailed by many of these same editors, let me know. I've been there and involved in many discussions in past years.
Alternatively, there are literally hundreds of current W-League player articles that need expansion with plentiful references available to meet WP:GNG as well as older, non-active players. Still good to keep an eye on AFD as their initial work here is intended to exhaust, distract, and set some kind of false precedent to potentially be used in other AFDs. This is what I've observed over the years. And yet, the world carries on with more coverage and investment in women athletes than ever before -- perhaps that has something to do with some editors' perception of loss of control and the need to compensate for the loss of control through mass deletion of old stubs. Appreciate your work. Hmlarson (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
(e/c) This isn't correct David. Articles on male players from top divisions are deleted on a regular basis because the leagues in question are not fully professional (see this recent AfD on a player who had made over 50 appearances in the top division in Ireland). Whether it's the top division or not is irrelevant for WP:NFOOTBALL, only the professional status. Number 57 17:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
You miss my point. The notability guidelines have been carefully targeted in a way that makes the top male leagues automatically notable and the top female leagues automatically non-notable. (Yes, one could argue based on GNG for their players instead, but most commenters at sports AfDs do not, instead using that rule to shortcut the decision. Which is what specialized notability guidelines are for, but...) In practice, the effect of this careful targeting is highly sexist. It's irrelevant whether those rules were deliberately chosen to be sexist (unlikely), whether they were chosen in a way that unconsciously reflected the biases of their drafters (possible), or whether the people drafting those rules were thinking only of how to raise the bar for male athletes and didn't even consider the effect the rules would have on women (I think more likely); what's relevant is the sexist consequences of those rules. We must either adjust those rules to be less sexist (by considering the top-level female league to be good enough, whatever its professional status) or dump them altogether. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
It's been targeted in a way that reflects real-life notability. Simply playing in the top division of a sport does not make someone notable, otherwise we'd have articles on top division players of sports like field hockey, or articles on footballers playing in the top divisions of countries like Andorra and the Faroe Islands. What makes non-international sportspeople notable is the fact that there is interest in their sport, and the professional status of a league is a good indicator of the level of interest, as clubs derive income from media rights and attendances. Where the line in the sand has been drawn (the fully professional/semi professional divide) has been discussed many times, but no-one has managed to come up with a better one. You are welcome to suggest one at WT:NSPORT. Number 57 19:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi David, I think you're spot on but mind how you express yourself. In my experience some football editors are apt to become hyper-offended when they perceive the status quo being challenged. I know you're only pointing out the exceedingly obvious, but I did that too. Then I had to waste a chunk of my limited Wiki-time last week at ANI swatting away nonsense allegations of "bad faith" and "uncivil" behaviour! I agree something needs to change. I think ultimately we need to look at getting WP:FPL struck out altogether. Then we need to figure out a way to make these revolting deletion sprees socially unacceptable, while we put together our own essay-of-presumed-notability for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport articles. Basically we need to take WP:Football and all its systemic bias out of the equation. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't really think you are correct as to motivation, but as to effect it is much the same. France has the same issue, with the top women's league not "fully professional". The English one is, but only became so relatively recently, so older players, season articles & so on are attacked. Don't forget that any player in the national team should meet the SNG. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, but WP:FPL has always been a sham. Anyone who doubts this is invited to consider the case of the Scottish Championship. This is a ten-team league with two completely part-time semi pro teams, Arbroath and Alloa, and at least one other team - Raith - who have a mixture of full and part-time players (exactly like teams in the FA Women's Championship, W-League (Australia) and League of Ireland Premier Division). Remember the criteria is that "virtually" all adult players must be full-time professionals, but very clearly that is NOT the case in the Scottish Championship. I mean, if you fell in a barrel of piranhas and they ate 30%+ of your body mass, you wouldn't describe yourself as virtually intact. You'll also note that the sources supporting this league's inclusion are tabloid/local paper articles, nearly ten years old and actually contradict what they're supposed to support. This has been noted on several occasions over the years, but any time the sources are removed, they are aggressively edit-warred back in. Invariably this is accompanied by a veritable orgy of disingenuous 'whataboutery': "but it was professional at an unspecified point in the past", "One or two teams get big attendances so we should average out all the attendance figures and pretend this notional figure could support full-professionalism" "it gets exceptional newspaper coverage" "It's sometimes shown on BBC Alba" etc. etc. Obviously these claims are all variously false, irrelevant and/or idiotic but it just underscores what FPL was really all about. It's intended to give a spurious fig leaf of 'objectivity' to WP:FOOTBALL editors preferencing their favourite leagues - and excluding others (the foreign, the black, the female...) Pitiably, some of the page's gatekeepers have been doggedly carrying on like this for over a decade. We won't change that level of entrenched mindset now so it's only by appealing to those in the wider Wikipedia community that we'll bring about the needed change. We all know the line has to be drawn somewhere for notability, but like David says, let's draw it somewhere less overtly sexist. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
That the notability line comes across as sexist, is because sport (and certainly football) is sexist. While the situation has somewhat improved, men's soccer still gets way, way more attention than women's soccer in most countries. For example in Belgium, men in the first division all (or certainly nearly all) get regular attention, while only the women who make the national team are equally notable; Sanne Schoenmakers is twice topscorer in the top Belgian league, but has no article: she is notable, but the number of sources is not really impressive. Most others don't even get this much coverage, and it's worse for players from the past.
The aim of WiR is great, and the coverage of women on enwiki has seriously improved thanks to this project; but this happens within the existing basic policies and guidelines, like WP:GNG. WP:NSPORT is sometimes too permissive, and sometimes too restrictive, and should be improved (I have tried it for multiple categories, and have shown some flaws with it already). But the aim of all sections in NSPORTS has been (or should have been) to enumerate groups of subjects for which GNG-meeting coverage is nearly certain, not to create groups of people who don't meet GNG but are allowed in anyway (this does happen with e.g. cricket and to a lesser degree football, the Olympics and Paralympics, and probably other groups as well, but it shouldn't).
Allowing in lots of articles on women's soccer players (or other sports), knowing that they don't meet WP:GNG but because you want to address sexism, an injustice, is an example of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which is not what enwiki is in the business of. By all means, create biographies of every woman who has been deemed notable by other reliable sources; but don't be the first to make someone notable. Fram (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I get so tired of this same cop-out excuse, Society Is Sexist So We Have To Be because we can't Right Any Wrongs. You might as well be the one spitting in their faces when you bow down to sexism in society, past or present. Wikipedia will be nothing more than Britannic 2 and end up dying out to those who can think forward and apply that to the past because of the stuffy ignorance of its policies and those who rigidly adhere to it. Contrary to societal belief and that of the writers of WP:FPL, professionalism in the history of women's sports didn't begin in 2019. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually to be fair Fram is a fine editor and I wouldn't disagree with most of their post (although it didn't really address my previous one which it was in reply to). It made me think of a stub I created a few years ago Anne Noë, who while playing for Belgium used to have to wear Jean-Marie Pfaff's hand-me-down kits! So historically soccer is very sexist and there's no getting away from that, particularly in Europe where it's always been bound up with 'toxic' notions of masculinity. The example of Noë also demonstrates what Fram was talking about and the sort of double-bind that we WP:WOSO editors are caught in under the current unsuitable notability rules. In practical terms, for even a decorated and longstanding international player like Noë there is generally not enough out there to stand up a proper article, unless you start veering into original research territory. Meanwhile most of the genuinely notable current players are arbitrarily excluded by the nonsense essay at WP:FPL. What now? Well, we now have youngsters having "a cup of coffee in the big time" by playing for five minutes in the NWSL or WSL effectively getting a free pass, but others amassing sustained coverage over many years in other leagues being summarily deleted. In other words we are repeating the dogmatic stupidity of the WP:FOOTBALL project who have produced thousands upon thousands of pointless articles about completely non-notable fourth-raters while ganging up to robotically delete swathes of much more notable articles from leagues they're not interested in. Pimply student who works at McDonalds and plays for Alloa Athletic for petrol money: notable. Female athlete who has played professionally at the top level of her national league structure (or at the top level of other nation's league structures) for a decade or more: not notable. It's bonkers. Regarding the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS stuff, I personally find this 'Doomsday scenario' that Wikipedia might be flooded with non-notable women's soccer articles quite fanciful. Five or six years ago when I checked, the total female footballer article count was <1% of male footballer articles. I dare say that ratio has improved slightly in the meantime, like Fram says in part because of the great work done by WiR. Ultimately none of us want to give a free pass to non-notable articles (I know Fram didn't imply that we did, but I'm just trying to clarify in case of misunderstanding). We just want more suitable, less discriminatory criteria to identify the genuinely notable articles. And for WP:FPL to get in the bin. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, I wasn't addressing Fram directly, only indirectly what they said. We all know sports and a large portion of society was sexist going back any number of years and a lesser but large portion of the human condition is still sexist today. When expanding and improving Wikipedia into areas of import to respective readers/researchers, I apply the "IAR" recommendation heavily. That's the only way this "online encyclopedia" can hope to bridge the gap, historically, and maintain relevance beyond that of other "world encyclopedia's". Of course we have to use common sense and before people jump on me that there is no common sense, I am not saying anyone here doesn't have common sense only that we all must be open minded in its application, myself included. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
You're right, of course. By the way I just wanted to thank you for speaking up for me so eloquently during the latest lame attempt to get me blocked. I will always be grateful that there are some fair-minded editors, capable of taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
For me, it's all about GNG. I removed the PROD on Grace Abbey, Jessica Waterhouse and Donna Cockayne because there was at least one source covering them in depth, which meant potential for fleshing out the article beyond a one line stub and, as long as the source is reliable, that's exactly what Wikipedia should be for; to provide easy access to reliable information. I didn't agree with the use of the term 'amateur' either; yes, they probably have a career outside of football but it doesn't mean that they don't get paid at all. There were some other articles such as Ashlee Faul, Lara Struck and Gemma O'Toole where a BEFORE search came back with nothing. Where the article can exist as nothing more than a mirror of World Football or Soccerway or any other football database website, I don't think there is any great problem with deleting them as nothing of value is lost. Spiderone 20:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the issue is that, in the eyes of Wikipedia, women footballers didn't largely exist until 2019. Their clubs and leagues may have existed going back to 2008 but the players didn't. Find a top men's club or league who is historically treated the same way with such ferocity.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Kathy Griffin

Hi, this is queued for the "On This Day" part of the main page tomorrow (her 60th birthday), but at the moment it's ineligible because the "Filmography" and "Awards and nominations" are unsourced. Can anyone help get the sources done by the end of day today? I'm not sure I've got time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Too late, it was yanked from the main page. Bit disappointing to get no response. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I did have a look, but I'm not fast at Wiki stuff and the Filmography section was daunting. However, I did add some citations today, and I'll keep nibbling at it. Better late than never. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Could someone help me with a translation from French?

Hi all

I'm working with someone who's first language is French to write a Wikipedia article about a French soprano here User:John Cummings/Articles/Claude Giroux. I'm struggling a bit because I'm not familiar with some of the abbreviations they've used that probably need a French person to understand. I don't think its written exactly the right way for Wikipedia. I've started rewriting at the top but I'm getting a bit lost. I'll be able to add references soon from Le Monde etc, which I guess means there can be both an English and French version.

Best

John Cummings (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

What abbreviations are you talking about? I see none in there? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The one abbreviation I see is "l'ORTF", which surely stands for "the Office de Radiodiffusion Télévision Française". - Astrophobe (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, Claude Giroux is a male name, so... not sure how that's related to women in red. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Claude can absolutely be a woman's name, especially in the era when this person was named. And the French is unambiguously about a woman. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, first time I see it as a woman's name. Probably more common to see that in France than in Canada. Still can't find anything on Google about that person. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Can someone point us in the right direction on where to find sources for this Claude Giroux because I'm not seeing anything on them? What inline sources will be used to pass Wikipedia's notability policy? I think it could most definitely be a female name but I'm just not seeing it. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah sorry I was trying to link to this page subsection - Astrophobe (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@John Cummings: et al: ORTF is "Office de Radiodiffusion Télévision Française". And Claude is very much a unisex name in France (I seem to recall a female composer of the name, but her name escapes me at the moment). As for sourcing: I've often found online sourcing for singers of this generation to be exceedingly difficult. I'm in the middle of something at the moment, but when I return to the computer later I'll look in a couple of my "usual sources" and see if I can't turn something up. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

"However, in 1972 the Opéra-Comique company was closed (although the theatre itself received visiting productions) and its government grant added to that of the Opéra." Role of La Voix could be one of these visiting productions but even that name escapes the search engines I use. Sorry, John, I wish I could be more helpful. But at least the abbreviations are cleared up. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
"...Maurice Ohana –dont elle créera le « Syllabaire pour Phèdre » (rôle de La Voix) à Paris à l’Opéra Comique en Avril 1972..." - she created the role of The Voice in Syllabaire pour Phèdre by Maurice Ohana ...." Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help, I have some sources to add, they're just old French newspaper clippings so trying to work out the best way to format them. I can confirm they are a woman. I'll try and add the references on Monday once I get a few more details. The main thing I'd appreciate help with is correcting the formatting of the French article into Wikipedia style and translation into English. Thanks again John Cummings (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

To nip things in the bud about a red herring debate, I'm not disputing Claude Giroux is a woman, so let's move away from that. This was due to my own ignorance that Claude could be a woman's name. And yes ORTF is the Office de Radiodiffusion Télévision Française. My consternation was about untranslated acronyms, of which there didn't seem to be any. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@John Cummings: anyway, gave the translation a bit of a spit shine. I'm unwatching, so feel free to carry on/ping me in the future if you need more help with it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@Headbomb: thanks very much, really appreciate it. The tenses and a few other things are still messed up but its got me further. John Cummings (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@John Cummings: For what it's worth, I struck out on both of my sources - Association l'Art Lyrique Français (which is an excellent resource for basic information about a lot of obscure singers from the 19th and early 20th centuries) and the Großes Sängerlexikon (although as my German is nonexistent at best I may have missed something in the latter). Sorry I couldn't be of more help. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: thanks very much for your help. John Cummings (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@John Cummings: Any time. Always a pleasure digging around looking for older singers. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Everything from last report passed except Mary Jackson, which is kind of alright as it'd be the second FP of her, and its failure to be used in, say, an article about wind tunnels really pushed down the EV as so much of the image is details of the wind tunnel she used.

Current images up for featured picture relevant to the project (well, Sandra Fredman less so because of the age of her article, but given she had no photo until late 2018, it's probably somewhat relevant) are:

As always, this is not a voting guide, and should not be used as such. Each of these need to be evaluated on their merits as images, not the merits of their subjects, but subject is the sole criterion for me mentioning them here. Given it's passed already, though, I can say I'm quite pleased with Pauline Kirby, as the article was a fine example of a collaboration between a university course and this project. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 20:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden These are lovely. I don't suppose you can pretty up this? If not, no worries. SusunW (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@SusunW: I honestly have no idea what happened to that image, but there's not really any detail to recover, from what I can see. It might be a photo of a photo where the camera moved or something? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 01:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I was afraid you were going to say that Adam Cuerden. Thanks for taking a look anyway. SusunW (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
It is a governmental photo, so you could try a request? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 06:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh hey I wrote that Clara McAdow article because I was so smitten with her photo. I think you can't go wrong with any of these really. Jessamyn (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jessamyn: I'm so glad I was able to restore it (I was a little worried about over-exposure, but it turned out to only be on the image border, and I can work with that. It looks highly likely to pass (4 supports out of the 5 quorum a couple days in is pretty good odds). She's definitely a fascinating woman. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 04:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden, I love the photo of Clara McAdow, and Jessamyn, thanks for creating the article as that pulled the photo into Wikipedia! Adam, this photo of Marjory Collins might interest you. The article was created before the establishment of Women in Red, but it was created by Ipigott during Women's History Month 2013, so maybe that counts for something. I mention this photo, though, for another reason: because Marjory Collins was a photographer who captured so many incredible WWII-era moments, this one being my favorite. I came across Marjory Collins while perusing this category on WikiCommons, which also contains beautiful photographs by Esther Bubley and Ann Rosener. We celebrate Veterans Day next week in the U.S., ergo why I was looking at that category. No worries if you're busy with other things. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the recognition, Rosie. I see I also created Ann Rosener in 2013 and did quite a bit of work on List of women photographers around that time. The list probably deserves a careful update now, based on all the pertinent categories. Never a dull day!--Ipigott (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Ooh, some really good ideas in there. I have a feeling that File:Butchers will pay householdersfor the fat and sell it to rendering plants where it will be processed into ammunition... - NARA - 196419.jpg could be used in far more articles than it is, likewise File:Female_bus_driver_Bubley.jpg. Oh, by the way! Looks like I'm one of the featured content editors for the Signpost again. Not sure how I'm going to leverage that into anything more than terrible puns, though. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 03:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

First woman VP in the United States!

2016-ag-awards-015 0 (cropped)

I don't care what your political stripe is, having a woman VP in the United States is a big deal for us in the states! Kamala Harris has broken a huge barrier. Let's celebrate and keep writing about amazing women every day! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's great news. One day she could be president.--Ipigott (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Wishing no ill to Biden, but, well, you know they say the Vice-President is a (lack of a) heartbeat away.... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 06:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Unassessed articles

As a result of the efforts of Ser Amantio di Nicolao in June and July to include wp:WikiProject Women writers and wp:WikiProject Women in Music tags on all the appropriate talk pages, there is now a considerable backlog of unassessed articles relating to women. Thanks mainly to Rosiestep, a few thousand of the newly tagged Women writers articles have already been assessed (and often significantly improved) but there are still some 4,800 requiring attention. As for Women in Music, as far as I can see, no one has made any concerted effort to carry out missing assessments. As a result, almost two thirds of the articles remain unassessed. Of Women in Music's 33,077 articles, as of today 21,815 are unassessed.

Assessment is an important component of Wikipedia's quality incentives; not only does it provide an overview of improvement in different spheres of interest, it also gives individual editors feedback on how the articles they have created are progressing — sometimes thanks to their own efforts, often as a result of enhancements by other contributors. It seems to me to be particularly important for us to ensure assessment of all the articles in wikiprojects associated with women now that increasing attention is being given to gender bias. I'm happy to report that assessments have indeed been systematically made of virtually all articles in wp:Feminism, wp Jewish Women, wp:Women, wp:Women artists, wp:Women's History and wp:Women scientists. The only other major wikiproject on women requiring attention is wp:Women's sport in which over 7,000 or around 7% of the articles remain to be assessed; see Category:Women's sport articles by quality.

I appreciate that for many of you, assessment is far less attractive than content creation but from time to time, it would help if you could devote some of your editing time to assessment. In particular, if you are working on the improvement of existing articles, check out the talk pages and add any missing assessments. You may also have a chance to upgrade some of the assessments already given. You can find guidance under wp:Content assessment or the Instructions section in wp:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment. Those of you who are interested in devoting special attention to assessment may find it useful to use ORES or Rater, both of which automatically offer reasonable evaluation estimates which you can adopt in most, but certainly not all cases.

Let's see how we progress over the next few months. Happy assessment editing!--Ipigott (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, Ipigott. I love assessing articles! Hope some of you find enjoyment in this task, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
The Importance assessment chart on wp:WikiProject Women in Music was a bit off. I know I personally have trouble understanding importance on WikiProjects, so it's possibly some new editors didn't feel they could assess Women in Music articles. Could someone check over the edits I made at the "Assessing importance" chart (possibly Ipigott or Rosiestep)? I'm unsure about the examples I chose, since I'm not familiar with assessing Women in Music articles myself. Thanks - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Whisperjanes, I took a look but I don't think I'm the best-suited to sort out "importance" examples for WikiProject Women in Music. Perhaps ask members of that community to make those decisions? BTW, my 10 year old granddaughter would rank Taylor Swift higher in that table. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, Rosiestep! I went ahead and posted a message on their talk page - also, your granddaughter would be right! I think Taylor Swift being "mid-importance" is actually a weirdly placed line break (the whole thing is supposed to read "List of songs recorded by Taylor Swift"), so you've already helped me sort out one :) - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me on this, Whisperjanes, but while I'm pretty comfortable assessing the "class" ratings of articles, I am far less proficient in regard to "importance". As for music, from time to time I add an importance rating for well established, often deceased classical musicians, opera singers, composers, etc., but rarely for living performers. I agree with Rosie that our granddaughters (I have an 11-year-old) are certainly far better at rating pop stars. In general, I find it very difficult to assign importance to articles on women. Indeed, it seems to me that our degree of acceptance is very negative. I would guess that perhaps half of the women with articles on Wikipedia deserve at least "mid" importance but about 99% have no importance rating whatsoever.--Ipigott (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad to know I'm not the only one that struggles with rating importance as well. I've found the idea of importance on women in music confusing, especially, because I wonder if importance is supposed to be determined in a global way, or if it's supposed to take into account importance by country. Looking through currently assessed articles, I've noticed that living and recently deceased women musicians are usually rated as higher importance if they're from the US or European areas (I assume partially due to larger music industry trends). But there are some musicians that are likely incredibly important to specific countries, such as Ofra Haza (who doesn't have a rating, but is arguably the most famous Israeli singer) or Ayumi Hamasaki (mid-importance, but according to her article, the best-selling Japanese solo artist of all time). It looks like a tricky topic, so I'm hoping people will be able to chime in (here or at the WikiProject) and be able to sort out good criteria for assessment. - Whisperjanes (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_86&oldid=1081145117"