Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

Woman of the day: a new one each day from our women's biographies

Help finding photos of White House officials

There are three Chiefs of Staff to the First Lady of the United States that are missing an image. I think it is likely that public domain photos exist for at least some of them. It would be awesome if someone with more experience in this area could help find them and put in Commons!

• Susan Porter Rose (1989–1993) Barbara Bush
• Maggie Williams (1993–1997), Hilary Clinton
• Lindsay Reynolds (2017–2020), Melania Trump

TJMSmith (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Susan Porter Rose, Chief of Staff to Barbara Bush 1981-1993, also assisted Pat Nixon and Betty Ford

Hello, I heard my specialty mentioned! Here is Rose, will keep looking for others. I found a similar contact sheet for Williams, but it's of horrible quality; if I crop it to one image, we'll be able to tell that she's a black woman with a short haircut wearing a red dress, but that's about it. Want it? --GRuban (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Translating Pages to English Wiki

I realise page translation is not something "new" editors are allowed to do. However, I've found a number of the WD list Engineers already have pages in other languages and other engineers I've found also have pages on other language wikis.

Can someone advise on what the best way forward is to bring some of these important women over to English wiki? Can I get permission to use the translator tool or do I have to wait until I have enough edits/months/years? Is someone else happy to do translations if they are shown the wiki pages?

Any other suggestions in this space would be great thank you. TheResilientEngineer (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is encouraged to use the translation tool? And as far as I know the main problem with translation is not doing the actual translation, it is verifying the material. Most of the other encyclopedias have laxer referencing standards than now prevail here. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

So the expectation is that the article is re-written and re-referenced for english wiki? How does one then link the two articles as being about the same person? TheResilientEngineer (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The article needs to follow en Wikipedia policies, so it is likely to need some re-writing and re-referencing. Articles about the same subject are linked through Wikidata. TSventon (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both for explaining and for confirming my suspicions! TheResilientEngineer (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

As you have written a few articles already, you could try doing a translation and get feedback here. You could look at some articles via Google translate or similar to see how much re-writing and re-referencing they would need. It might be easiest to start with articles in west European languages, or languages you can understand, ideally both. Then choose an article and check that the subject meets en Wikipedia notability guidelines. Translated content needs to be acknowledged by an edit summary see Help:Translation. TSventon (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

To make sure I understand—have you found these entries in languages you speak fluently enough to translate yourself? If so I believe that’s entirely welcome, subject (as EA and TS indicate) to verifying the sourcing for all material and applying en-wiki’s content and notability policies (information being present another wiki does not guarantee it is eligible for inclusion on this one.)

If instead though, these are entries in languages you don’t speak, then the difficulty is it’s really just as much work as starting an entry fresh (since you have to recheck all the sources) but with an added, significant risk of error and creating more work for yourself/others because you’ll need to rely on often unreliable auto translators to tell you what the entry as well as its sources (supposedly) say. I think an easier route to writing entries of good quality is to look for candidates in languages you do know, whether or not they have an entry elsewhere. We have really long red lists of suggestions—no shortage of deserving women to choose from! Innisfree987 (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Translating is a great way to create articles for multiple underrepresented populations at the same time. I've found that it's not too difficult as long as you have a very basic knowledge of the source language and are fluent in the destination one. I outlined my general process here a while back. Nick Number (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Most of my recent biographies have been triggered by articles in other language versions of Wikipedia, particularly those about Scandinavians. I don't use machine translation but often draw on the citations given, complementing them by sources I find myself. This can lead to substantially improved coverage. That said, members of the OKA taskforce, generally succeed in producing high-quality translations using DeepL which is based on artificial intelligence. I make use of this system to improve articles which have been based on Google translate or other systems without adequate post-editing. If you decide to translate articles from European languages, TheResilientEngineer, I would be happy to help and may be able to suggest additional sourcing (biographical dictionaries, newspapers and journals, etc.)--Ipigott (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  Wow I was totally unaware of that project. How interesting, thank you for flagging. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Ipigott and @Nick Number Very useful resources, thank you for sharing! TheResilientEngineer (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for writing and sharing that @Nick Number. If you’d be willing, I think copying it to a user space page so it could be referenced as an essay might be a very helpful resource to many new translators! Innisfree987 (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It might be even better to try to improve Help:Translation. As far as I can see, we do not need any specific recommendations in connection with women's biographies unless we somehow try to prevent WiR contributors posting raw machine translations which they have been unable to post-edit. We have had quite a few of these recently from one of our Polish contributors who over-estimates her competence in English. Perhaps something for our Primer?--Ipigott (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That does sound worthy. It’s probably not something I can help with because as I mention, I haven’t found translating entries from other wikis to work out well for me as a means of creating entries, so I don’t personally have any tips; I was just thinking Nick Number’s piece was already written so it would be trivial to copy-paste. But certainly I think help for those who do want to do translations is needed. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Generally, tackling articles in languages you can't read should be avoided. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a shame, because it does lead to clear bias towards the anglosphere, but I have to agree with Johnbod. There's just too much chance of introducing errors, which then get assimilated everywhere else. Perhaps we need a review board of people fluent in particular languages? I was, for example, thinking of starting Marie de Vivier but am put off by my French not being adequate for reading crit and would welcome a French-fluent collaborator. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict:: If you would like to prepare a draft translation of Marie de Vivier, I would be happy to help. More generally, in my experience, the main problem is not so much the lack of fluency in other languages on the part of English-speaking contributors but rather the translations into English made by native speakers of the source languages involved. Quite a few of them have an inflated view of their proficiency in English. That said, there are many who have an adequate command of English to provide acceptable translations. Indeed, many of the articles from countries such as Georgia, Poland and Iceland are created by nationals with a good knowledge of written English. But maybe we could consider translations of women's biographies as the basis of one of our monthly events next year. In that connection, we could put together a set of guidelines.--Ipigott (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Ipigott -- I may well take you up on that! I like the idea of a monthly event focused on translations; I've wanted to try my hand at translation for ages, but never quite dared. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad I started this conversation. Thanks all for you input/guidance. Essentially for engineers there's a lot of pages in other European languages (I'm only fluent in English) which I think it would be great to have profiles for on English wiki. Many of them need improving I think, and there are sources/references to improve them with although usually not in English. I understand the unwillingness to use google translate or translated webpages however, I'm not sure if the cons outweigh the pros. Perhaps this is something we can work together on across themes not just engineers. Maybe we need a separate working group? TheResilientEngineer (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I can’t agree that it’s a matter of weighting pros and cons. Editors are responsible for verifying content they add to en-wiki, full stop. There are many engineers from the anglophone world who don’t have pages yet if that’s the language in which you’re able to do so. Did you check out the red lists for ideas? There are several:

• Engineers (CS) (WD)
  • Biomedical engineers (WD)
  • Chemical engineers (WD)
  • Civil engineers (WD)
  • Electrical engineers (WD)
  • Mechanical engineers (WD)
    Innisfree987 (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Innisfree987 I created the extended engineering discipline red lists and have been developing the updated CS redlist which is why I have become aware of all of the wonderful engineers who are largely only covered in the language of their home countries. I was trying to ensure the CS list had something for everyone (ahead of the November event) and increase representation across English wiki of women engineers especially from the global south, but also non US/UK engineers as these are the bulk of the women engineers already on wiki. Further, there are different cultural attitudes towards women in engineering and this is why many eastern European countries (a soviet hangover) have a greater number of historical and current role models that should be highlighted on English wiki.

I am not rushing to do translations don't worry, however, I think this is an issue which warrants further conversation and potentially could benefit from support from the wider WiR community who do have translating skills. I expect it also goes beyond engineering as well.

Perhaps even creating a list of pages we think should be translated? And a multi-lingual working group to tackle it? I don't know if this is a great idea but it is a suggestion. TheResilientEngineer (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

New listing of BBC's 100 women

The 2024 version of the BBC's 100 women has been published today. A substantial number of them are not yet covered on Wikipedia. A start has been made on including them on 100 Women (BBC) but this needs to be continued. This may be of interest to Victuallers.--Ipigott (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

All of this year's women should now be listed on the 100 Women (BBC) page. By my quick count, 41 of those women do not have articles. ForsythiaJo (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, ForsythiaJo, for completing the basic listing for 2024. In addition to new articles, the BBC write-ups and accompanying radio and TV coverage provide details which could be used to enhance existing biographies.--Ipigott (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Article created for Amanda Zurawski, one less red-link on Wikipedia, please help improve it :) Raladic (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I just went to go create a table for this year's recipients only to find that the wonderful @Medol had already created it! Quina sorpresa més meravellosa! Moltes gràcies! (Also I have photos of Wiyaala from Riddu Riđđu in 2019 if we need more photos of her. Not sure why I didn't upload them before.) - Yupik (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Women of 2024 from Financial Times

In connection with its weekend edition on 7 December, the Financial Times has just published its listing of the 25 most influential women of 2024. In no particular order, the list includes:

• Taylor Swift
• Chemena Kamali
• Sally Rooney
• Emma Stone
• Elyanna
• Charli XCX
• Adejoké Bakare
• Margrethe Vestager
• Rachel Reeves
• Lisa Su
• Ursula von der Leyen
• Kamala Harris
• Cristina Junqueira
• Fei-Fei Li
• Claudia Sheinbaum
• Christine Lagarde
• Julia Hoggett
• Ruth Porat
• Arundhati Roy
• Bisan Owda
• Gisèle Pelicot
• Yulia Navalnaya
• Simone Biles
• Jasmin Paris
• Anne Hidalgo

--Ipigott (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I started Draft:Julia Hoggett, but I;d apreciate it someone who is a bit more familiar with finance could add more on her achievements? Lajmmoore (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making a start. I've added her DOB. Also found this which may be of interest in view of the quotes. Will try to help further if there are no other offers. I think we should aim for at least a start class article.--Ipigott (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Sandra Hemme

Hi all

I just started a draft article for Sandra Hemme who is though to be the longest-held wrongly incarcerated woman in US history. There are a lot of references available, which I've started collating in a draft here. If anyone would like to work on the draft please feel free :)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:John_Cummings/Articles/Sandra_Hemme

Note there is an article for Murder of Patricia Jeschke but there seem to be more than enough refs for Sandra to have her own article now.

Thanks :)

. John Cummings (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Help sought with Draft:Alison Nisselle

Hi all,

I've submitted (and had rejected) a draft article for the late Australian screenwriter Alison Nisselle on the basis of sources demonstrating notoriety. Screenwriters in Australia are, unfortunately, hard to find in academic literature due to both limited academic treatment of film and television, alongside gender bias.

Any suggestions on how to go about finding additional sources/improving the draft?

Thanks! BenEngee (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

19.994%

The last five Humaniki (bot) updates regarding EN-WP biographies about women have produced this sequence: 19.969% (Oct 31), 19.976% (Nov 7), 19.980% (Nov 21), 19.984% (Nov 28), 19.994% (Dec 6). The next update will be on Friday, Dec 13. Holding my breath.-- Rosiestep (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Friday 13th ooooooH! Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Very exciting! --Grnrchst (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

oh my goodness! Amazing, and absolute testimony to the power of work put in by this WikiProject :D Lirazelf (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Today's update (as at 9 Dec) is 19.998%. Afraid we will have to wait another week! Oronsay (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes - 9 Dec 2024, 19.998%, 2,039,191 bios, 407,789 women. So we were still 0.002% or 4,078 short - is that right - seems a lot. Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Only 41, I think? Espresso Addict (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we would have needed another 62 women as of 9 December to get 20.00002%, 2,039,253 bios, 407,851 women. TSventon (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Right - I thought it seemed too much. Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

If everyone who watches this page starts an article on a woman in the next few days then we'd be there. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Or if anyone has any drafts they can publish! I just moved a draft to mainspace earlier today, and I'll see what other drafts I have that are ready to go. ForsythiaJo (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I did mine today. I hope to have another tomorrow. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Done one now; will follow up on some of the other women I uncovered to see if any have enough coverage to merit articles. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I found a 3 year old draft sitting in my user space and published it this morning. Will look for more. pburka (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I translated 4 from ES-WP in the last 24-ish hours. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I've just created a solid little stub from my "ideas for future articles" list, tagged for #1day1woman. Despite promising myself to get the Christmas cards written today! And the pile of domestic paperwork sorted out. Ah well. PamD 12:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Guess what I want for Xmas? 19.998% is not 20% yet, Gad nab it. Its taken nearly ten years. Rosie and I met for the second time this year at the place where the first extant evidence of a woman to write in Latin lived. I know cos I editted her article. Its one of the ~100,000 new biographies that have been written since WiR started. There are now ~400,000 biogs of women. That means that 1 in 4 of every article about a woman was written in the last ~ten years. Its that ~100,000 that will get us to 20% overall. During that time Rosie and I have both written about 2,500 articles each. That is a good total - as I can boast that we have written well well over 1% of all the wiki women biogs existing AND 5% of every new woman biogs written in the last ten years. Thats an extra bit of shine. So when we get to 20% we should all sit back and raise a glass to you guys. When Rosie and I met we had our granddaughters with us. They will grow up seeing the 20% and realising that they can aspire to be one of the 50% women on Wikipedia... in their lifetimes. Merry Christmas to them and each of you, everyone. Victuallers (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Save a lot of keystrokes when adding DEFAULTSORT and date categories

I pasted a standard bit of helpful advice for a new editor, and a couple of experienced WiR people said it was news to them too, so here's my boilerplate paragraph about {{L}}, as a reminder or handy hint for editors who create biographies:

There is a very easy way to add the DEFAULTSORT (so the article files by surname in lists), and Category:Living people where appropriate, and any birth or death date category: {{subst:L|1882|1984|Brown, Annie}} would create {{DEFAULTSORT:Brown, Annie}}, Category:1882 births and Category:1984 deaths, while {{subst:L|||Smith, Jane}} would create {{DEFAULTSORT:Smith, Jane}}, Category:Living people and Category:Date of birth missing (living people). Lack of death date implies "living" (or you can add "unknown" or "missing" as the death date to suppress this). Place it just before the first other category. You get a lot done for a few keystrokes: I think it's a great little template. Happy Editing. PamD 12:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm definitely going to try that out! Silverseren^C 01:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Any chance we can do an equivalent for draft cats? Because I always start in draftspace before publishing an article. ミラP@Miraclepine 20:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Miraclepine You could use {{L}}, save the draft, and then immediately go back and add colons to the cats or otherwise prevent them from operating while it's still a draft (comment them out?) PamD 23:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@PamD: Thanks, but I meant we'd modify the template or something; would take less edits than the above. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: Interesting idea, as long as it doesn't end up making the non-stub version any more complicated to use. Perhaps an optional 4th field set to "s" to create categories with colons? PamD 08:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@PamD: Sure, why not. ミラP@Miraclepine 17:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I've suggested it on the template's talkpage, and alerted WP:WPBIO to the idea. PamD 17:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Assistance for obituary or other source?

I'm really bad at finding these through alternative means if a news article doesn't show up. I did check FamilySearch, but didn't come up with anything. Anyways, Janet Warren. According to IMDB, Janet Warren was born on 3 October 1921 in Santa Ana, California, USA. She died on 6 January 2008 in Chatsworth, Los Angeles, California, USA.

If anyone could help with sources for both birth and death, that would be amazing. Silverseren^C 01:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

She's "Ruth Elaine Morey" born 3 October 1921 in Orange County, CA, in the California Birth Index, 1905-1995, via Ancestry. From the census in 1930 and 1940 I see her mother's birth name was Mabel Viola Lumaree. Here's a clipping about the 1911 wedding of Ruth Elaine Morey's parents, Mabel V. Lumaree and Charles A Morey. Mabel's mother died in 1954, and her death notice in the LA Times mentions she's the grandmother of "Janet Yarborough"--so maybe Elaine/Janet had remarried by then? Anyway, a few more leads. Penny Richards (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like she might have married a third? time in 1977, to John W. Dobson (California Marriage Index, via Ancestry), so add that surname to your searches.Penny Richards (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I see it lists her as deceased, but doesn't give a date or any sources. Annoying. Silverseren^C 04:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Janet Warren married Barton Yarborough according to his article and he died married to her in 1951 according to his LA Times obituary. TSventon (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Secondary sources request

Hello!

I've been working on a stub about a Dutch artist, User:EEHalli/Josina Margareta Weenix, and there are two secondary sources listed on ecartico which I can only access physically if I go up to That London to use the V&A Art Library. I was wondering if anyone has access to them digitally? Sources are listed on the draft talk page.

EEHalli (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello EEHalli -- Have you tried the Resource Exchange board? Folk there have worked miracles for me in the past. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Instagram page

Just visited it, and it hasn't been updated since July 2022! Who's the team on this? Would also like to propose the persons updating your X account share the same posts a Threads account. Shelter3 (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Shelter3 -- Thank you for commenting -- I seem to recall with the demise of Twitter there was some discussion about where to post updates, and how to coordinate the considerable effort it required, but I'm not sure who was involved. Could someone more au fait with social media chip in? The much-anticipated and surely now just-round-the-corner (fingers crossed) 20% milestone would make a good excuse to reconsider these updates. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Shelter3 & Espresso Addict, The topic keeps coming up. I believed the last time we kicked it around was November 2023 https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_134#WiR_on_social_networks . Bottom line, no one tends the socials except the noble Penny Richards who keeps the Pinterest pages updated. They are always worth a visit IMO. I really like seeing all the diverse photos.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

What about Victuallers? And in the past, Rosiestep has demonstrated considerable interest in the social networks. Although I'm not much good at the mobile stuff myself, it seems to me that these sites probably attract new participants, both to Wikipedia and to Women in Red. If we are to continue promoting them on our monthly invitations, we should at least keep the basics up to date.--Ipigott (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Shelter3 - I used to run the instagram account, but it takes quite a lot of work for one person, and I've just had a lot of other things to do. @Rosiestep & I had planned to sort out re-setting it at Wikimania, but never found the time. Are you volunteering to help with it - if so that would be wonderful! RE: 20% - we should definitely use that as a reason to get the insta back up and rolling - but I think I can only promise to do one post a month Lajmmoore (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest in this! As already mentioned, Penny Richards is a stalwart poster to Pinterest, while other WiR members have previously posted to Twitter/X, Facebook, Insta, but we haven't kept it up as we got busy with other things; I don't think WiR has set up TikiTok or Snap accounts but maybe. It would be great for WiR to return to active participation on social media. Like everything else around here, members just volunteer to take on a task, and we learn as we go. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The Pinterest boards are fun to set up and not too difficult to maintain--I never have to write content, just click some links. Instagram would be a bit more work; but not too much, and it would probably have a wider reach. Beyond the outreach possibilities, social media links help bring more visitors to our articles; and more visitors can lead to improved content, photo donations, etc. It's also just fun to sift through our new articles and see what folks are up to across the editathons.

For Instagram, I can picture a first-of-the-month post listing the new and ongoing editathons (like our invitations), a weekly post for an interesting new article with a free image (maybe could use this slot to highlight the "trifecta" articles that fit three or more current editathons), and an end-of-the-month post with a report on our outcomes, maybe a screenshot from the Pinterest boards. If someone wanted to get more ambitious they absolutely could, but this would keep the IG account refreshed and relevant every week without too much fuss. I'll keep at the Pinterest boards, but I'm happy to help and support the Instagram feed as needed. Penny Richards (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Student requesting help at Teahouse

A university student has requested feedback on a draft on a female user experience designer. If interested, please respond at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Draft: May-Li Khoe instead. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Lorraine Twohill

On behalf of Google, I have submitted a few edit requests to improve Lorraine Twohill's biography. Currently, there are requests to add a Personal life section, add an infobox and replace a decade old photo, and add a Publications section, if any project members are interested in taking a look.

Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I've swapped the image but the remainder is a mixture of promotional, trivial and based on unreliable sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Potential DYK candidate

Hi all, yesterday I created the biography for Celine Haidar (who was a redlink in our lists, and someone who interestingly qualifies as "women who didn't die in 2024 despite reports to the contrary for a few days") and thought that there could be some potential interesting DYK hooks if anybody here wanted to get some experience with the DYK nomination process.

I'm happy to help throughout and you can have one of my reviews as QPQ, I just figure there's plenty WiR editors who may want to get into DYK and other areas of non-article Wikipedia contribution but aren't sure where to start. Kingsif (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm up for that. I quite like creating DYK hooks but I'm not too keen on the tedious approval process. However I do know how the DYK process works so I will see if a DYK newbie volunteers here. If not then I'd like to help. Victuallers (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure we could do it by committee, if there's a newbie interested, like you could work on crafting hooks. Otherwise *shrug* Kingsif (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

20% !!!

@Oronsay just updated the % of biographies and we seem to have broken 20% - what an incredible achievement!!!! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

My cup runneth over! How incredible that we did this together! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Raising a glass to everyone at WiR! Well done, one and all. Dsp13 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It took 10 years from 15% or so in 2014. Maybe in another 10 years we can get to 25%? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I hope so, but fear it will be tough; I'm already finding that it's genuinely hard to find women without bios who meet the (increasingly stringent) inclusion thresholds, and not at all difficult to find red-linked men. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - I think we all feel the rate of % increase has become painfully slow. Perhaps someone keen could do a quick graph of the progress over recent years? Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict, I know other people’s ideas are often not as interesting as ones we come up with on our own but in the event you’d like suggestions, please feel free to remind me of some of your areas, I have so many women I feel are unambiguously notable and just don’t have time to get to; would be very glad to see if any overlap with your interests, if it has any appeal (totally understand if it doesn’t though!) Innisfree987 (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein, Espresso Addict, and Johnbod: my estimate based on this year, using my summary of the statistics on the Metrics page, is that we would hit 22% in 2034. The rate of % increase is slowing down as the number of bios at the start of the year is increasing and the gap between the percentage of women in new bios and in existing bios is closing (in 2024 it was 29.2% - 19.7% = 9.5%). TSventon (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! I'd forgotten the graph I wanted was already there! At least the decline in the rate of % increase is flattening out. Thanks again (to all who do) for maintaining these. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Innisfree987 -- My psychology tends to a brief love affair with the subject so I fear "blind dates" might not click. Do you keep an online slush heap of good prospects that you don't mind other editors stealing from? Espresso Addict (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Totally makes sense about blind dates! You know I hadn’t set down my list in writing but maybe I’ll make a project of it! I’ll drop you a line if/when I have a good list for perusal. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, my go-to list of unambiguously notable redlinked women for when I'm having trouble finding one elsewhere is Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships, which User:Miraclepine has been helpfully maintaining and expanding. It lists many academic women in a wide variety of subjects, most or all of whom pass WP:PROF#C3. I'm interested particularly in the ones in mathematics, physical sciences, and engineering, but there are many other topics available. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, David Eppstein -- That's a good idea. I've been plodding through biomedical FRSs from the 1900–10s of late, but of course all the women on that list were finished at least a decade ago. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict, do you read French? I was referred to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Le Maitron a ways back and haven't had much time to really get into it. These women all have entries in a biographical dictionary already, which is a good sign they're notable - my guess is the top half of them meet our guidelines. (Some entries are much too short to count for GNG, and there won't be much on them elsewhere.) -- asilvering (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Asilvering -- I have been trying to get my school French up to the level where I can read sources to create articles but I'm not sure it's quite there yet -- will take a look anyway. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I should say, when I said "top half", I had first sorted it by sitelinks, highest to the top. -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I remember a discussion (but can't now find it) where there was a suggestion to write a collaborative statement about the landmark ... I set up a few sentences here but would warmly welcome others to add to it (I have had a veeeeeeeeeery long day @Rosiestep, @Victuallers, @Dsp13, @David Eppstein, @PamD, @Oronsay, @Ipigott & everyone else! Lajmmoore (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I took up this invitation and added something -- hope that's ok (I don't think I'm even formally a WiR member)? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making a useful start on the statement, Lajmmoore. You've set the ball rolling but I think it would be useful to double-check some of the figures. If you look at our Metrics page, you will see that in September 2015 there were 205,814 women's biographies while today there are 408,183. It therefore looks to me as if the number of articles about women has almost doubled since we started. Perhaps we should also point out that in addition to biographies, we have also added a considerable number of articles on women's works, organizations and initiatives which are not included in the stats. While 20% is indeed an important milestone for us, it may also be pertinent to point out that we need to progress far beyond just one in five biographies as women deserve far better representation given their increasing activity and achievements worldwide. But I would like to hear what others think about this.--Ipigott (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Chart here if useful - requests for tweaks welcome https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Women%27s_biographies_on_English_Wikipedia_reach_20%25.svg

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I put together a simple userbox (based on the basic Women in Red userbox) in commemoration of the achievement. :) ForsythiaJo (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

ForsythiaJo, I proudly added your template to my userpage! Thanks for creating it! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

ForsythiaJo Same here. Maybe we should encourage everyone to do this. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@ForsythiaJo, Thanks so much for the userbox, which now adorns my userpage. Oronsay (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This could be sent as part of the January mass message @Miraclepine Lajmmoore (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion about a statement was here and Rosiestep said then that there was discussion happening in various Telegram groups. TSventon (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

User:ForsythiaJo Hello! I would love to add your user box to my home page...if only I knew how to do that! Can you help with simple visual editor instructions? It's such great news! Thanks! Balance person (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi! If you're on a computer, you should be able to go to the userbox page, go into edit, and simply copy + paste the box. This should also be doable on a phone. Not sure about any further visual editor formatting, unfortunately. I could also add it to your page myself, if tech on your end isn't cooperating. :) I'm so pleased that people like it enough to add it to their pages! ForsythiaJo (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

We finally did it! Best! (Early) Christmas Present! Ever! ミラP@Miraclepine 04:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Three cheers to all involved and a fourth for the visionary creators, Rosiestep and Victuallers, and all the leaders whose guidance and effort we’ve benefitted from over the years (I would tag more people but so many people have made huge contributions that I am loathe to begin a list where I will surely miss someone crucial!) I salute your achievement in fostering an environment that made so much constructive work possible. I know how vital it’s been to my experience on Wikipedia, and I’m very grateful. Innisfree987 (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

We never expected it to last a decade! Thank you for your kind words. ... and cost of changing the internet was ~zero. Merry Christmas and a Happy 20%. Victuallers (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I have updated my summary of the statistics from the project page on the Metrics page which might be useful for a graph. TSventon (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Would you have time to make one @TSventon - or maybe @Tagishsimon - I'd like to do a Diff post as soon as I can to share the news & hopefully get some wider interest Lajmmoore (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know how, there is a how to but it involves specialist software. Tagishsimon hasn't edited since July, so hopefully we have other tech literate members. I intend to update my figures for the 30th December, but that won't change the graph significantly. TSventon (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't realised - I wonder if @Pigsonthewing might be able to help? Lajmmoore (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, congratulations everyone!! -- asilvering (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Well done everyone. Nick Number (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Like Amazing and congrats! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This is fantastic! Really wonderful to hear we've passed this huge milestone! I hope everyone here is proud of themselves and the excellent work they've done to make this possible. Onwards to 25%! --Grnrchst (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Reminiscing here... Fact is: I am no visionary... I didn't think about "in 10 years" or "reaching 20%". Possibly/probably, that helped us to "not fail" as our (Roger & me) only goal back then, in 2015, was: "to move the needle" from 15.5% to "something better". "Ten years", "20%", "all of us" (like Innisfree987, I'm reticent to list names and leave anyone out) is nothing short of history-changing to society, life-changing to me personally. Now that we're here, truly, I'm humbled and gobsmacked and filled with gratitude.

I wish I had it in me to write a good blog-post, but I've never been good at that. Ergo, leaving it to others who may have time and inclination to do so. If ever there were a media moment for Women in Red, this might be it. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It honestly feels both early and late for this to be happening. Earlier than expected, later than it should have been, I suppose? Amazing, regardless. Congrats to everyone! Silverseren^C 00:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Trivia/factoids

It would be really wonderful if people have trivia/factoids that might hook journalists in, if they could add them here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User%3ALajmmoore%2Fsandbox1?wprov=sfla1 I can try & contact some people journalists can need a bit of luring - pigsonthewing added some good bits at the bottom but more would be good!!! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we could talk about the editors in this project - how many countries/states do we represent? Age groups, occupations offline? Obviously we probably couldn't get this information from everyone, but even a sliver of project participants could be interesting. ForsythiaJo (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Cool idea to add some trivia/factoids. In that regard, I added 2 additional trivia/factoid subsections: (a) First woman's biography you created on EN-WP after the establishment of Women in Red (18 July 2015) and the date; (b) Last woman's biography you created on EN-WP dated 16 Dec 2024 or earlier. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I would personally find it interesting to learn what types of professions everyone involved in WIR has and how that breaks down. How many in STEM fields? How many in literary fields? Ect. Silverseren^C 00:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks like currently we have 54,242 pages tagged with Women in Red, although this also includes categories and templates. If we could filter those out, we could say exactly how many articles the project has contributed to. ForsythiaJo (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein is that something you might be able to do? I'm no good at filtering Lajmmoore (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Searching for article talk pages containing the text "All WikiProject Women in Red pages" finds 52,941 hits. I think that's what you want? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Further tasks

• adding nice Women in Red images to a gallery from Wikimedia Commons
• can, using the discussion in the draft, we find a group of articles from "around the time" we tipped to 20%

Lajmmoore (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• which was the *first* Women in Red biography - was it Bárbara Jacobs by @Rosiestep or another?

Lajmmoore (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Lajmmoore, Looking at the sandbox document... so far... it looks like the *first* was Hoàng Xuân Sính, on 19 July 2015, created by David Eppstein. There may have been others created on that day or the day before but this would require a review of these names. --Rosiestep (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  I wonder if there's a way to query those 1486 article to see which was first? @Fuzheado would you know (or know someone else who might)? Lajmmoore (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Would someone have time to add more details from here about other gender projects? Lajmmoore (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• which is the most viewed women's biography of all time? which is the most viewed Women in Red?

Lajmmoore (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Press moment

I've messaged the journalists I spoke to in March, but I think quite a few people are finished for the year. If people have suggestion for wiki-friendly journalists to reach out to (anywhere in the world), let's try! Lajmmoore (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to update on this, I also sent a precis and the ansbox draft to Guardian Opinion (no reply), Independent newsdesk (no reply), Vice (no reply), and to some journalists who write about Wikipedia - probably 20 different contacts in total. One said that it was just hard to get freelances article through in general at the moment becuase newsdesks in general are incredibly overworked. I also think the timing of just before Christmas is not helpful to our cause - I got several out of offices from people who are now on Christmas break.

I'll try again between Christmas and the New Year & unless anyone objects, record a short video for social media talking about the ahcievement - that might help get attention. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

20 percent barnstar

I just drafted this template, {{Women in Red 20 percent}}. Ideally, the barnstar would have an overlay with 20.003% but I don't know how to do it. Maybe it would be nice to add the Wikipedia globe on the far right, but I also don't know how to add an image on the right side. Can someone help with any of this? Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement ready for publishing?

With the recent additions and edits, it seems to me that the "statement" up to and including section "Gender equity in other language Wikipedias" is ready for publishing. Unless there are other suggestions, tomorrow I will create Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/20% milestone. Please make any final adjustments.--Ipigott (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing this @Ipigott - once that's up I'll put a version on the Diff blog too Lajmmoore (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Looks great! The fact about the Rosa Parks biography was particularly interesting to read. Really goes to show just how far we've come through this project. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement not ready for publishing

Ipigott, sorry to get her late, but this has to be reworded The following biographies were the first to be created after the establishment of Women in Red. The only article listed there that would qualify is Hoàng Xuân Sính. Likewise, the article can include the three 16 Dec created articles, but shouldn't include the others. (cc: Lajmmoore). --Rosiestep (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott and Lajmmoore:. Plus, I'm starting to look at our Dec events to find articles created on 16 Dec. Need a few minutes to do that; it's tricky with timezones and are we going by anywhere on Earth.

• 293: According to this rev history, and after clicking on links, these were created on 16 Dec: Belén Aguilera by Another Believer, Joana Rosa (artist) by Roundtheworld, Edith Wisa by Victuallers, Joana Rosa by Roundtheworld, Oroya Day by DrThneed. Also according to that rev history, Kingsif added a link to the article Celine Haidar, but when I click on Celine's biography, the create date is 17 Dec; does it count?
• 294: According to this rev history, Penny Richards added an article to #294 on 16 Dec, but that biography, Ramona Bressie, when I click on its links, shows as being created on 17 Dec.
• 324: According to this rev history and checking the article itself, Dolores Warwick Frese was created by Penny Richards on 16 Dec.
• 325: According to this rev history, and checking the edits made on Dec 15 and Dec 17, no articles created on 16 Dec were added to this page.

I'm done reviewing our four Dec events and their histories. I think these articles should be reviewed by someone else and the ones that are judged to be created 16 Dec should be added to the "statement". I think articles created before or after 16 Dec don't need to be included in the "statement". Ditto with the Diff Post. This is just my opinion. What do others think? --Rosiestep (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Why are we listing articles created on December 16 at all? The statement suggests that we probably reached 20% on December 12. pburka (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, my, Pburka; thank you. I didn't catch that we probably reached 20% on December 12. I commented earlier on this talkpage that I was holding my breath for the expected report on December 13 (we usually get the updates on Fridays) but the comment was made that we were only at 19.998% by that date. Agree that we shouldn't include Dec 16 articles if the date is December 12. Maybe it would be best if we don't include any articles (July 2015 or Dec 2024) in the "statement" or "Diff blogpost". --Rosiestep (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Italian Women (comic) Writers?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Italian Women Writers says that it's based on the Lambiek Comiclopedia. I'm skeptical that the "world's largest overview of comic artists" has an entry for the 15th century Giulia d'Aragona, Princess of Naples. Does anyone know what the correct reference work is? pburka (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Did a bit of sleuthing and determined that it must be UChicago Library's Italian Women Writers project. pburka (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault! I create a lot of lists and it's easier to cut and paste the basics of a list from an existing one. It works great until you forget to remove everything from the previous list. Gamaliel (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Article for review

Hello once again - last month, Draft:Zulmarys Sánchez was draftified after an AfD, as I felt I could sufficiently improve it given more time than the AfD process really takes. And then I just expanded at the draft anyway. Being sort of my project to get it fit for mainspace, I feel like I'm not the right person to judge when it is ready to be moved, and want to invite feedback from interested parties. Thanks in advance, Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations! Victuallers have done it, and I have marked the article as reviewed. Enjoy! Baqi:) (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Gig in Nottingham?

Merry Christmas and happy new 20%! @Mainlymazza: and I gave an on-line talk to UK feminist archivists about WiR and she has an invite to repeat the idea to Nottingham archives people. They'd like a woman and in person and it will be in the new year sometime. Write to mainlymazza's email if you can help, Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I could maybe help with this? will message Lajmmoore (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Gig in London?

I'll be in London in early May. Would be happy to participate in UK-based gigs then that are easy-enough for me to reach. Merry Christmas and happy new 20%! --Rosiestep (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Awards and recognition

Hello! I hope all the warriors out there are doing well. I wanted to ask if there are any awards or gifts given to the editors working on this project. If not, I feel we should consider implementing something like this, as editors truly deserve such recognition. Thank you, and happy editing! Baqi:) (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Baqi, I have given out "real" WIR stained glass barnstars to Rosie, Penny, #onthisdayshe, Ewan and a few others in other countries and I'm sure I have missed lots of really reserving contributors. One of my best prizes was to be sent a real Women in Red tee shirt that was made in Ghana from an "unauthorised" event. I emphasise unauthorised as WIR has never been affiliated and we have never had bosses (we have turned down offers of cash). Its great that its all "unauthorised". I first started editting Wikipedia expecting the "grown-ups" to return and tell me off... but they never turned up which has led to further (mis)behaviours. I tell ppl that WIR is the biggest disorganisation on Wikipedia but members like Ipigott prevent complete anarchy (or a dictatorship) from taking too strong a hold. Happy 20% everyone. Roger aka (grinning) Victuallers (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Baqi. There have been some really cool barnstars created and passed out over the years. --Rosiestep (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

That’s a really nice thought @Jannatulbaqi; I would def encourage anyone who wishes to award barnstars where they see fit, I think the recognition is a good idea. The ones Rosie shared are a great place to start. Innisfree987 (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Rosiestep! This is truly wonderful. I wasn't aware of this before. I just awarded an editor who I genuinely believe deserves it. Thanks to you, @Victuallers, and @Innisfree987 as well! Thank you. Baqi:) (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Query re a page to be translated

Hello All, An Argentine activist called Margarita Barrientos is one of the BBC women of the year. She also as a page in the Spanish Wikipedia, es:Margarita Barrientos, and a photo in the Commons storehouse. I don't speak Spanish and all the references on the wiki page are of course in Spanish. Can I just translate the page with help from Aunty Google translate and then just copy in the Spanish citations which I will only have read in the English translations, or do I need to completely rewrite using only the few sources I can find that are in English already? I know that if I do a page for her, I will need to mention at the first summary box that it is based on one from Spanish Wikipedia. Thanks for any advice you might have. Balance person (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Balance person: As I'm fluent in Spanish, I'll be able to help you along. I'm not sure Google translate is the best option for translation. Deepl appears to provide substantially better results but you'll need to translate the Spanish article in a few chunks if you want to benefit from free-of-charge translation. I suggest you start with a draft which we can work on together.--Ipigott (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you. I will, first of all, when I have a minute tomorrow, check out Deep L as I have not heard of it before. Thank you! Balance person (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I took the liberty of translating it. Nick Number (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow that was fast! Good to see her in English language Wikipedia. Thanks! I will see if I can add anything from the English sources I found. Balance person (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Claire Cowan (composer)

This composer from New Zealand appears fonhave won various awards and to have done some interesting work. Would anyone be interested in helping work her entry up to mainspace? FloridaArmy (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I see Claire Cowan has an entry in mainspace. I wonder if the histories should be merged ? Looks like a cut and paste. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Please don't merge the histories, it definitely is not a cut and paste - I wrote the mainspace article without any reference to or knowledge of the existence of a draft on Claire Cowan.DrThneed (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies forgot to tag you in @FloridaArmy DrThneed (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

User:DrThneedA merge of anything worthwhile and a redirect is the way to go in that case. Happy Holidays! FloridaArmy (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of musicians, I've done the same for another page I made, Ryoko Maekawa/Draft:Ryoko Maekawa. Despite the reviewer's claim that it is not reliably sourced, pretty much every source is reliable for fact. ミラP@Miraclepine 21:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Add govt ministers to Wikidata list of occupations?

Aisha al-Dibs (Q131541499) is the first woman member of the Syrian transitional government (the Assad dictatorship had 3 women out of 29 ministers/prime minister last time around). It looks to me like minister (Q83307) is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index. Could we add Q83307? Women government ministers in countries with less internet access and less English speakers are surely automatically notable, even though finding sources may be difficult.

Apart from the ministerial appointment, I couldn't find any sources for al-Dibs in English-language general and scholarly sources (excluding scientific usage of the acronym DIB). There might be some in Arabic sources, or else there should be sources coming up during the next few days and weeks. Boud (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Boud: I'm not experienced in making redlists despite using them often, but any such redlist would need to list any person who has an instance/subclass of minister (Q83307) as a position held (P39). ミラP@Miraclepine 04:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: Good point. I've removed al-Dibs from having a permanent occupation of being minister on Wikidata to holding the position of a specific ministerial office. Not every politician wishes to (try to) stay in office his/her whole life. In any case, she's now blue. Still, if someone knows where to add a Wikidata-defined redlist for women ministers, and if there are no objections, the general need remains. Boud (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The query will have to check every single position held by a woman to see if is a ministerial one, so it is a resource intensive one likely to time out. It will take some work to optimize it so it will actually complete. Gamaliel (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Internet personalities? ... or influencers? ... or celebrities?

Happy holidays! Some of you may be interested in the discussion regarding a potential category merger of Social media influencers, particularly in light of Women in Red's discussion regarding the upcoming January event for Internet personalities? ... or influencers? ... or celebrities? where we could use your input, too. Rosiestep (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

While I typically make articles on fashion models (though haven't done them in a while), I'm sure I could help if needed. I made the article on Nara Smith a few months ago. Trillfendi (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Trillfendi. Would appreciate your help!

All, if you have thoughts about this merge discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 25#Category:Social media influencers, please weigh in. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Now resolved... we are leaving it as Internet personalities, per its redlist. Oronsay (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Gisèle Pelicot

Thanks to the BBC's 100 women and the Financial Times' 25 most influential women, I decided to create Gisèle Pelicot. I'm perhaps blowing my own trumpet but this is the first time in almost 20 years that I have created an article which has been listed in the top three of the week. Quite a Christmas present! A very Merry Christmas to all those who participate in Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

If anybody could do it, you could. Congrats 🎺 Trillfendi (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations, Ipigott and thank you for tackling such an important person. Balance person (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Balance person: I wrote the article because she was one of the few listed from Europe and I am fluent in French. I didn't realize how important she was until the court case began to conclude. Then she was covered in the world's press, TV and radio for three or four days. But for once we at least had an article everyone could access. One of these days, her biography may be worth expanding and nominating for GA but I'm not much good at BLPs. For now, we could do with some real photos. There must be thousands but I've no idea how we can find them.--Ipigott (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, there is a deletion/ merger discussion for fr:Gisèle Pelicot at fr:Discussion:Gisèle Pelicot/Admissibilité. TSventon (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

How to update the weekly statitics?

The WiR Project page proudly announces the 20% achievement but I'm not sure how to update the statistics this week. As of 23 Dec it's 20.009%, with 2,041,741 total bios and 408,531 of women - these figures from the Humaniki stats server. Oronsay (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Oronsay:} I suggest updating 20.003% as of 16 December 2024. That means that of 2,040,570 biographies, only 408,183 are about women: the rest of the wording could then be fine tuned later. TSventon (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Oronsay: Thanks for inquiring. I've adapted the text leaving info on the date we exceeded 20%. I think from the beginning of January we should revert to the traditional presentation.--Ipigott (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

New Year - New Challenge?

I am drawing to the end of my #1woman1day Start Class challenge (phew!) and thinking about what's next. Today my attention was drawn to some edits removing very large chunks of text and entire sections of BLPs (mostly women), reducing some to mere stubs, because they were poorly sourced or unsourced. (I'm not naming names because removing unsourced information, especially from BLPs, is a valid activity, even if I'm sad these editors couldn't find a more constructive way of improving these articles.)

I had already thought about spending 2025 revisiting women's bios that I've already written, revising and updating, archiving links, making sure they're linked from as many places as possible, looking for images, and dealing with any issues they've accrued. Now I'm thinking about maybe pairing each of my articles with another one that has an unsourced section tag or similar. Anyone want to join me? Or have suggestions for ways to improve articles beyond the ones I've listed? Is there an easy way to find women's BLPs in a particular subject area with unsourced sections? DrThneed (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Good idea! I've thought for a while that to address the deletion side of building articles on women, WiR needs a subgroup, or perhaps a separate sister project, for articles on notable women that are in trouble -- up for deletion, or tagged in ways that in practice put them on a delayed deletion queue.

(Hoping I'm not one of your miscreants... It's a real problem what to do, especially as an admin, with very poorly sourced articles on living people, especially where the article has something of a promotional tone -- it's always best to try to find a reliable source, but in practice that might not always be realistic.) Espresso Addict (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

No definitely not you! I'm appreciative of the problems you mention - promotional articles exist, and I'm never going to argue with someone who says all info in a BLP should be sourced. Of course it should. But what I saw was a new editor working very fast through tens of articles deleting most of each publication list and most of each article, rather than tagging them as needing work, and a more experienced editor coming along and taking even more out. It leaves me very uneasy.

I would work more on AfD but I think I'm constitutionally unsuited - I find it really demotivating even if the article doesn't end up deleted! But improving them before they get AfDed seems more positive. DrThneed (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@DrThneed: Drop me a note with the name and I'll look into whether it is appropriate warn them; that behaviour looks highly inappropriate to me.

I know what you mean about AfD; I can only bear the place when I'm in a really good mood. Definitely best to improve them while they are still hanging about in the "kick-me" piles. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted some of this, but could another admin take a look, please? I'm honestly out of my comfort zone reverting edits removing unsourced material in BLPs where it doesn't seem problematic but genuinely isn't sourced, and there is a huge amount of it, mainly to women's bios, especially left leaning or feminist -- it's beginning to seem biased to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Now reverted by DreamRimmer for Doug Weller, apart from those where I (or presumably anyone else) had edited on top to partially restore the material. Thanks for bringing this up, DrThneed! Espresso Addict (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much @Espresso Addict I was really out of my depth there, very glad that more experienced people have got involved. DrThneed (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• First a word on removing unsourced material from BLPs. When I first started to create articles on Wikipedia in 2005, I discovered many articles were based on listed sources but did not have inline references. Some of my earlier articles have been edited with lots of "citation required" templates. One GA was even threatened with degrading. It took me about two hours a day for a couple of weeks to find valid updated sources and "save" the article. I'm pretty certain many of the BLPs and other biographies of women are faced with the same problem. In my experience, most of the facts are correct if thoroughly investigated but this takes time and experience. I would therefore welcome a more nuanced approach on the need for inline sources in our guidelines. It may also be a good idea to prevent newbies deleting large chuncks of existing articles until they have gained adequate experience. Maybe this could be based on their own creation of at least one acceptable article.

As for a new initiative for 2025, I don't think it would be useful to continue the one article a week approach as there have been very few participants but I do think we need to find incentives for creating new articles about women, especially biographies. Some of our participants achieve considerable success by creating stubs in the hope that others will expand them. This may offer a solution to all the low-hanging fruit mentioned by Innisfree987 and would of course also allow creators to undertake further expansion if necessary. Years ago Dr. Blofeld suggested a contest on women's stubs. Maybe it's time to revive it. Or at least introduce some kind of encouragement for short but adequately sourced stubs.--Ipigott (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I think about this kind of thing, too, because one of my "things" on Wikipedia is improving bios and articles that could be in danger of removal due to being poorly sourced or unsourced. It often means rewriting the entire article and replacing it with new, updated, or improved content, which can be frustrating because there tends to be no reward for doing so, other than the personal satisfaction. I suspect that's why it's not done more. Anyway, one of the issues with these bios and articles isn't that there aren't enough reliable sources already in them or that there aren't enough additional sources out there found by searches, but that the existing sources haven't been mined adequately. There needs to be more incentives for success in that kind of thing. I've found that one of the most fun things to do, and something I've learned from Rosie, is to go through a source and add the information to already existing sources, which both helps expands articles and adds reliable sources to them. One of my personal WP goals is to continue to do that in the coming year. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not trying to distract anyone from the main goal of creating new articles @Ipigott, especially now we've just reached 20%. I won't have the time to do a new article every day this year, and I've previously found that switching focus leads to the acquisition of a whole bunch of new editing skills, so going on an article improvement drive is also a bit about personal development too. @Figureskatingfan that how to mine a source article is really useful, thank you so much!

I noticed that other WikiProjects I'm part of, like WikiProject New Zealand, use maintenance tags in talk page templates to mark articles needing infoboxes, photos, and other improvement. It makes it easy for people to monitor work that needs doing. I don't know if that's an approach that could work for this project, or has been considered and rejected? As it is, I shall work though my own articles, and try to 'match' each one with a similar article by someone else that's in need of improving (and maybe using Petscan).

I'm particularly keen to develop skills in de-orphaning - I picked up on the tip of adding people to surname articles a while ago from other members of this group. I've also realised that many academic societies tend to have no article or only have stubs, for instance American Society for Theatre Research, and yet they often give out awards such as Lifetime Achievement Awards (I'm shall add notable recipients to the ASTR page). So if people have tips about de-orphaning or other page improvement recommendations I'd love to hear them! DrThneed (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

One way to broaden one's editing range is to sign up to SuggestBot. I have it on a subpage and I do as much or as little as I feel like each time, knowing that every little bit helps. The algorithm returns articles similar to ones you've worked on. Oronsay (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Oronsay - interesting tool I hadn't come across before! Have signed up. DrThneed (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Pamela Neferkará

Hello again -- I've just declined a G11 on this rejected draft on an African-American businesswoman. It definitely needs a lot of work but the subject might conceivably be notable if someone wants to take a look. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)