Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
What is WikiProject Women in Red (WiR)?
WikiProject Women in Red is a community-led project launched in 2015. We're interested in reducing the gender gap in content coverage across all languages, especially concerning women-related biographies, but also women-related topics (broadly construed), such as artwork, books, sports events, and scientific theories. This concerns both works/topics by and works/topics about women. Specifically, we collaborate on
  • the creation of new articles
  • the improvement of existing articles (featured articles, good articles, DYK articles, stubs...)
  • events such as edithatons and hackatons
  • developing gender-gap related metrics
  • the identification of missing content Wikipedia ought to have
  • scholarly publications
We're not, however, trying to solve editor gender gap, meaning that we think both men and women are equally able to create articles about notable women.
How is WikiProject Women in Red related to other WikiProjects?
WiR is intended to be a parent project and a resource hub for other projects (in all languages) whose scope covers women and their works, such as

And related projects

What specific efforts is WikiProject Women in Red making to reduce/improve the content gender gap?
  • We maintain lists of blogs, conferences, contests, discussions (Wikipedia; Wikimedia), editathons, Inspire grantees' projects, mailing-lists, meet-ups, newspaper articles, scholarly articles, social media campaigns, workshops, etc. We use Wikidata to manage several aspects of the project because of its size and scope.
  • We hope to collaborate with international festival organizers (example: Litquake).
  • In addition to needing editors to write the articles, several key volunteer positions have been identified: Data Coordinator; Promotions/Events Coordinator; Lead Coordinators for each language.
  • We hope to establish a teaming arrangement with the Wiki Education Foundation as we believe university students are important to this endeavor. We would like to build on the education outreach efforts described by User:Kruusamägi (Wikimania submission: Possibilities for university cooperation: Estonian example) "Every academic year more than 500 articles on Estonian Wikipedia are created as part of local cooperation with universities."
  • Work together with the Wikimedia Chapters
  • Build on Wikimedia's "Address the gender gap/FAQ"
How can I help? Who can join?
Anyone can join! You do not need to have edited Wikipedia before, nor is the project restricted to women. Any help you can give, big or small, is greatly appreciated! To get started read our primer.

"Komm rein, mach mit", in German meaning "Come, join us".

Wikidata-based statistics[edit]

Although the WHGI statistics have not yet been updated, I can see from Denelezh that, as a result of the "Disappearing articles" discussed above, there has been a slight drop in our progress from 18.07% on 14 October to 18.06% today. We now have 300,168 women's biographies (down by 591) out of a total of 1,662,210.--Ipigott (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott, This is a shame, but thank you for the update. I guess it's to be expected that sometimes, it's "two steps forward, one step back". By the way, at Wikidatacon, I met the creator of the Denelezh website, and he has plans for additional enhancements in the next few months. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Envlh has indeed been doing a great job over the years, also in connection with the French Wikipedia. We have in fact been discussing the proposals on further developments but I cannot remember exactly where (probably on Meta). I've been looking through all the deleted articles and see that about 90% are mini-stubs on women in sports but there are also quite a number that are around start class, most of them about women from the other areas we have been covering on Women in Red. Up to now, 18 articles have been recreated and 13 more were not included in the batch of deletions as other editors had contributed to them. When I have a bit more time, I'll prepare a list of the ones I think we should work on. As you have access to the deleted versions, you should be able to contribute more easily than the rest of us.--Ipigott (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
At least it didn't drop us below the 18% again. If someone can pick out the articles with details like what they did or where they were from I will tackle any Irish, writers, artists, academic types. If there are deleted version information email it to be at gmail. I should be able to get a few dozen done in a short while if there is any information about them already. If there are none fitting the above then I will basically start at A next week....I'm hoping to do some Nanowrimo so I may be slower on articles where I'm starting from no information... ☕ Antiqueight chatter 14:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I spoke with Envlh on Monday before taking the train back from Berlin and he said they were thinking of merging WHGI and Denelezh - there is overlap, but I like the birthdates in Denelezh so that you can look at coverage per period. There are so many other visualizations possible, but each one causes women to drop off the list because it adds an additional check for a Wikidata statement that might not be there. As you know, sometimes we should be happy these articles are marked with just two: identifying the article as Q5 & Q6581072. Sigh. Jane (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
A quick reply: Denelezh has not been updated for a month due to a technical issue (downloads of Wikidata dumps fail every week, retries don't work; the root cause has not been identified yet, but it comes from Denelezh server). I'm working on it. Rosie & Jane: I was very happy to chat with you. The merge of WHGI and Denelezh is discussed in phab:T230184. We'll formalize what we want to do, but feel free to drop ideas/needs in the Phabricator task. — Envlh (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Then I must apologize. The last update was indeed at the end of September, not the end of October. We'll just have to wait for the real figures.--Ipigott (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott: statistics from 11/11 have been loaded into Denelezh. I don't understand why it worked this week, but at least it's there. — Envlh (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Deleted articles worth recreating[edit]

I've looked quickly through the batch of articles which were recently deleted. Among those which appear worthwhile recreating are:

Hope this proves useful.--Ipigott (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this - a very useful list. Storye book (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thanks! I took a look at Sema Salur and Franziska Schutzbach and wasn't convinced — Salur has a notable award but I couldn't find much else on her, and Schutzbach has a very slim citation record, enough to make passing WP:PROF unlikely. But others may have different opinions and it is good to have this list of names and occupations to help us decide. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I took a look at Jennifer Weist, the mentions I found were spotify and mentions of her performances. This raises a question for me, just how does one find RS forWP:NOTE, better yet what constitutes notability for a musician?Oldperson (talk)
See WP:MUSICBIO. Multiple in-depth published reviews of her performances (or reviews of performances of groups that have in-depth coverage of her part) are the most obvious way. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks David Epstein Just the info I was looking for. Someday I will learn these wiki links.Oldperson (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I've been here for over two years now and I'm still learning my way around the acronyms.... XOR'easter (talk) 04:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Penny Von Eschen appears to hold a named chair [2] and thus would pass WP:PROF#C5. XOR'easter (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
And another one before that at Cornell. Eleanor M. Fox also appears to hold a named chair [3]. But instead of either of those, I started a new article for Louise Dittmar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I would like to have helped with the Anna Kessell article, but unfortunately I have a troll following me, which kind of puts me off. But if anyone else with easy access to UK material would like to have a go: Anna Kessell MBE on Linkedin (see the About section), The deleted Anna Kessell article (cached; contains some useful links). There are also plenty of her book reviews quoted online, if you Google "anna kessell" UK sports writer. I have so far found no free portrait image online. Storye book (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I have started an article for Anna Kessell in my sandbox but I'm struggling to find reliable sources which aren't the ones she writes for! Will have another look later. Theroadislong (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Theroadislong: How about [4] and [5]?
Thanks The Irish Times one will be useful, but she writes for the Guardian so that's not so good. Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The Swiss writer Isabelle Morel has a German and French article which should help. It was deleted as a G5 so is eminently notable. scope_creepTalk 11:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Scope creep: Thanks for making a start on its recreation. Do you intend to continue working on it? If not, it could be a candidate for the stub contest (i.e. destubbing).--Ipigott (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott If you plan to hold a contest, please do. I generally complete all I start, if nobody else works on it. I usually leave it for a couple of weeks so Google can re-jig its graph, i.e. making it easier to find content and sources. scope_creepTalk 14:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Scope creep: The stub contest is running and you are of course welcome to participate. I see what you mean from Renata von Scheliha and John Rittmeister -- both well developed articles. So let's leave it for a couple of weeks. Glad to see you have turned your interest to women. All the more the merrier!--Ipigott (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott That is very nice of you. This is what I try to aim for: Oda Schottmüller. I'm planning to do at least one women article for every man article now. I would work exclusively on here, but I've many many articles to create and the majority of them are men, including a bunch of doctors in the Uk. scope_creepTalk 16:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Scope_creep: I must say I'm really impressed with Oda Schottmüller. You've gone well beyond the German and Polish versions. It's reached at least B class. Why not become a member of wp:Women in Red. You can register at the top of the project page. I think you'll find it useful now that you've started writing such informative articles on women. We all try to help each other along.--Ipigott (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott, I've joined.scope_creepTalk 17:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Think I might do Sema Salur, as the original was only a couple sentences, but I did discover something horrifying: Rochester University puts her page in.... Comic Sans!!! Cue scary music here. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 03:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Hmm, it looks as if you can't actually blame the university or dept - except perhaps for allowing faculty to do their own thing in personalising their web pages and perhaps a lack of guidance! Or she's a free spirit who likes an informal look. PamD 10:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@PamD: Well, despite her poor font choices, she now has an article again, which I think is slightly better than the old one in text, though it lacks a list of papers. I actually put the time in to trying to understand what she was researching, which I don't think Slowking did. I did quote a description, but, honestly, that's because it's so technical that I didn't trust myself not to change the meaning by accident. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 10:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
And she now gets a mention at the much-upgraded dab page at Salur (disambiguation), which is now accessible by a previously missing hatnote at Salur... and I really need to get on with some RL stuff this morning! PamD 10:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

If anyone would like a bit more of a poke at Sema Salur, I've got it to about the level it used to be, which isn't great. We might be able to get it to Did you know? if we can expand it a bit more. She's kind of on the borderline of notability, though. Just past it, I'd say, but a massive article may not be on the cards for her yet. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 10:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Still a few redlinks on this there any place where they've been moved so that people who want to work on retrieving information have that option? (Also posting a comment in the thread to keep it from being archived, so we do have the info at hand if need be.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I initially tried to move the list to my page (User:Antiqueight/Draft#previously deleted pages) to work on tidying it but I think I grabbed way more than the deleted articles by this one person and it's not sorted by likely importance or even gender... So.. I think the answer is no. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 14:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there a link to the full list of articles (not including images) deleted? I had something buffered previously but can't find it now. I'm particularly interested in identifying women scientists who might have been deleted, thanks all, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    Mary Mark Ockerbloom, my log has most of it, but there are many others which have been deleted by checkusers or other admins under G5. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Below are more women (and one prize) that editors may wish to recreate. I have not assessed their worthiness of WIR's attention. This list does not include sportswomen. I am gathering a long list of volleyball and water polo players, but I imagine they will also be picked up in individual WIR redlists. Please amend as you wish. I will await your feedback before going further with this. Oronsay (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Name Description Languages Wikidata
Anan Ameri museum director Anan Ameri (Q36894195)
Anne Klein Women's Award prize for women's rights, equality and sexual self-determination advocates de Anne Klein Women's Award (Q31837218) ‎ ‎
Elisa Biagini Italian poet and translator it Elisa Biagini (Q21832735) ‎ ‎
Deborah Cohen American historian Deborah Cohen (Q64748082) ‎ ‎
Andrea Donnellan American geophysicist Andrea Donnellan (Q56970129)
Anne-Louise Élie de Beaumont French writer es fr Anne-Louise Élie de Beaumont (Q2850815)
Graziella Fumagalli Italian doctor, killed in Somalia it Graziella Fumagalli (Q3776075) ‎
Theresa Hannig German novelist de Theresa Hannig (Q62051332) ‎ ‎
Alexandra Horowitz American cognitive scientist and author, born 1969 Alexandra Horowitz (Q66013634)
Corinne Kimball American actress (Woman of the Century) Corinne Kimball (Q64590690)
Alessandra Sardoni Italian journalist it Alessandra Sardoni (Q3609710) ‎ ‎
Monica L. Smith professor of anthropology Monica L. Smith (Q64785071) ‎
Andrea Tenuta Argentine actor es Andrea Tenuta (Q5675225) ‎ ‎

Oronsay (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm in the process of re-creating the one for Deborah Cohen. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


Is anyone interested in tackling the redlinks in List of female fellows of the British Academy? Currently there are 3 from the 1990s, 5 from the 2000s and 22 from the 2000s meaning there are 30 overall redlinks. I'm interested in going for the oldest inductees first as there are lesser amount of redlinks as well. There are also 29 redlinks at List of female Fellows of the Royal Academy of Engineering (4 1990s, 1 2000s, 23 2010s). I've also made WP:WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships where these names are all listed. Feel free to add to this list! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333: The list is a good idea, as election to FBA/FREng makes all instantly notable. I have started checking against Wikidata and adding references and info there as I go. Have already looked at FBA down to Rachel Bowlby and added Lorraine Tyler (academic) as the link for her is a redirect to a silent movie! In the meantime, happy translating Isabel de Madariaga - from Catalan, Spanish, Italian and/or Russian - see Wikidata. Oronsay (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Oronsay: Thanks! I can help add anything I find for de Madariaga. I was going to do her article, but I'm getting bogged down in sources LOL! Perhaps you'd have better luck making her article fuller then I can fill in whatever else I find ;) For the fellowship list, I just went by articles that began with List of female fellows. The only other one List of female fellows of the Royal Society currently has all bluelinks :D --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333This write-up may help Isabel Margaret de Madariaga 1919–2014
This seems to be an interesting avenue to explore. One way of expanding the lists is to turn up categories beginning "Category:Fellows of" and compare the lists from the "learned society" with those already listed in the category. For example, many of the women listed in AGU 2019 fellows are not included in Category:Fellows of the American Geophysical Union. But is a fellowship in these organizations necessarily a passport for acceptance of a biography? There seem to be over 70 such learned societies in the UK (see Category:Fellows of learned societies of the United Kingdom) and over 50 in the United States (Category:Fellows of learned societies of the United States).--Ipigott (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The award of a fellowship may not warrant the creation of an article but it certainly warrants the creation of a Wikidata item, if missing, in order to list all the recipients ever. Nemo 12:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
For instance Category:Fellows of learned societies of the United Kingdom currently has 72 subcategories with some 16k articles while Wikidata currently lists over 45k recipients of 26 awards. (Probably more awards need to be classified as "fellowships" and more orgs as "professional societies"/"academic societies".) Nemo 13:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Depends on the society. Some are incredibly notable. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 14:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Others are not - in some cases "fellowship" (as opposed to membership) just requires a time qualification, working in the industry concerned, and a payment. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it depends from one society to another, and in some cases from one time period of a society to another. Fellowship in either "a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" or "a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor" has been deemed to grant automatic notability according to WP:PROF#C3, but the qualifiers are important. I'm pretty sure FBA meets the first criterion, of being highly selective and prestigious. Some others, such as FRSA, don't count for much because their selection criteria don't correspond to great scholarly achievement. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
No indeed. There are some 30,000 FRSA, & it is essentially an arty/intellectual club with nice premises in Central London, and an annual subscription. I've had mailshots inviting me to apply. There are around 1300 FBA, about the same as the Royal Society, of which it is the equivalent in the arts (of course they also both have nice premises in Central London too, but no subscription). Johnbod (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod and David Eppstein: So it looks as if we need a list of which societies are considered notable enough for their fellows to warrant articles. Perhaps you could each contribute to a selection from the UK and US. We can then try to put together lists of redlinks.--Ipigott (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A useful thing to do, but not a task I fancy myself, or am very qualified to do. In many cases, different classes of membership need to distinguished carefully - the top, awarded, ones may be decent evidence for notability, but the much larger, paying, memberships and fellowships are not. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
There are probably hundreds of discipline-specific fellowships in the US that might qualify. The top and more broad-topic ones are membership in the National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering, or American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Below those but still broad and still notable enough for WP:PROF#C3 are Fellow of the IEEE and Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (note: two different AAAS's). Among the discipline-specific ones that connect to my own editing interests, Fellow of ACM, ASA, AMS, APS, AAAI, INFORMS, and SIAM all probably qualify, as maybe also do honorary members of IMS and elected members of ISI. I'm pretty sure I've filled in all the missing women among the Fellows of the ACM, AMS, and SIAM but I know I'm missing some in ASA (see list) and haven't even really tried for thoroughness with the others. Currently I'm looking at Fellows of the AWM, which probably doesn't pass WP:PROF#C3 (even though it's selective) because it's oriented more towards service to the profession than to scholarly accomplishment; nevertheless it can provide something of an anchor to build a new article around, because (like many of these) it comes with a little blurb explaining what the subject is being honored for. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

On a somewhat connected topic, I created Titles of Distinction awarded by the University of Oxford a while back. Essentially, Oxford awards personal chairs (i.e. professorships) to distinguished academics at the university; they do this because of an oversupply of talent and a limited number of statutory chairs and endowed positions with which to reward. Many other universities offer personal chairs, but Oxford's size means there are a lot, and it's almost unique in having an official, public record of all academic appointments (allowing us to build a list of appointees). Anyway, as you will notice, there are dozens and dozens of red-linked women academics (I count well over 20 appointed in this year's cohort alone), most of whom would easily pass WP:PROF. I've said it here before, but comprehensive, reliably sourced lists of people meeting specific notability criteria (like this list of people meeting WP:PROF or the female FBA lists mentioned above) really help to combat biases on here and guide article creation; if you're interested in women in academia, it might be worth a look at this Oxford list. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC).

Like many UK universities, Oxford is transitioning from the old British system, where only a few senior academics were "Professors" (and most senior people "Senior Lecturers", and in Oxford a range of other funny historic titles), to the American one, where only junior people aren't professors. So I'd question whether most recent appointments "would easily pass WP:PROF", though no doubt many would. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Another fellowship which has been mentioned here before: the Guggenheim Fellowship. That alone is enough to confer notability, and I know the lists of Fellows by year have quite a large number of redlinks, many of them women. There's also a searchable database here. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Agreed as it automatically passes WP:ACADEMIC. I didn't put it in cause I would get exhausted going through all 76 years to find which women is missing. Perhaps a separate list for Guggenheim would be useful. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia causes Google AI gender bias[edit]

I found this very interesting. Not sure if anyone can do anything about it.--Ipigott (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia Still Hasn’t Fixed Its Colossal Gender Gap interesting too. The write-up is based on Katherine Maher's presentation at the Lisbon Web Conference. I hadn't realized Wikipedia had now dropped to ninth place among the most popular web offerings -- I thought we were still among the first four or five. Also interesting, the apparently negative effect of so many Wikipedia editors coming from North America or Europe. Had a feeling that as I am not only British but also male, I might do better to withdraw. But of course Maher should find an African to take her place too.--Ipigott (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I see our own List_of_most_popular_websites puts us in 10th place with six of the first ten being Chinese.--Ipigott (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
There's also the effect of so much key data now being in the box at the top of many search engines - the loose change google etc donate to us is a very minimal gesture, given the benefit they get. One day the Indians will set up their equivalent of the big Chinese sites.... Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hiltrud Werner: New article for review[edit]

Hi all! Reaching out here to see if anyone would be willing to review a draft I've submitted at AfC for Volkswagen's only female board member: Hiltrud Werner. The draft was declined for not demonstrating notability; I've since responded to the declining editor to provide some more information and made a couple of edits, as has another (uninvolved) editor. I'd like to try resubmitting but before I do so, would anyone here be open to reviewing to give feedback? As a disclosure: I do have a financial conflict of interest as I have written this draft on behalf of VW via Finsbury, as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Thanks in advance for any feedback anyone is able to provide. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason you haven't used the German article on her to flesh out the English article? -Yupik (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Yupik, that's a good question! Basically, German Wikipedia is more accepting of primary sources and the additional detail in that article is supported by sources such as the VW website, websites of organizations re: speaking events, and a video interview with Werner. From what I've seen at AfC, editors want to see in-depth secondary sourcing and reject details that are supported by primary sources, especially from drafts submitted by COI editors, so I focused on just including the information I could source to secondary coverage. It would be great to include more of what's in the German article, hopefully it can be added in future if editors think the current draft works as a starting point. Does that help answer your question? Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Participate in #WikiForHumanRights[edit]

Hi all, as you may have noticed, we are beginning work on the WikiForHumanRights Initiative: meta:WikiForHumanRights. This year is a pilot collaboration with UN Human rights, and we are looking for local language organizers to support hosting on Wiki events. Would Women in Red be interested in participating? There are two ways that make a lot of sense in my mind to still be within your scope: first making December or January a Women Human Rights Activist month (see an initial evaluation of the space at wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject_Human_Rights/human/activists) or by focusing on the topic of "youth standing up for rights" highlighted by the UN. If you all are interested, please report it at: meta:WikiForHumanRights/Organize. Cheers, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Astinson (WMF): While awaiting reactions from WiR, I suggest you also contact Art+Feminism who will be focusing on Art+Activism in March 2020.--Ipigott (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • While WiR tends to focus on activists every March, and we will again in March 2020 as the online node supporting A+F, I suppose we could also have Activists on our January calendar as many of us like to work in that area. I'll bring it up for further discussion at our events scheduling page. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Rosiestep I always enjoy writing about activists! This will be great, Astinson (WMF)! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at MediaWiki talk re blacklisting titles containing Wikidata Q numbers[edit]

A request was opened 2 days ago at MediaWiki_talk:Titleblacklist#Request_to_prevent_"Wikidata"_titles_from_being_created to "Prevent the creation of titles with any of the 4 following character strings: (1) (Q[number] (2) (q[number] (3) (P[number] (4) (p[number].

Many of the redlists created for our Women in Red projects contain redlinked titles consisting of a name plus the Wikidata Q number, particularly where the name is already in use as an article title for a different woman (who has a different Q number in Wikidata).

The editor who proposed this change has clarified that "The blacklist doesn't prevent redlinks from being created or typed out; it prevents content (such as an article or a redirect) being created at that title." Another editor suggested that "we can configure it here so that - even if ListeriaBot continues to create redlinks to these bad titles - when someone tries to create a page at that title, it'll show a message like "Please don't create your article at this title, give it a meaningful disambiguator like '(Nigerian politician)' instead of '(Q424242)' ".

Please could more knowledgeable WiR members consider the implications of this and comment at MediaWiki_talk:Titleblacklist#Request_to_prevent_"Wikidata"_titles_from_being_created? Perhaps the original proposal wouldn't affect WiR projects at all, or perhaps the suggested message about changing the Q number to a disambiguator when creating a new title would address the concern I had about new editors being able to create articles at redlinks as easily as possible.

Pinging @Tagishsimon and Ritchie333: who were also pinged at MediaWiki Talk. I hope other experienced WiR members will see this here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The only negative aspect of all this is that people are annoyed when they create a new biography and see that there is still a red link on the Listeria list they used to identify the person they wanted to write about. Once the new article has been correctly linked to Wikidata, the name disappears from the Listeria list. It looks to me as if adding the Q item number is a sensible temporary solution.--Ipigott (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)[edit]

My name is Elizabeth Rowe. I had some notability as the principal flutist of the Boston Symphony Orchestra before making mainstream headlines for a gender discrimination lawsuit (see Boston_Symphony_Orchestra#Unequal-pay_lawsuit). I followed the instructions at WP:YOURSELF by disclosing my conflict of interest and submitting a draft page about myself to Articles for Creation. The reviewer said I was “almost certainly [] notable” but rejected the page and encouraged deletion because it “must be reviewed by a neutral editor.”

I thought review from a neutral editor was precisely what Articles for Creation was designed for. However, if I am not allowed to submit, I would be grateful if an independent editor here can help out. Thank you so much in advance for your help. Roweflute (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for creating your draft and for following procedure in so doing. On a first reading, it looks fine. (I made some light edits and added a small amount of material.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
XOR'easter, Roweflute, I think the subject is notable and the article will not be deleted at WP:AfD. I would be willing to accept the draft, provided that the CoI is properly disclosed on the talk page of the article. You could use the {{Connected_contributor}} template to do that. Vexations (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I’ve added the connected contributor tag. Roweflute (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Roweflute: Thanks; duly moved to mainspace - Elizabeth Rowe (flutist). --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Hatnote added to the target of redirect Elizabeth Rowe, to make this findable. PamD 06:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
And a redirect made from the more common (but only in ratio 5:3 in spelling Elizabeth Rowe (flautist). PamD 06:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
And added both Elizabeths to Rowe (surname). PamD 06:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would like to congratulate you, Roweflute, for putting together an informative neutral biography which bears no signs of a desire for self promotion. If others wishing to write about themselves were to follow your example, there would be less concern about discouraging "autobiographies". You also seem to have been able to master the essential editing techniques. Well done!--Ipigott (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Really lovely job to everyone. Roweflute, you point out only one of the pitfalls of sending articles to AfC (Articles for Creation). Our usual advice is to never send new articles there. If you are unable to move your drafts to mainspace, just post here, like you have done this time, and someone will come along directly and help. Welcome aboard. SusunW (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, all, for taking the time to look at this, and for welcoming me to the Wikipedia community! Roweflute (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I second the comments of Ipigott above. Job well done and a model as to how to do it. Fortunately you have plenty of reliable secondary sources as testament to your notability. Again welcome. Please stay involved, especially in Women in Red.Oldperson (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Roweflute Agreed with the above. The more eyes on the field of classical music, the better. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Roweflute: It might not be a terrible idea to try and get a photo of you up at WP:FPC as well. We're quite low on pictures of non-singer classical musicians there. I'll happily review them. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 18:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for this suggestion. I'll work on it! Much appreciated. Roweflute (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

A rant about Wikidata[edit]

While stub-sorting I came across a little stub on Freida High Wasikhongo Tesfagiorgis. I improved it by adding the fact that she's a professor emeritus (helping her to be considered notable), and stub-sorted it and, as ever, added a l-o-t of redirects from the various versions of her name which cropped up in the sources used or were found by googling on various components of her name. I created the surname page at Tesfagiorgis because it turns out there's someone else of that surname with an article.

And then I looked at Wikidata. She's listed there as "Frida High-Wasikhongo". Mis-spelled first name which I've not seen anywhere else, hyphenation of 2nd and 3rd names which I've not seen anywhere else, no sign of fourth name. It offers "Freida High" as an "Also known as". It's been edited 18 times since being created in 2017.

Where does Wikidata get its information from? The record includes a dead link to a University of Wisconsin-Madison staff page at (interestingly the "tesfagiorgis" is part of the URL so presumably was included in her name on that page, suggesting that someone mangled her name in the original data gathering). The current equivalent page is, which shows her name as "High W. Tesfagiorgis, Freida".

I've made a redirect from the Wikidata version of her name, in case it exists anywhere else which a reader might find as a source, but how can we get the Wikidata record corrected? And how come Wikidata can include such mangled information? And why are we importing this unsourced data blindly into Wikipedia (automatic population of infoboxes etc, I understand - either already or planned). I'm seriously unimpressed by what I see of Wikidata.

The April 2017 archived version of her staff page, at shows her name as "Freida High W. Tesfagiorgis", as do earlier and later versions of the page, so the Wikidata data doesn't match the one source which is linked from the Wikidata record. Yes, Googling the version used in Wikidata finds 56 hits, but googling "Freida High" produces 2450 hits (but at least one of which is about high-heeled shoes called "Freida"), and googling Freida and Tesfagiorgis another 2060.

Meanwhile the article could do with a bit of help - she appears to be a much-exhibited artist as well as an academic, but there's not much body to the article, so if anyone is interested in visual arts they might like to have a go. PamD 18:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The original record in Wikidata was created in good faith. Frida High-Wasikhongo is shown as the co-author of Traditional African Art: A Female Focus on Amazon. At the top of each Wikidata entry there is a Label (in this case the name of the person), a Description and Also known as. Just now an editor has changed the Label to "Freida High Wasikhongo Tesfagiorgis", left the Description blank and added "Freida High W. Tesfagiorgis" in Also known as. I have added "Frida High-Wasikhongo" to Also known as and provided a Description. Easily fixed. Oronsay (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
(ec) The Wikidata entry was created in March 2017, based on information in Wikipedia:Meetup/Black Lunch Table which at the time gave her name as 'Frida High-Wasikhongo'. In December that year, information was added on her education and employer, but without sources so it's not clear where that came from – though it is correct, not having a source means the information is only really useful as a starting point for a BLP. Each statement can include a reference, apart from the names (AKA 'labels') which currently don't allow sources. I've updated her entry to reflect the spelling in the Wikipedia article and added a couple of other variants she's used while publishing.
From my limited understanding of Wikidata, there are a couple of ways information finds its way into the database: large-scale imports of datasets and small-scale edits. The former can include stuff like VIAF and ORCID, and is as good as the source database. A good chunk has been imported from Wikimedia projects, but then is one step removed from the source in the Wikipedia article. My impression is there is greater emphasis now on referencing, but still plenty of stuff that needs better sourcing (or even 'some sourcing' would be a start in some cases!).
To change the title of a Wikidata entry, there should be an edit button near the top, next to the box which lists the names of the subject in a bunch of different languages. In the meantime, I've updated it and included the page you linked to as a source. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, she's mentioned as 'Freida High (Wasikhongo Tesfagiorgis)' in this source. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
My impression is that Wikidata's requirements for sourcing, especially for biographies of living people, are a lot looser or nonexistent compared to the English Wikipedia's requirements. For this reason, bulk import of information from Wikidata (such as using it to populate infoboxes) should not be done. Wikidata can be used to find and link articles in other languages, and to collect authority control records for people, as those uses are much less likely to raise sourcing problems. It is also my experience that when incorrect or private information finds its way into Wikidata profiles, as it does often, and Google then picks up the information for its search results, the subjects typically blame us here on Wikipedia for breaching their privacy or saying incorrect things about them, even though we had nothing to do with it. In that sense, Wikidata is dragging us down. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Cards on the table, I like Wikidata and think it can be a very useful tool but sourcing does need to be improved. When information lacks a provenance it's difficult to put weight on it, but for curated sets of information I'd be quite happy to import information to Wikipedia. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
"Wikidata is dragging us down" is a simplistic and unfair comment. Folks are quick to overlook the many years of large-scale deficiencies and inaccuracies of Wikipedia, while quickly pointing out any of the flaws in Wikidata. That recency bias helps no one, so I'd encourage folks to learn more about the actual practices of Wikidata rather than fear it from afar. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I've just experienced a similar problem with Wikidata which lists the Danish journalist Christine von Kohl "Christine Kohl" despite the fact that all the authority files refer to her as Christine von Kohl. Can anyone fix it? (The only way I could get rid of the Listeria redlink was to make a redirect from Christine Kohl which should not really have been necessary.)--Ipigott (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Some of you may be interested in joining the Wikidata Telegram channel. I find it to be a good place to discuss specific Wikidata issues (around my "Women Writers in Review" project), make requests (e.g. create a new Cradle), and so forth. There are >400 people subscribed, so someone seems to always be available to help out. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Richard Nevell: Thanks for helping to sort out Christine von Kohl. Looks fine now.--Ipigott (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, my thanks too to @Richard Nevell: and @Oronsay: for explanations and editing. I've also added back "Freida High" as an "Also known as", as it seems to be a version she has used. And @Rosiestep: I'd never heard of Telegram and am reluctant to join yet another social media time-sink, but it's good to know there's something out there. Thanks. PamD 08:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • More Wikidata questions: What rule does it use to decide on the English-language "Label": does it follow naming rules? Do those labels get updated automatically if an existing article is renamed by moving the article? Is there somewhere an easy summary of info like this about Wikidata? Thanks. PamD 08:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I think it's more or less like here: some person edits it and it stays that way until someone else edits it. The initial creation of the label might be created by a bot rather than a person, depending in part on how the Wikidata entry came to exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
      • I spend quite a bit of time finding and merging duplicates on Wikidata, often because a bot or editor creates a new Item without checking for existing entries or a Wikipedia includes a middle name or initial. Am happy to look into any Wikidata issues that arise in WiR and refer to others, e.g. User talk:Tagishsimon if I'm stumped. Oronsay (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment - In the course of participating the in "Focus on Suffrage", I too have been learning about wikidata. It appears the wikidata editors have imported the data from Women and Social Movements in the United States,1600-2000. That in turn is populating Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Suffragists. It is all very useful in discovering possible new biographies. As an added step, I do try to review the data in wikidata to compare it with my research on the web. I use my best judgement to edit the wikidata information, make sure my article is linked to the wikidata page, and include an image if there is one on the commons. It is an interesting challenge because so many suffragist were referred as "Mrs. Blah Blah" rather than "Mary Blah". My point, and I do have one :), is that I consider it another step in writing women into history and correcting misinformation. Wikidata seems to be what google scrapes for biographical data, so I am happy I can fix an error at the source. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I already spend a lot of my time in Wikidata correcting stuff about indigenous people, so if anyone needs help fixing stuff over there, drop me a line and I can look into it if Tagishsimon and Oronsay don't get there first. -Yupik (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Lists in the Wikimedia movement? Why? What?[edit]

This piece, which mentions WiR from the get-go, may interest some of you. I saw a link to this post on FB and commented there with the following:—

Thanks, Alex, for drawing attention to the importance of lists. Early on, Women in Red (WiR) recognized that our redlists (lists of redlinked notable women) are as important as all the articles we are writing. We have multiple types of lists: those that are generated by SPARQL queries, crowd-sources ones, those that are based on a biographical dictionary, and still others that are based on a website. Without the redlists, it is easy to forget about or lose "redlinks". So we "mine" them, and we display them in lists, and, as editors around the world have access to these lists, anyone can write the articles, as long as the subject meets guidelines for Notability, Reliable Sources, etc. One thing that we haven't done yet (best done by a tool, as we have >400 lists), is to create Wikidata items for each of our lists. Once en.wp redlists are in Wikidata, perhaps other language Wikipedias would be interested in adding links to their WiR redlists. The current en.wp WiR Index is here (, but once it can be generated by running a SPARQL query, that will be a big step forward.

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I vaguely remember creating wikidata items for redlists a while ago - - though doubtless there are a few lists created subsequently for which there is no wikidata item, or an item which doesn't follow the established pattern. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
July diff --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, wow, Tagishsimon, I didn't realize this task was done. Huge thanks. Can the list (an index, actually) be displayed on Wikipedia as a Women in Red Wikidata-list? I'm thinking, at least for the time being, it would be valuable to keep the "crowd-sourced" index and also have the Wikidata-generated index; two ways to view the same thing (with a clickable button at the top to toggle between them). Again, thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
BTW, I edited my comment on FB to include: "673 of WiR en.wp redlists have Wikidata items ( I'd like to encourage other language versions of WiR to add their links to Wikidata, too." --Rosiestep (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Rosiestep: While I certainly agree that the redlists are a key feature of our project, I certainly don't think they are "as important as all the articles we are writing". Surely the number and quality of the articles we contribute to the encyclopaedia are by far the most important aspect. The redlink lists are just one of the tools we use to create them. They may be of considerable interest to the editing community but certainly not to all those who use Wikipedia to find information about women and their works. That's my perspective, at any rate.--Ipigott (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The point is that it's not "either lists or articles." Lists are a complementary tool that provide a view in another dimension that casual users of Wikipedia don't see. Most folks experience Wikipedia article by article. Maybe someone might check out a category, which is a very crude version of a list. However, as a 2D matrix, Listeria-generated lists provide lots of info spatially and in one view – which women have articles, what data do we have about them, is there an image for them, what aspects to they have in common? So rather than seeing things as a competition between what is more important (which Rosie didn't make but you are inferring) see it as being a good thing that we can have such powerful tools in our hands now in ways we did not just 10 years ago. This is thanks to Wikidata, thanks to tool makers like Magnus Manske, and thanks to folks who take the initiative to think of different ways of visualizing our content. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
My sincere apologies for inferring competition. It was certainly not my attention. It just shows how careful you have to be in expressing your ideas.--Ipigott (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Just popping in to say how excited I am to see the blog series already getting people thinking about the lists over here in WIR :) Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata lists of redlists -> major redlist re-engineering?[edit]

Quick heads-up for those interested in the SPARQL of redlists. I'm thinking that there might be benefits to be had from listing the occupations that are queried within a WD Redlist, as part of the redlists's wikidata item - so for example, in for the Psychologists redlist we can list occupation=Psychologist.

Having done this, we can amend the SPARQL of redlists to query for occupations listed in the wikidata record - SPARQL rather than maintaining the list of QIds in a VALUES statement within each Redlists' SPARQL.

The two main advantages of doing this are a) to provide a means by which mortals can inspect the occupations that make up a listing (the redlist can point the user at the redlist's wikidata item for a definition of its scope), and b) so that we can provide more information in the table of redlists which Rosiestep requested, above, and enable better analysis of which occupations are covered, in which reports - .e.g. we can create a table of occupations, which point to the redlist they're incorporated within (remembering that some redlists have many discrete occupations making up the results set).

It would also provide the means by which other language wikipedias could mirror the en.wikipedia WD redlists should they wish to.

Anyone have any thinks on this? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: Impressive! It's just the kind of description that even I can understand. Nevertheless, as our redlists have been designed specifically for the English version of Wikipedia, shouldn't there be something to explain that in the description? And when you say other language versions could use our lists, how exactly would they go about it? Furthermore, if it is possible to provide this kind of description for an existing list, it makes me wonder whether would it be possible to devise a similar description for facilitating the creation of new lists by simply allowing non-initiates to add a new occupation? I have suggested one of our upcoming focuses could be on classical music with an emphasis on musicians. In this connection, just as we now have pianists, we could also easily create violinists ( violinist (Q1259917) ), cellists ( cellist (Q13219637) ), flautists ( flautist (Q12902372) ), clarinetists ( clarinetist (Q118865) ), etc., etc. (Unless of course we can continue to rely on you for all our future additions.)--Ipigott (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
On item descriptions; no. The item is a general description of a redlist of a certain sort - psychologists, for example. Each langage wikipedia can have its version, which'll have different contents and, things being what they are, probably slightly different scope. That's fine.
Making new redlists will still be complex, involving a new page with the appropriate listeria template in it (hopefully a standard template the user does not need to edit at all), and in addition a linked wikidata item with appropriate properties. I'd like to think more people will grok how to do it, but doubt that will be the case. If we adopt this approach, I'll do a how-to. Adding, amending and inspecting occupations should be easier, but it's still in wikidata and those who are apprehensive may remain apprehensive. Your need for more musician lists is noted & I'll attend to that.
Here, illustratively, is one of the reports enabled by having occupations within the wikidata record: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index/Listeria redlists by occupation - a list of discrete occupations mapped to the redlist they're found in. I'll amend a few redlists now to be driven from the wikidata item - users will notice no difference whatsoever. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
All of the -A- occupation redists, bar Academics & Art Historians, now have new SPARQL driving them from the wikidata item. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a while myself, Tagishsimon, but I didn't know how to describe it like you do. Totally support going in this direction, even though it's a lot of work. Also adding Camelia.boban to the convo as I know she has created redlists for Italian Wikipedia, to get her thoughts about how other language Wikipedias will be able to collaborate. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
It's getting closer to WiR-in-a-box. Implement a standard invariant template such as this. Link that page to a wikidata item like this. All done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
These are the Listeria SPARQL lists I created for WikiDonne. --Camelia (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Tagishsimon, It's definitely the direction we want to go: WiR-in-a-box. And you've certainly simplified it with the "standard invariant template" and the Wikidata example. Do you have time to clean-up all the Wikidata redlists we have which don't currently follow the "standard invariant template" you describe? ...or maybe others want to help with that? Camelia.boban, you've done a nice job with Italian redlists and I hope you consider attaching them in Wikidata. I realize you probably have some that doesn't have and vice versa, but I'm guessing there's significant overlap? Eventually, I hope we can create a "standard invariant template" for other language Wikipedias, (e.g. maybe start with Swedish because of the WikiGap efforts?; or with Finnish if Yupik has the time/inclination to collaborate), but that can wait till side is sorted out. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Content and Conduct: How English Wikipedia Moderates Harmful Speech[edit]

This may interest some of you: Clark, Justin, Robert Faris, Urs Gasser, Adam Holland, Hilary Ross,and Casey Tilton. "Content and Conduct: How English Wikipedia Moderates Harmful Speech". Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University, 2019. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

This is interesting but I must say I have always felt our bots and content monitors usually do a pretty good job of catching inappropriate language in articles, especially from vandalism. What is far more important for Women in Red is the way some of our contributors have been treated on talk pages or in connection with article deletion discussions. The bad language usually seems to survive in these cases unless it is really unacceptable. I'm not sure how clear the guidelines are for the level of language to be used on talk pages. There's not really very much on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, maybe a bit more on Wikipedia:Etiquette but not really on level of language. I must say when I first started to edit Wikipedia I was really surprised at all the swearing and cursing that went on. Maybe it's not as bad today as it was in the early days. I wonder if it would be useful to develop a code of conduct for Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
An important sentence in the above link is: " The evidence suggests that efforts to remove malicious content are faster and more effective on Wikipedia articles compared to removal efforts on article talk and user talk pagesItalic text." I see a problem,however, if one even tries to call out someone who is abusive, they can get tagged or warned, with or without a template. We are, above all things, suppose to assume good faith, despite evidence contrary staring us in the face.Oldperson (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


TrowelBlazers - archaeologists[edit]

I've just discovered this interesting newish article about a project to raise the profile of women in archaeology, with a long list of names featured on the project's website. Not sure that the list is really appropriate as part of a WP article, it's a bit long, but it's got quite a scatter of redlinks (or, at the moment, unlinked names - presumably where disambiguation would be needed?) to inspire article creation. I was alerted to it by a notification that a link had been made to one of my creations. PamD 18:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I've seen a handful of articles about archaeologists appear recently - I wonder if there's any connection? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
There is. Trowelblazers are active on wikipedia (have done editathons, e.g. Wikipedia:GLAM/Natural History Museum and Science Museum/Trowelblazers from 2013, through to participation in a 14 Nov 2019 editathon mentioned at and ). Not sure they're quite as wikipedia focussed / organized as Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee, albeit wikipedia work is a small part of the activities of WCC. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Good to see John Cummings has been helping with this. Thanks for the link to the classicists. They do indeed seem to be very well organized.--Ipigott (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
This was many years ago, I wonder if someone at Wikimedia UK is still in touch with them. John Cummings (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@John Cummings: A couple of people mentioned your event, you made a good impression! Wikimedia UK did an event with Trowelblazers earlier this month. They do tremendously helpful work documenting women working in archaeology, geology, and paleontology which could then feed into Wikipedia articles. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Dorothy Seymour Mills[edit]

I created a new article about Dorothy Seymour Mills and welcome any help. It's a fascinating tale that is all too common – the wife's contribution to scholarship was overshadowed by the husband's name and unwillingness to credit her in the work. Fortunately, the Society for American Baseball Research helped correct this in later years by giving her an award alongside her husband, and by naming a new award after her in 2017. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

December events with WIR[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
December 2019, Volume 5, Issue 12, Numbers 107, 108, 144, 145, 146, 147

Check out what's happening in December at Women in Red...

Online events:

Editor feedback:

Social media: Facebook icon.jpg Facebook / Instagram.svg Instagram / Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest / Twitter icon.png Twitter

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

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Incoming batch of biographies from Wiki Education[edit]

Hi all, there are some incoming biographies from a psychology course.

For context, this is part of a larger batch of biographies (more here). Improvements are welcome. Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Excellent; many thanks, Elysia --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
But @Elysia (Wiki Ed): why are most of these students creating replacement articles, instead of collaboratively expanding the existing ones? Unless the existing article is complete rubbish the students should be working by expanding and improving the existing article, rather than throwing away the work of previous editors. Normal Wikipedia ways of working should not be cast aside just because it makes a better academic project that way. It is really dispiriting for an existing editor, probably with a longer investment in editing, to find their work cast aside, and is not in the interests of the encyclopedia. PamD 23:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
For example: Naomi Weisstein: an article started in June 2006, to which many editors have contributed over the years. Why is a student creating a replacement article? Are they and their teacher really confident that they will create something more valuable to the encyclopedia than the article created by many editors over 13 years? Why is the student not expanding the existing article? The students' efforts would be so much more appropriately directed to improving existing articles or creating new articles on topics not yet covered. PamD 23:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Elysia (Wiki Ed): I tend to agree with PamD on this but I'm not too sure what the students are now expected to do. As far as I can see, they've all been working in their user space. Should they be incorporating some of their improvements into the existing biographies or is the intention to replace the existing articles or sections. I am nevertheless impressed by the progress these students have made. It certainly looks to me as if Miriam Polster and perhaps Edna Frances Heidbreder could usefully be moved to mainspace but perhaps this is planned.--Ipigott (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
It looks to me as if the students have branched the articles; so they are working forward from the base of a copied version of the existing articles, but all of their edits are in their drafts, sandboxen, &c. Their work now needs to be merged back into the existing articles; either as a single edit (losing the history of their changes in their sandbox) (and watching out that intervening edits to the base article since it was forked are not lost); or else an admin needs to merge the histories of two articles (if that's a thing. IAN a janitor). I think we're good so long as someone has a plan for the eventual unification of the articles. Opinions will vary as to the pros & cons of a branching approach. But right now the key question is whether a plan exists to get the students' work into mainspace - Elysia (Wiki Ed), do you know? --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The editing histories of these sandboxes make no or little acknowledgment of the existing articles and it really looks as if these students and their teachers expect to overwrite the entire existing article, which is not how Wikipedia articles should develope, and is insulting to the editors who have worked on the articles in the past: we should not throw aside our normal way of creating articles just because it makes for a better academic project. Somewhere along the line it looks as if a poor decision has been made as to how these student editors are expected to contribute to the encyclopedia. PamD 10:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I think you're making an assumption here - that the intent is to remove the existing article and add a new article. It might equally be that the intent is to take a fork of an existing article, work on it in a private space, and then integrate changes back into the source article. We can agree is that the edit history of the existing articles must be respected - which is to say preserved; and so the presumption is that the new work must be added to the existing articles. If so, the risk, such as it is, is that the multiple edits done in the private space do not make it to the history of the main article, because the article is updated in a single edit from the private draft. The approach being taken is questionable, for sure, but it is not axiomatically a poor decision if consideration has been given to the implications of the approach (loss of private space edits and need to check for intervening edits before updating the mainspace article). It is not uncommon, in my experience, to take the text of an article away somewhere (draft, sandbox, client-side editor), work on it for some protracted period, and later return to update the mainspace article - taking care to deal with the problem of edits made to the article after the fork was made. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Someone asked students to work on drafts outside main namespace, what else could happen? I, for one, am always in favour of tight cooperation in the main namespace. That's what wikis are for, we're not Nupedia. However I must accept that in some courses people will need to go for the (seemingly) easier path, for various reasons. Nemo 12:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Students on Wiki courses tend to work like this - unfortunately their instructors rarely have any real experience of Wikipedia, & the WikiEd "experts" rarely seem to influence matters in any real way. There is most unlikely to be any plan to do the merge/move properly. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
AGF anyone? No? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately they are working in good faith. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay. In my experience, students on Wiki courses do not tend to work like this (they either improve an article directly or they create an article that was missing) and instructors I have dealt with do have & make use of wikipedia skills. And where we've encouraged WikiEd to share work such as this with us, getting bitey and neglecting AGF is not constructive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Well in my experience, which I rather expect is greater than yours as art historical subjects are great favourites with students on courses, "improving an article directly" very often involves just replacing all or great chunks of the existing article, with little attempt to preserve anything worthwhile from before. Of course there may not be much, but sometimes there is. Intervention from instructors or WikiEd is very rarely seen in article space, and the instructors always use virgin accounts. Frankly, you are a fine one to talk about getting bitey. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Do you have anything at all constructive to add? Are you here for any reason other than to polish your grievance? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Go on, prove my point. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The students seem to be working in groups, which is fine but means that it would be very difficult to merge their work into the existing article while preserving attribution ("who added that sentence?") - judging from the history of the student work I've looked at. It will be interesting to hear from @Elysia (Wiki Ed): is this WikiEd's recommended, or approved, way for student editors to work? PamD 16:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for the pings. I'm a halftime employee, so forgive the delay in getting back to you. I think a broader context would be necessary here. We knew from the beginning that this course would consist of group work to work on biographies of psychologists. Our typical trainings are for students to work in sandboxes, but this was especially important given that 1) there were 100 students in this course; 2) this instructor has run into issues with the Wikipedia assignment in the past. We are not encouraging students to write "replacement articles". The same trainings we've had apply to these students: "Never copy and paste your draft over the entire article. Instead, edit small sections at a time, replacing only content that you've changed. Make many small edits, saving each time and leaving an edit summary. Never replace more than one to two sentences without saving...Add an edit summary that says it was copied from your sandbox, and click 'Publish changes'. (Include a link to your sandbox, like [[User:Your Username/sandbox]], in the edit summary.)..."
Moving work out of the sandbox via these small copy-paste moves is fine. It's exactly the same as how text can be copied from one article to another as long as attribution is provided in the edit summary. The plan is for students to do the moves themselves once they've been given a green light from me or another community member (more here).
On a more general note based off some of the sentiment expressed here, I realize that new editors can be difficult to work with, but I'd like to encourage any of you to reach out to me, Shalor, or Ian if you are having issues with one of our students. We are happy to address any concerns. Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @Elysia (Wiki Ed):, that's some fascinating background reading. I can now see why these students are being asked to work in sandboxes, but am still worried how the addition of their work to existing articles will pan out. If student ABC adds content to the mainspace article, it has to be their responsibility, regardless of whether student XYZ added it to the sandbox draft. I don't see the point of linking to a sandbox as any sort of attribution, as sandboxes are ephemeral and likely to be overwritten by future work if the editor continues to edit. OK, it would be traceable in the page history of the sandbox, but "so what?". The editor who adds the content to mainspace must believe that they are making a useful contribution to the encyclopedia and that it is supported by the sources they are citing, and that's that - though of course they also need to remember to be consistent with any decisions made by previous editors about citation styles, English variant/date formats, etc, and to take care that their contribution integrates well with the work of previous editors. It will be interesting to see how it all goes. Good luck to all involved, especially the student editors - and I hope they enjoy the experience and get hooked on editing. PamD 18:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I was pretty sure, Elysia (Wiki Ed), that you would have a convincing explanation for us. Now it just remains to be seen how many of your students actually become interested in creating new biographies. Keep up the good work and let us know if there's anything we can help with.--Ipigott (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I've been following this class project since it was announced on the Talk page of WikiProject Medicine. @SteveJoordens: said that the course leaders had chosen figures from the History of Psychology that we considered both notable in the Wikipedia sense, and for which there is either no existing page or just a stub. and that he would share the names of those chosen topics. [6]. It is unfortunate that some of those chosen pages, such as Naomi Weisstein, were definitely not stubs. How many of these non-stub articles are there? That sounds like the biggest issue. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey all, sorry for seeing this discussion so late! I am the professor of the class in question ... and yes I know that the preferred approach would have been to simply continue to develop the article on mainspace, given my checkered past with Wikipedia we were asked to only work in Sandboxes until an editor OKd the article for mainspace. In cases where a stub existed I DID instruct students to ensure any information in that original stub was also in the more fullsome articles they were creating. And yes they did work in groups (with one member focused on each attribute of the "good article criteria", and groups peer-assessed the work of 6 other groups as part of the article creation process. But yes, these leaves us now is this awkward situation of how to "overwrite" the existing stubs. Any guidance here would be very much appreciated as my students are eager to get their articles into mainspace, assuming they look good of course! SteveJoordens (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

SteveJoordens, Naomi Weisstein contains over 1600 words. Do you call that a stub? And where was the community notified that your students would be working on this article? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Helen Thompson Woolley is also substantial, graded as C-class on 3 projects - but in this case the student has added an "Educational assignment" banner to the talk page, so perhaps they were all instructed to do so but in some cases ignored the instruction. PamD 17:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure I've seen course using the Wiki Education Foundation's dashboard have notices applied to article talk pages by a bot to notify contributors to an article (typing on a phone so not easy to check). If so, this isn't yet active for the outreach dashboard and I've not fully explored this function yet, but in principle is a good idea. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Richard Nevell, There is an outreach dashboard for the course at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Toronto Scarborough/History of Psychology (Fall), but some of the articles that the students worked on are missing from it. SteeveJoordens told us specifically that he would share the names of the biographies his students would be working on, and it appears he has not fully done so. I'd like to hear his response to this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@SteveJoordens: Thanks for getting back to us. By all means grade your students on the artificial stand-alone articles in their sandboxes, but you and they should not then be thinking in terms of "overwriting" existing stubs, let alone existing more substantial articles. Each of them should be using the research they have done, and their thoughts about how to word the content, to augment and improve the existing article, in standard Wikipedia process. They might need to take due note of the existing consensus in the article on referencing style, and possibly the variant of English used (eg if the subject has no particulr ties to US or UK but a UK editor did the initial creation using British English). Apart from anything else, if they copy-and-pasted their whole work into/onto an existing article, they would be losing the attribution of "who did what" amongst themselves: the person doing the pasting would be claiming credit, and accepting responsibility, for the whole of the work: not good. It's really not enough just to say "any information in that original stub was also in the more fullsome articles they were creating": any information in that original stub has been written by one or many volunteer editor(s) whose work should not be swept aside. PamD 17:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment- Thinking about the future, because this seems to be something that will probably happen again - Would it be useful for the instructor(s) and (Wiki Ed)s to ask/require students to use the tag {{inuse}} and/or {{Under construction}} on these article assignments and then get the students to work in the main space? All changes would be recorded, and interested parties would be put on notice that there is some major work being done, possibly by students. I think one of the UK meet-up coordinators is using this this technique successfully. While it is not a perfect solution, it would keep us true to the idea that Wikipedia is a people's encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but still remove the back-breaking task of trying to figure out WTF happened to an article that has been copied over by a newbie. (My casual observation, completely unsubstantiated by data, is that student editors work on one article and then are gone, gone, gone.) Best WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

"It is really dispiriting for an existing editor, probably with a longer investment in editing, to find their work cast aside, and is not in the interests of the encyclopedia." I certainly agree with the above editor, and I am beginning to feel as though there are too many college professors who prefer to use Wikipedia as a teaching tool than to teach the students themselves." Oh, well. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


I just finished an article on Women's suffrage in India and could use some help if anyone is so inclined. I haven't updated the information on Timeline of women's suffrage, or added the redlinks to any of the lists. It also has no links to other articles and is presently an orphan. It needs photos and if anyone can help in that department that would be great. I would love to know if this photograph can be used. There is also one of 11 of the 15 delegates to the constituent assembly. I think they are eligible for commons, as the copyright tag says "Photographs created before 1958 are in the public domain 50 years after creation". Having never loaded photographs from India I am unsure, but if it can be proven when they were taken, they seem eligible. Also, as the names are spelled differently in various sources, if anyone is familiar with the names there might be existing articles that I failed to link. Any help in integrating, illustrating or copyediting the article would be appreciated. SusunW (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done de-orphaned WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
No luck on the photos from me. There seems to be dearth of photos of Indian suffragists at meetings or demonstrating.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help WomenArtistUpdates! Lack of photos, I know, very frustrating. Lots of photos of English women of Indian descent in British protests, but ones of actual Indian suffragettes in India is hard. I have a friend in Mumbai looking into the two I found above to try to determine if they were published. I was able to find a photo yesterday of Margaret Cousins, but that took forever not only find, but prove it could be used. SusunW (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I also was able to add the dates of the various provinces in the timeline. SusunW (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Guardian / Katherine Maher article[edit]

Making the edit: why we need more women in Wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

"liberal, Silicon Valley-funded foundation", argh. :( Nemo 19:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Not even a mention of Women in Red! Perhaps once again she needs to be updated. I took care of it not too long ago. Now I think someone else should take it on. Perhaps it would be more effective coming from a woman.--Ipigott (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
It's more likely to have to do with the interviewer than the interviewee. Journalists are like that, it's extremely hard in an interview to make sure they write the important things and avoid entirely made up ones. Nevertheless the article is a net positive, I think. I was relieved to see the "15-20 %" figure rather than the ultra-outdated and discredited 10 % that some still use. Nemo 07:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you're right but in this recent article based on her speech in Lisbon, the WiR percentage of women's biographies is given as 17.67% whereas it's now over 18%. Does anyone happen to have a transcript of her Lisbon speech? The video I found was painful to listen to. Anyway, it's good to know "women" are now a priority for Maher.--Ipigott (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Nemo bis, do you happen to know where the "15-20%" figure comes from? The 10% or even 9% figure is from a 2011 WMF editor survey, right? I understand it's old, but other than being old in what way has it been discredited? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
See m:Research:Gender gap. The 2011 survey is useless because it didn't ask certain necessary questions, while the 2008 survey was properly conducted but improperly reported on. The article doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065782 re-analysed the UNU-MERIT survey of 2008 and concluded that the number of female editors in USA is more like 23 %, while elsewhere it may be lower.
There is no need to use bad science in our efforts to reduce the gender gap. In public presentations I usually say "less than 25 %" and I think that's bad enough to demonstrate the need for action, without being alarmistic. Nemo 08:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for these details. So if I understand correctly, that the lower and upper ends of the estimate range are actually estimating different things. At the lower end, the 15% figure is for editors worldwide, whereas the 22% figure is for the U.S. only. What were the missing necessary questions in the 2011 survey? I didn't see a criticism of the 2011 survey in the links you gave. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
It's implicit in the following statements: "the fact that the WMF/UNU-MERIT survey includes data on Wikipedia readers allows us to take advantage of demographic data from a nationally representative phone survey of US adults conducted by the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project", "a series of covariates collected in both surveys (age, gender, education level, immigrant status, marital status, parental status, student status)". In 2013, the 2008 survey was still the only one allowing such remedies for selection bias. I'm not aware of a better survey having ever been performed since then, although there is some hope. Nemo 17:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean now. Thanks for the clarification. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

O tempora o mores! - Dr. Jess Wade gamergate redux[edit]

Dr. W. had lots of her articles tagged for notability again this week; you'll remember much the same happened in May. Tags have gone & the IP blocked. No words. Stay strong. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of things.--Ipigott (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
For the records, this is about these 47 reverted edits. Nemo 08:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

UBC articles[edit]

There are ~47 new articles from students at Vancouver School of Economics at the University of British Columbia here: ... if anyone has time, please consider looking at some or all of them. Same course did the same thing last year and produced very high quality articles. I've looked at only one so far; very high quality, notable, currently at AfD, obviously. (Soumaya Keynes)

In the main, these probably need 1) {{Authority control}}, 2) linking to a wikidata item, 3) additional categories, 4) de-orphaning; and sometimes 5) sentence case headers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I've looked at these articles and tried to copy edit a couple of them. It is very annoying when Wikipedians, whether beginners or old hands, upload articles before they are adequately edited. I mean, we've all been educated to write proper English, haven't we? It's also annoying when these articles are, well, simply not worthy of being included in Wikipedia because the people they highlight are just not WP:Notable. If these are part of a class project, then the students should be told how important it is to follow all Wikipedia WP:guidelines instead of just hurrying through the assignment in order to get a grade. I would like to help these students, but, like that of all editors, time is limited. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Rubery, I don't think you have a very good grasp of WP:NPROF, BeenAroundAWhile. I respectfully disagree with pretty much all of your post. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind comment. (Oops. That was arch.) Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
It's dismal to see academics who unambiguously pass NPROF 3 & 5 being marked for deletion or tagged for notability. Also something about "told how important it is to follow all Wikipedia WP:guidelines". --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Nominators of AfDs are advised to carry out WP:Before prior to nominating. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC).
Point here was editors should not "upload articles before they are adequately edited" really?? .... surely its even more important before nominating for deletion? This line of unsuccessful AfDs does not instil any confidence in any of that editors AfDs that follow. The editors here could have been improving said articles - which they would have done without having to Keep emerging articles from being deleted. Victuallers (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Redlists for "Women who died in 2019"[edit]

Does anyone have any suggestions about how to present redlists for our focus on Women who died in 2019? I had wondered whether it would be possible to create a Wikidata redlist based simply on year of death but am not sure whether this would be possible or useful. Alternatively, we could try to create a crowd-sourced list, perhaps based on a number of sources such as Guardian obits or NYT obits. There might be other ideas or useful sources from Mike Peel, Gamaliel, Megalibrarygirl or StrayBolt. For the time being, I've simply suggested contributors should turn up any lists of interest and look for 2019 deaths but that doesn't provide specific redlinked names.--Ipigott (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I've created a quick Wikidata list at User:Mike Peel/2019 women deaths (redlinks+bluelinks) in case that's useful. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
BTW, the Guardian and NYT obits lists are updated daily, and the history of the page is kept, so you can go back and look at past months if you want. I can set up similar lists for other sites if they have convenient RSS feeds. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk)
Mike Peel: Thanks very much for the Wikidata list. That should be very useful. It might well be useful to have other obituary list like those for the Guardian and NYT is you have time to set them up.--Ipigott (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
If you have links to RSS feeds (like [7] for NYT obituaries), then it's straightforward for me to set them up. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Very nice, Mike Peel -thanks- and I've added your Wikidata list to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index. A friendly FYI to those that are keeping track of such things: before the list can be added to Wikidata as a Women in Red redlist, someone would need to conform it to WiR name, style etc. Maybe Tagishsimon would be interested in that step? I was also wondering if the WiR lists you added to Wikidata can be viewable yet as a list on, e.g. a Wikidata alternative to this one, or were you thinking that we need to create something like Wikidata:WikiProject Women in Red and that would be the place to view it? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Mike Peel! I have been working on a WD query, but I keep getting timeout errors for full lists and was considering monthly, like someone suggested. I posted a few redlinks with many non—en WP articles. StrayBolt (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I created a modified Mike Peel's version to only show redlinks and added in # of sites. It can be found here: User:StrayBolt/2019_women_deaths. The bluelinks are useful for improving articles. StrayBolt (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Very useful work. I spent time yesterday improving the wikidata for some of the woman involved on Mike's query. StrayBolt's version is even more more focused on the Redlinks... I will fill a few more gaps! Well done. Victuallers (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Wow. Wikidata is da bomb! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing on the list[edit]

I can see that pl:Aleksandra Przegalińska iż missing on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Poland, though the WD item is full and correct. How can we fix it? BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That list is limited to 1000 rows, and selects those with more sitelinks. Aleksandra Przegalińska has only one sitelink & is thus not selected. There are currently 10,517 wikidata items for Polish female humans with no article. The solution is many more redlists, but really that's probably not wise until we get them a bit more template driven, and that's probably not going to happen fast. Or at all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

request for review by an editor familiar with the parameters for BLPs[edit]

If one of you has time, would you be so kind as to take a look at the article on Petah Coyne? Her article has tags from 2011 and 2013. Can someone quickly determine if the issues have been addressed and if so can any of the tags be removed? I don't know about BLPs. Thanks in advance.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Cruft removed. As a rule of thumb, if a nagbox has not worked in 6 or 8 years it's probably time to end the experiment. In this case, I think the issues have been addressed or didn't exist in the first place. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Tagishsimon! Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Now OA: Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory[edit]

The entire archive of since 1997 is now open access in CC BY thanks to Helsinki University Press. I already spotted some useful resources, for instance Post-Colonial Critique and the Politics of Writing Women's History is a reminder of how controversial even some positive depictions can be. Nemo 21:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Jess Wade and Katherine Maher interviewed on BBC[edit]

The current episode of Digital Planet includes an item on the notability tagging of Jess Wade's women's biographies mentioned above.(cc Tagishsimon, Rosiestep)--Ipigott (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow, it only takes few minutes of work for a vandal and an admin to generate very valuable headlines. We should try it more often. ;-) (Just kidding, I know the vandalism was most likely harassment.) Nemo 08:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Although the previous piece about using drones for medical supplies is interesting, you might want to note that the Wikipedia interview starts around 06:14, goes on for 7 1/2 minutes. PamD 16:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Today, an interview with Jess Wade on Women's Hour (a big show on BBC Radio 4), which she unfortunately starts with a colossal howler, saying that "90% of Wikipedia is written by white males in America" (quote from memory). Of course this is complete nonsense - the true figure would be about a third. Sad, just sad. Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Why do you think the true figure would be about a third? In the Netherlands, most people on the street who are aware of what Wikipedia is, think it is a Dutch invention. I assume the reverse is true for English, that e.g. people in the UK think it is a UK invention etc. Therefore, her statement referring to the English version of Wikipedia is not wrong and can be seen as informative (most enwiki text on view is indeed produced by US males aged 18-35) to UK viewers. That Wikipedia exists in other languages generally doesn't occur to most people. Jane (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Because, unlike you & Dr Wade, I keep an eye on such research as we have! A piece in the latest Signpost confirms (what has always been the rough figure quoted) that 41% of en:wp editors with <5 edits a month are in America. Then discount say 10% for "males" (based on the various studies we have), and a further discount is needed for "white", which given the number of Asian-American (or Asians in America) editors might well be another 10% (White was officially 73% of the US pop. in 2017, but on WP Latinos and even more African-Americans are probably under-represented). So about a third, or anyway a very long way from 90%. Wade didn't bring age into it, but your numbers there are equally wrong, as are your wild guesses about what "people" in the UK think. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Last I checked there is almost no correlation between sheer number of editors and and the amount of visible text onwiki per region besides the various studies made that extrapolate based on volunteer data. They do not reflect your numbers at all - quite the contrary. Jane (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Checked what where? Most of my writing recently has been about India, but I haven't been there for years. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Link is here. PamD 12:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Starts at 29:30, after pieces about a woman Eurostar train driver and period poverty. PamD 12:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

LT4ALL conference at UNESCO Dec. 4-6, 2019[edit]

I made a table of the female speakers (and one performer) for this event as a subpage of my own account since most of them are not in Wikidata and my usual table wouldn't work then. The ones on the list right now are only the speakers for today. A few will not pass notability checks, but most of them would. I'll add in the speakers for the other two days as I come across their names. -Yupik (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

And yes, I'll try to take photos :D -Yupik (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
So far none of them have been good, argh. -Yupik (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Yupik. Hopefully, there will be a chance to get some nice photos. And certainly, they should have Wikidata items. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
It's looking like some of them might actually be worth uploading. I've added more names today. An incredible number of women without an article in a single Wikipedia :o -Yupik (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Question[edit]

As a reviewer at Articles for Creation, is there any particular way that I can recognize a draft as being submitted by Women in Red other than the gender of the subject? I would like to know whether a draft is being contributed by this project, in which case it should be given serious consideration regardless, as opposed to being the usual junk contributions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Things aren't submitted by the project as such, just editors who may be members, some of whom may be capable of producing "junk". Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
It's worth checking out the user page for the creating user; students in wiki-ed courses often declare their course affiliation with a pointer to the course; e.g. from the recent Sarah E. Turner, User:Jesswu98 pointing to this dashboard. That said, there might be a low proability they would route via AFC. Beyond that, perhaps check the talk page and the 'what links here' page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Robert McClenon: Thanks for taking a special interest in articles created in connection with Women in Red. You might also find it useful to check AlexNewArtBot for new articles about women. If the number of recent new articles from a user is given as only one or two, they might well have been created by new members of the project or by participants in an editathon. The listing also presents new drafts, some of which may be ready to move to mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. My general practice is that I usually accept a draft if it is a biography of a person who flourished more than 50 years ago who has at least two sources (regardless of gender), with an even higher likelihood of accepting a biography of someone who flourished more than a century ago. History is a noise filter. Looking at the user page of the submitter is a good idea. I think that I will continue to work with the assumption of letting history be a noise filter, and that information left over from a pre-electronic era is likely to be encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Number of articles about men and women on Arabic Wikipedia since 2016[edit]

Hi all

I'm trying to put together a report for a potential partner and I need a spreadsheet of monthly numbers of articles of men and women on Arabic Wikipedia since the start of 2016. However I cannot work out how to get this information. Does anyone know? I need this specific information, not just the current numbers.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

John Cummings, I think Envlh might have access to this information. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Rosie. John Cummings: I have monthly statistics since the beginning of 2017 (the first graph of the page is what you're looking for). I can extract the data in a CSV file if you want. — Envlh (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much @Envlh:, this is great, yes a CSV would be super. Out of interest why does your graph go back to 2017? Is there a reason to not go earlier e.g a change in how the data is collected? Thanks again John Cummings (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@John Cummings: Here is your CSV file. The data goes back to 2017 because the tool was started at this date. It relies on Wikidata dumps (as they are easy to use) and these dumps are kept only a few weeks on WMF servers. I've also concerns with data quality of earlier data (in the early days of Wikidata, items were not as well filled as now). As this is a recurring and legitimate demand, we'll work to gather statistics about earlier times (T230184). — Envlh (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

AFD on List of female Transformers[edit]

Anyone interested in taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female Transformers (2nd nomination)? ミラP 23:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Robots in Red? Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)