Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 111

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105 ← Archive 109 Archive 110 Archive 111 Archive 112 Archive 113 → Archive 115

Lina Caceres

I'm trying to publish an article on Lina Caceres, she is an author, speaker and one of the few women that are managers and is one of the pioneers of the hispanic industry to help the social media celebrities youtubers expand their careers and is one of the few woman that is an expert on social media in the hispanic industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topmartz (talk • contribs) 04:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you can publish it into the Wikipedia if she has significant coverage in primary, reliable and independent sources and made any work to made her notable. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Fade258: I think you meant "significant coverage in secondary reliable and independent sources". See our Primer for creating women's biographies. I see that Topmartz' earlier attempt to create a biography on Caceres was refused. It looks as if Draft:Lina Caceres now needs attention. Careful account should be taken of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lina_Caceres.--Ipigott (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Ipigott, Yes, I meant that but If we do this we are going to omitting the main notability guidelines. For women, we would go through guidelines which you mentioned in your last message. Is it? Yes, I had already checked that deletion discussion. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Fade258: Thanks for your quick reaction. I'm afraid if you base notability on primary sources, the article will be deleted once more, probably without even reaching an AfD discussion. Even the Produ source mentioned by Beccaynr below may be considered primary. It is important to back each item of information by a valid reference with a minimum of one reference per paragraph. Please let me know when you think the article has been sufficiently improved and I'll look at it once more.--Ipigott (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ipigott:, Yes, I will remind you. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Sources that may be helpful for Draft:Lina Caceres include: ¿Cuánto puede llegar a ganar un influencer?, Lina Cáceres nos revela esto y más (El Heraldo de México, 2022), 6 keys to succeed in the digital world from the expert and guru of influencers Lina Cáceres (Entrepreneur/MSN, 2021), Lina Cáceres: The digital world has helped end stereotypes (Produ, 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I have tried to improve the article more and more also she does a los of conferences and she also writes for some blogs and done some stuff for important medias Topmartz (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Topmartz, I plan to work on the draft more, but it will be a few days before I have time to focus on it. Beccaynr (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I really appreciate it and I believe she is a role model and is one of the few female managers in the Hispanic market Topmartz (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

March editathons

Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Fictional women

I discovered this page recently, which appears to be a list of deleted, redirected, and non-existent articles about female fictional characters (such as this one). It looks like this list is primarily generated by Wikidata, and at this time has not been updated since September 2021, and if the list were edited manually those edits would be removed on the next bot update. So, if I wanted to make sure to add more characters to that list in case anyone is actually ever looking at that list for articles they would want to (re)create, how would I go about doing that (such as this one)? I am close to finishing one list of characters that have been deleted or redirected and will start a much larger one next month. I tried to link a redirected article on Wikidata, but it just wants to create a link to the page it is redirected to. If this page is something that people find useful, what steps can I do to add characters to it? BOZ (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The large table in the page is indeed generated from Wikidata by the Listeria bot. That bot has been a little broken for a year or two, but I just ran a manual update on the table, and it refreshed itself, so perhaps it is within that set of WiR's redlists which Listria does not choke on. To add more to the list, you'd need to create or amend an item in Wikidata with a P31 value of fictional character (Q95074), and a P21 value of female. And then maybe use the 'Update the list now' link at the top of the table if Listeria does not get around to doing its daily refresh. I'm not following your "I tried to link a redirected article on Wikidata, but it just wants to create a link to the page it is redirected to." IMO, a WD item should have a sitelink only if there is an article for, not a redirect to, the subject of the item. If that helps. Finally, yes, the page is as useful as any of WiR's other redlists & it would be ideal to see it being given some love.
Right now the selection SPARQL seems a little narrow - just 'fictional character' and not its subclasses, such as 'fictional human'. The SPARQL was also slightly broken. Having fixed it, it's returning ~1300 rows. But the total number of items for the subclass tree is about 33k, so there's probably scope for additional 'fictional thing' lists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks! So in the above example I gave of Tika Waylan (who was still not on the table when you reset it), I went ahead and added the "fictional character" attribute[1] as you suggested, so I assume that would add her the next time it is updated. I have a long list of D&D/RPG fictional characters, so I will comb through that later when I have a chance to see who else is missing. :) BOZ (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@BOZ: She will not turn up on the redlist, because there is a sitelink on the item - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6008924 - which points to a redirect on WP, which redirects to List of Dragonlance characters#Tika Waylan. The redlist will only contain items that have no EN Wiki sitelink. (There's a whole other question about WDs handling of redirect sitelinks; but it does not bear on the instant question, since there's nothing much we can do about WDs poor handling in this area.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Are you sure? Because Alhana Starbreeze does show up on the list, and I think those two redirected articles are in a very similar list, unless there is something else I'm missing. BOZ (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean, because the Wikidata page points to the redirect here it will not pick up that page. BOZ (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
For Alhana Starbreeze there's a wikidata item - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5668404 - which has the right P31 & P21 and no EN wiki sitelink; so it qualifies for the redlist. But yes, you have it: because the Tika Waylan Wikidata page has an EN wiki sitelink, it will not be listed in the redlink page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I thought Wikidata did not allow sitelinks to redirects. Has that changed, or was I mistaken? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
It's a sort of static clusterfuck on WD. Sitelinks to redirects are not allowed. But if whatever is sitelinked becomes a redirect, that's fine, which was the case for Alhana Starbreeze - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alhana_Starbreeze&action=history. (And an RFC approved redirect sitelinks, but WMDE has never got around to implementing the fu to make it happen, so...) --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me to understand how this works. I have been removing some en-wiki links to redirects, and that has been allowing the pages to show up on the list. BOZ (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Good plan, BOZ. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Pageviews

I've been hearing other wiki communities use the phrase that their efforts have created or improved X number of articles, which have generated Y number of pageviews. Our metrics pages indicates the number of new articles created within the scope of WiR. Where can we see how many pageviews were generated as a result? --Rosiestep (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Rosiestep: The number of page views seems to be a feature of the dashboards used in connection with editathons or in courses under WikiEdu. For example, under the University of Leeds item above, the main dashboard indicates a total of 18K article views. If you click on Articles, you receive this listing which also gives the number of views per article. While dashboards seem to be a useful means of encouraging new contributors, I don't think pageviews would be very useful for WIR, although they can of course be accessed under any article's history. There might nevertheless be a case for adapting the dashboard approach for listing those who join WIR each month, especially those who are new contributors to Wikipedia. On the other hand, those who join WIR in connection with an event of some kind and then never carry out any further editing may not be too pleased to see their performance (or lack thereof) coming into public view.--Ipigott (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
It's not a thing I know much about, but pageview data is stored, somewhere or other; and there's an API to extract data. There are various tools, especially in the GLAM domain, which (probably) deliver pageview information for sets of articles / items / images - see https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Resources/Tools ... but I suspect that there might just be way too many articles within WiR's scope to be able to get any of the above to give us aggregate statistics. Editathon dashboards are almost certainly using the pageview API & can be considered as one more tool which'll deliver stats, but again, not to WiR scale. Conceivably there might be a tool capable of producing stats on the per-month article lists contained within WiRs metric pages - normally around 2k articles in length - but I don't know which one. In the absence of someone with more knowledge, we might just have to roorle around the GLAM tools in the hope of finding one that does something useful. --Tagishsimon (talk)
I've been thinking about this a bit more. Wikipedia makes use of pagesviews for listing the weekly top 25 reports or the most viewed pages of the year. DYK make use of pageviews to list the most "successful" articles of the month. See, for example, Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Statistics/Archive_2021#January_2021. Maybe we could use this approach for highlighting the most viewed new WIR articles of the month or year? If I have understood the DYK approach correctly, the listings are not displayed immediately but only after three or four months. We might also create similar listings of WIR articles which have been submitted to DYK. But I think this would require careful examination and discussion if we are to publish findings which would encourage new participants rather than those with years of experience. Maybe it's sufficient to draw attention to the pageviews of our project pages which are already assessed by the number of edits as shown here. I'm pretty sure we would top the list on pageviews too. Pageviews is obviously an accessible measure but I'm still not too sure how we could best apply the results to Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Svitlana Bevza

I just created a draft for Ukrainian fashion designer Svitlana Bevza. The story about her choice to stay in Kyiv during the invasion was just published in Vogue:[2] Thriley (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Have an image. --GRuban (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian feminists

Prompted by current world events, I've collected some redlinks for Russian feminists which I thought others here might be interested in. Dsp13 (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

How about inviting Wikipedians to reveal their ethnicity and gender?

A recent article in Nature titled "The giant plan to track diversity in research journals" reports on efforts by major publishers to persuade authors, reviewers and editors of research journals to reveal their race or ethnicity and their gender. The objective is to identify the extent to which biases influence what is published and to provide more data on diversity. Would it not be useful to adopt a similar strategy for Wikipedia as a component in extending diversity and overcoming recognized biases? Many users already seem happy to include such information on their user pages, often in the form of categories. It seems to me that even those who are careful not to reveal their identity would gladly state their race/ethnicity and gender. For projects such as Women in Red it would help to provide additional support and encouragement to minority groups while reducing existing biases in article creation. It would also serve as a more realistic basis for recruiting more women editors as well as both male and female editors from minority groups. Isn't this something that should be brought to the attention of those in the Wikimedia Foundation who are working on diversity?--Ipigott (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The Nature article gives many of the problems with such a global approach (are Spanish or Argentinian people "Hispanic"? They generally don't think they are), and makes it clear that information on individuals will not be public (which would probably be illegal in many countries). If you think that "even those who are careful not to reveal their identity would gladly state their race/ethnicity and gender" I think you are being wildly optimistic; quite large numbers would object/refuse. And what do you do then? Since Wikipedia hardly records authorship at all, and (unlike research journals) has a fundamental objection to the concept being applied to WP articles at all, and doesn't seem able to distinguish between text-adding and typo corrections/geolocation adding etc., all you would end up with is a rather more refined version of the current overall editing ratios. So,probably a lot of hassle for little result. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
(sarcasm) Ipigott, I have to warn you that you have just violated the Universal Code of Conduct and have placed yourself outside the Wikipedia movement. According to the board ratified policy UCOC: "Note: The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people." Fram (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Isn't that exactly the point, Fram? By being able to reveal their race or ethnicity in sufficient numbers, editors should stand a much better chance of countering discrimination. I fully agree that there should be no distinctions between people on the basis of race and ethnicity but that is not to say people should not be proud of their ethnic heritage. For a start, just see how many display Category:Jewish Wikipedians or their user pages. I fully agree with Johnbod that it will no be easy to work out acceptable labels for ethnic groups and I expect many will object but since the MeToo movement took off, attitudes are beginning to evolve in the right direction.--Ipigott (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't such things be done anonymously? People might have good reasons not to answer, such as risk of facing discrimination. My impression is that Wikipedia is only really good at removing the most blatantly awful people. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 15:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Nooooooooo. This invites all kinds of scenarios. An editor runs for adminship, or bureaucrat, and they've disclosed their gender and ethnicity - it's human nature for the Supports and Opposes to be influenced by the disclosure. Some editor gets hauled before ArbCom, and that info is known, who is to say it doesn't influence the outcome of Arcom decision. Same thing with any editor nomination to be included on the Main Page - the editor(s) who run that section of the Main Page might be influenced by that. We all depend on the cooperation of each other - and that cooperation should not be influenced by race or gender. But if that information is out there, it plays a part in decisions. — Maile (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
...Hm. You know, about 10 years ago on Commons there was a user who, if anyone acted against them as an admin, would try to embarass them by going through their uploads with a fine-toothed comb and nominate anything at all questionable for deletion. And on the one hand, they're doing good, right? On the other hand, with some people, they were suddenly hit with a dozen things at once that they had to deal with, and it was clearly being done as a retaliation.
Now, imagine Wikipedia, which has all sorts of ways to screw with people. You could, for example, search out women of colour, and just... close all their GANs. Can always find something to complain about, right? Could throw a PROD on any contributions they could find that they could justify at all. So many little subtle ways to make the environment more hostile, while being subtle enough that it's hard to tell, or you could just do it really subtly, in "ways that help Wikipedia", like throwing [citation needed] tags everywhere on their articles. After all, it's true it needs a better citation, right? No harm done. Now deal with these on all fifty articles you wrote. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 16:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Maile66, Adam Cuerden I haven't noticed this has been happening to those in Category:African-American Wikipedians, Category:Arab Wikipedians, Category:Chinese Wikipedians, Category:Native American Wikipedians, Category:Māori Wikipedians or Category:Tamil Wikipedians. On the contrary, I think many of us try to give users in these categories the support they deserve. Whenever possible, I encourage newcomers from groups such as these to become active editors on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Ipigott, the kind of bias I'm talking about is not so overt. More likely, only the victim knows and just moves forward. An early experience of mine so shook me that I semi-abandoned my account and went to IP editing for months. I was being stalked by a prolific sockmaster, deleting and rewriting everything I did - from article to article - without discussion. An editor with a feminine name stepped in to help. The sockmaster stalked her. She took it to the Admin page, but it didn't stop. With me, they addressed me in a paternal patronizing manner. The one who tried to help me left Wikipedia forever. I started editing on a different Wiki site for a long time. The sockmaster was eventually banned (not blocked) from Wikipedia altogether, but I think that was years later. It happens to others.— Maile (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Maile66: I'm happy to hear you survived the stalking although I'm sorry to hear about the fate of the editor who supported you. I'm certainly quite aware of cases of harassment like this and have referred several to the Wikimedia Foundation which finally took strong appropriate action. Only one of the victims (who never returned) might have been targeted for ethnicity although I'm pretty sure that was not the reason for aggression. I'm pleased to say that Women in Red has always tried to assist any editors who suffer unreasonable treatment. Fortunately, it's been quite some time since I have come across any serious cases.--Ipigott (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I've already had someone sneer at me for the one userbox I have that says anything definitive about who I am as a person at all. (It's "university teacher". Yeah. I know.) I hesitated for ages about even putting the WP:@ userbox on there. Put up an obvious discrimination vector like race/ethnicity/gender/orientation/age/whatever? Hard pass.
And that's before one even considers how the intersection of various disclosures can be used to identify a specific person. Ethnicity and gender seem like big categories only to people in the big ones. As an example, the UK is full of white British women - you know if you declare that, you might be signing up for misogynist harassment, but you're not all that much more likely to be identifiable. Almost anyone can name some white British women, even if they don't personally know any themselves. What about a Black American trans woman living in Denmark? Even big categories like "Black" and "American" can become extremely identifiable when set next to another category that's smaller or with less overlap. -- asilvering (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The amount of vaguely anti-Venezuelan shit I have received just for editing articles related to Venezuela is ridiculous. Even if half or more of it is from trolls, there is lots of something-ist hostility on Wikipedia that is so fleeting and pointless it doesn't get mentioned. And we still hear of admins with grudges stalking contributions. Kingsif (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Anonymity is a double edged sword. There's plenty of valid reasons to withhold such information. There's plenty of valid reason to reveal it. We should neither encourage nor discourage either viewpoint, the best we should do is explain the benefits and drawback of doing so. I'm a straight cis white male in one of the safest countries on Earth (Canada). The risk I run is having the SJW twitter mob come after me when I edit outside their groupthink for the crime of being a straight cis white male with an opinion that differs from them. It's an unpleasant experience, sure, but the weaponization of my identify has very limited consequences compared to if I were a trans woman in Chechnya. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I’m unabashedly a woman and I’ve been called a cunt on here (and then there’s all those people who assume I’m a man. That was so annoying it prompted me to put gender boxes). If you choose to reveal that, proceed with caution I guess. Trillfendi (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Trillfendi: You may be interested to hear that I've been frequently identified as a women, no doubt as a result of my interest in WiR and for providing general support for women both on an off wiki. I'm pleased to see that you are one of over 4,000 who have added Category:Female Wikipedians to their user pages. Many more just introduce themselves textually as women or simply provide a photograph. In addition, there seem to be a growing number of editathons, WikiEdu projects and other events specifically devoted to encouraging women to edit, not to mention women user groups and similar initiatives. While Women in Red encourages all editors, whatever their gender, to improve coverage of women, I must say I am increasingly impressed by the performance and dedication of our women contributors. In my opinion, the more we have, the better our understanding will be of women and their works. Just look, for example, at all those GAs written principally by women.--Ipigott (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Quite a lot of users (no idea what percentage) have already indicated their preferred pronouns in their preferences, which is publicly visible. – Joe (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Black women February meetup

WIR Black History Month 2022

The 2022 Black women meetup resulted in 170 new or improved articles! Thanks to all who participated.

This annual event has been hosted in February, (Black History Month), by Women in Red since 2016. Here are the historical statistics:

  • 2016 – 205 new or improved articles
  • 2017 – 213 new or improved articles
  • 2018 – 107 new or improved articles
  • 2019 – 134 new or improved articles
  • 2020 – 149 new or improved articles
  • 2021 – 93 new or improved articles
  • 2022 – 170 new or improved articles

How many years have you participated? I’ve been signing up since 2018, and I see a number of familiar names through the years. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm so glad that from my first edits I've kept a note of articles I create and why (on my user page), as well as keeping my list of WiR contributions. Otherwise I'd have no idea why I created some of those oldies! I wish I'd chipped in to the Ada Lovelace Day (WiR 211) as it's the only gap. (Though I did contribute retrospectively for WiRs 1-3!) PamD 23:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I've contributed every year since we began except last year because I was working on women's nationality. This year I'm still working on women's nationality but decided I was going to reward myself for finishing Africa and do a GA on an African woman, so I did. SusunW (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • It's a great annual event and I'm pretty sure I've contributed every year. I see that this year I started five articles myself and helped with quite a few others. I have such a bad memory for the articles I create, I can't tell you how many there were in previous years without looking into it. I've just looked back at 2016 and see there were 10 that year. Getting older.....--Ipigott (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Every year, and I've kept my own stats for the past six years: In February 2017, I started 28 articles on Black women. In February 2018, 20 more. In February 2019, 24 more. In February 2020, 19 more. In February 2021, 30 more. In February 2022, 25 more.--Penny Richards (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think I've ever actually participated before (though some of my redlinks were apparently helpful to kickstart the 2016 one, which is nice). I really enjoyed taking part in 2022 - thank you WomenArtistUpdates and others who worked behind the scenes to set the event up! Dsp13 (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Wow! I really enjoy reading the responses. My record keeping isn't great, but looking at my most viewed pages, I can see that quite a few are from the Black women meet-ups: Fredericka Douglass Sprague Perry, Isabel Washington Powell, and Lucille Campbell Green Randolph. And they have all been improved on over time :) Another interesting observation is how many of the articles from these meetups have remained blue links, with very few deletions. Cool. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Announcements in connection with Women's History Month

Many announcements of editathons in connection with Women's History Month are now appearing on the Web. Among those recently posted are

From the beginning of March, we should be looking out for the work of new contributors who could benefit from our assistance and mentoring. Those involved in organizing these events are of course welcome to make themselves known and ask for any assistance they feel we can provide.

In this connection, our own event Women's History Month | Art+Activism will begin on 1 March.--Ipigott (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Ipigott. See more events here: meta:Celebrate Women/Events. There will also be a banner across all(?) language Wikipedias running March 1-10 pointing to this page on Meta. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
On my screen, this seems to have been overtaken by Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2022. Although nearly all the articles posted on that site exist in English, we have our own Wikidata redlist which contains quite a few names suitable for Art+Feminism and there's a separate list on Actresses.--Ipigott (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Happy to report "Join us to celebrate women" appeared on my screen just now.--Ipigott (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Celebrate Women

I've got a banner ad for meta:Celebrate Women, which lists six WiR online meetups - but the links don't work. Someone who knows where they're supposed to point might want to have a look at them? -- asilvering (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think Rosiestep has been looking after this. I've changed the ones for Women in Red but many of the others need attention. It seems to me as if the page was prepared for Wikipedia but it has now been posted on Meta. (cc Eric Luth (WMSE), Anthere) --Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the only URLs still requiring attention (for all language versions) are those for Bénin and Mali in the listing for Africa. I see that the Women in Red URLs now function in all language versions.--Ipigott (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me. I'm on it. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

COI Edit Requests for Author

Hello: I am in a paid COI relationship with author Danzy Senna. She contacted me about improving the article about her, correcting some inacurracies and removing some content that isn't properly sourced and/or is not true. Given the COI rules I know I cannot edit this article myself. I have posted the suggested improvements on the talk page. I was hoping that as a part of this project someone might find it a good use of their time to review the edits. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Respectfully, LeepKendall (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I've taken a look and made some changes. Thank you for drawing attention to the WP:BLP violations which were cited to sources which did not contain the referenced information. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Featured Picture update

So, of the ones we saw last time, everything passed except Juanita Hall, who's going onto the renomination pile.

I'm not sure I can claim much Women-in-Red credit for the current featured picture candidates of women, seeing both of them had articles created in December 2001, the year Wikipedia was created. Still, here's the current crop of featured picture candidates:

Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 20:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for review/feedback: Emma Jane Cole

Hello! I am a first-time article writer attempting to contribute an article for Women in Red: Climate.

Here is my draft article on the American botanist Emma Jane Cole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Teditrix/Emma_Jane_Cole.

Would someone be willing to give feedback and/or move it to Wikipedia if it looks acceptable?

Teditrix (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Teditrix: Excellent first article, now at Emma Cole; thank you. Main feedback would be, include a clear claim to notability in the lead. Other than that, just nips & tucks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Thank you so much. Looking forward to contributing more! Teditrix (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
And good to have you as a new member of Women in Red, Teditrix. Feel free to contribute to our discussions here.--Ipigott (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

WiR editathon page display in mobile

When I was using my phone earlier today I followed the banner inviting me to close the gender gap and clicked on the URL for one of our WiR projects, just out of curiosity to see how it worked ... but the page displayed omitted the whole "Welcome" section, and just listed the other ongoing WiR projects (sport etc) and then moved on to the redlinks lists. Not very welcoming for our potential newbie editors, many of whom are likely to use mobile. I'm using Chrome on a Samsung Galaxy A12 phone, though I think I'm sometimes using the Wikipedia app - I seem to swap unpredictably between several formats, and editing talk pages is a nightmare.

Is there some way we can fix the layout of the pages so that all new potential WiR editors get a better experience, ie can see the "Welcome" information? (I followed the same link when I started editing this session, on a laptop, and the page displayd OK. I can't reproduce either now, as the banner seems only to offer once per user/device per ... day?) PamD 08:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

PamD: As you probably know, displays on mobile versions are not optimal. I never edit on mobile devices but I frequently check our displays as the majority of accesses are now on smart phones, etc. As far as I can see the mobile version with the url https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Celebrate_Women includes the basic welcome section. The problem might be that some of the links point straight to Celebrate women/Events at https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Celebrate_Women/Events. If you click on the urls of the WIR projects, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/217, you should get the welcome. There's also an app which might be causing problems. The screen size on smart phones often causes display difficulties. Displays are often better on iPads and similar devices with larger screens. Perhaps you should describe your problems on Wikipedia_talk:Editing_on_mobile_devices or simply bring it to the attention of Celebrating Women on Meta. Perhaps there are suggestions, explanations, from other mobile users?--Ipigott (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Yes, I know mobile editing is rubbish, but I do it because when lying in bed insomniacally and too early to get up I can use my phone without switching the light on to read, and after I've done Wordle (and sometimes Nerdle, Quordle, Worldle and the NYTimes Tiles Game!) I check my watchlist and edit as required, up to a point. But we know that an increasing percent of our editors and potential editors are the all-mobile generation, so it's really important that things are presented properly for them. Yes, I might mention it elsewhere as you suggest. PamD 16:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I posted at Wikipedia talk:Editing on mobile devices, but then realised it was the talk page of an essay, apparently little frequented, so followed links which led me to advice to post at VPT: see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Chunks_of_page_missing_from_display_on_mobile. PamD 17:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Vote on enforcement guidelines for Universal Code of Conduct (7-21 March 2022)

Please review the the voter information guide regarding the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines and then consider voting here. More info about the Universal Code of Conduct project here. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian images of notable women

I have just written an article about Olena Stepaniv on the English Wikipedia... and I notice that there are lots of pictures of her and her compatriots which are held only on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. I don't speak Ukrainian but they would inspire editors if the photos were moved to commons. I'm not an expert in this but maybe you know someone who can help here? As there are not just one or two but dozens and I don't see how to use the tools easily to squirt them across. Thanks for listening. (best on en:wiki) Victuallers (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Victuallers: I've been following with interest the work you've been doing on Ukrainians. Perhaps Piotrus will be able to help with this or at least offer suggestions. Many of the images seem to qualify for Commons on the basis of age alone. I see there is frequently a problem with dead links indicating the origin of the images but this may not be a problem. If you look at the "Manual transfer" section on Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons, this does not appear to be a requirement. Even if they do not qualify for Commons, it may be acceptable to move some of the images to the EN wiki. I suppose (but am not sure) that this would require translating the Ukrainian descriptions and justifying fair use.--Ipigott (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I am afraid that being Polish, not Ukrainian, I can't offer much specialized help - I am familiar with copyright in general, but not with copyright in Ukraine (uk:Авторське право в Україні, we don't have that article yet, but I'll add it to my to do list). Have you asked for help at WT:UKRAINE? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
If someone could find an image of Alina Baikova too, that'd be great. Trillfendi (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of about 125 articles - Slowking4 sockpuppet activity

About 125 articles (my estimate) on women subjects were deleted on the 26th Feb - log - under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5, "Creations by banned or blocked users". Has dented today's metrics - diff. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This looks very strange to me. Apparently there was an incident in 2013 but the ban was not communicated to the user until November 2020. Now all the articles, mostly on sportspeople, created by the user since 2013 have been deleted. It would be useful if an administrator could see whether anyone ever edited any of these further. For some reason, it always seems to be those working on women in sports who run into trouble.--Ipigott (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Tagishsimon:, I hope you're fine wherever you are in the world. Yes, I have checked that deletion log of 26 February 2022 and that stats was correct and for me it is terrible to see and from now we have to try to recreate that deleted 125 women's biographies articles. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how far this goes back but there are also substantial deletions for January 2022 and December 2021. Does anyone know how to create a list of all the deletions?--Ipigott (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
For anyone looking into this, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slowking4 seems interesting. Are we once again simply dealing with the Flying Dutchman?--Ipigott (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
It continues today - log - with another ~125 articles gone, affecting mainly November 2021 to February 2022 metrics reports. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Tagishsimon, for keeping us informed. As a result, it looks as if February 2022 will be our least productive month since WIR began in 2015. Let's hope we can do better in March.--Ipigott (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I see from our February metrics, I've already been proved wrong thanks to the upgrading of many drafts.--Ipigott (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

#IWD and Did you know ...

Just to let everyone here know that all the entries in today's Did you know ... section on the Wikipedia main page are women. And it's all thanks to members of WikiProject Women in Red.--Oronsay (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

International Women's Day panel, facilitated by WMF

I am delighted to invite you to join Maryana Iskander, the new WMF CEO, as moderator, and four wiki-women panelists, including me, on March 8th at 16:00 UTC, via live streaming on the Wikimedia Foundation YouTube channel, as we celebrate International Women's Day! Event info and Youtube link here. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Rosiestep, Hi first of all I would like to remind you that I am not a female but I am a member of WikiProject women in red and willing to create women's articles. Is there any criteria for joining that program which you have mentioned above. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Fade258, and thanks for being part of Women in Red, thanks for your question. No criteria as to who can watch, or when you watch it. Anyone, anywhere, any time. Watch it live; watch it years later. Viewers are anonymous. The event is not participatory (e.g. like a "Zoom" or "Skype" meeting). For everyone's convenience, here's the link to the March 8th event and here's a link to the Wikimedia Foundation's Youtube channel where folks can watch previously recorded videos. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Rosiestep for mentioning this important event. It looks like a good mix of panelists. For those interested in discovering the user names of those taking part, Maryana Iskander is MIskander-WMF, Carmen Alcazar is Wotancito, Erina Mukata is Erinamukuta and Mónica Bonilla-Parra is Mpbonillap.--Ipigott (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Have fun. Please consider sharing the recording on Commons. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Pinging to remind us all that this is tomorrow...International Women's Day panel, facilitated by WMF March 8th at 16:00 UTC WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • It's well worth listening to on YouTube. With her clear voice and welcoming demeanor, Maryana made an excellent moderator but you Rosie were clearly the star of the show. I really appreciated your remarks about the future, particularly the need to talk about the problem, i.e. the still very low coverage of women on Wikipedia. I hope Maryana and her Wikimedia Foundation friends will take this to heart and ensure that all concerned, including the media, are made more aware of the need for action. The "multilingual" approach was an interesting innovation but for those who do not understand Spanish the sequential interpretation was not ideal. Many were probably put off by so much Spanish. I think it would be useful have a written summary of the discussions, perhaps in the form of a Signpost article, as all the contributors made interesting comments.--Ipigott (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Ipigott, so true about Maryana; she has a really pleasant demeanor. And thank you for your kind words; appreciate it. With so much happening online these days, I think everyone is trying to learn how to deal with live interpretation so that multiple language audiences can participate in a session; addressing audience reactions to that could be included in the Signpost article you mention. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Unless you can find willing volunteers, which I rather doubt, simultaneous interpretation costs the earth. For an event like this, in which there was no audience interaction, it would have been more sensible to prepare a recorded session and broadcast it with well prepared subtitles. That approach would also have provided at least 15 minutes more for presentations.--Ipigott (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for review/feedback: Alice Gray (science blogger)

Hello! My second proposed contribution for Women in Red: Climate.

This is a draft article on Alice Gray (science blogger): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Teditrix/Alice_Gray_(science_blogger).

I've done my best to follow guidelines for BLP, but am not sure about whether the subject meets guidelines for notability and about the quality of my sources.

Would someone be willing to give feedback and/or move it to Wikipedia if it looks acceptable?

Teditrix (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Teditrix: I've moved it to mainspace as Alice Gray (science blogger), but I think we're somewhere around the notability borderline, based on the currently discovered sources; which means that we should worry about whether it gets challenged. I don't think BBC 100 Women on its own is enough to vouchsafe notability, so the question is whether that, together with the other sources, meets WP:GNG. Opinions will vary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Appreciate your notes! Teditrix (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Humaniki stats borked?

Humaniki stats last Thursday were 19.164% - 1,875,366 biogs, 359,396 women. Today's stats are showing 18.887% - 1,137,059 biogs, 214,761 women. I don't think WP has lost more than half a million articles or sitelinks in a week, so I presume something's broken. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, it's not just English Wikipedia. For example, I picked a small Wikipedia, Iceland which had 10,463 bios (1,926 women) last week and now shows only 6,472 (1,125 women), with % dropping from 18.41 to 17.38.--Oronsay (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps Maximilianklein and/or Envlh can check to see whether there were any major changes behind the recent dump or if Humaniki is functioning correctly.--Ipigott (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should be too worried about this. I've just checked the WDCM stats for the dump on 28 February. Although they are established on a slightly different basis (i.e. overall usage rather than just sitelinks), for the EN Wikipedia they give 1,565,930 male bios and 375,638 female, resulting in 19.35% for women.
To put this in context, I see from a message I posted here on 19 April 2021, that when Humaniki was reporting 18.85%, WDCM had reported 19.17%. As a result, I would have expected today's Humaniki result to be about 19.03%, still substantially down on 19.16% (as might have been expected after the G5 deletions) but nothing like as bad as the data reported above.--Ipigott (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I would wonder if somehow a lot of people were deleted from Wikidata - that would explain why other languages would also experience the statistics declining. I don't have the bandwidth to do this myself, but I would propose an experiment to check with Wikidata query service how many users Wikidata items have P31=Q5 (is instance of human) in English (or any language), if the number is different to what humaniki is giving then likely my processing is at fault, if not then likely it's an issue with the underlying data. Thanks for letting me know potentially about the bug. Maximilianklein (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Maximilianklein: Thanks for getting back to us. Given the results from WDCM which records the correct number of humans, it really looks like a problem with Humaniki but perhaps Tagishsimon can follow up on your request. If you are too busy at the moment, Max, have you any idea when you will have time to look into it?--Ipigott (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Maximilianklein - thanks from me, too. Your bandwidth situation well understood. WDQS says 360,042 women with en Wiki sitelinks right now - https://w.wiki/4vwc - which is consistent with Humaniki's statistic from 2 weeks ago (359,396) and not with last week's 214,761. So the issue is downstream of WD's holdings. Another weekly WD report [3], and which may be derived (?) from the same dump files Humaniki uses, shows normal expected positive increments, suggesting no issue with its source. It's Thursday tomorrow; I guess we should wait to see what Humaniki reports, and worry about it all then. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Tagishsimon and @Ipigott for the data collection. Indeed I see that humaniki does have just 214761 women for that period (API permalink). Then I guess the next step for me is to see if in humainiki's database the dump of 20220228 there are the correct number if woman and humans before proecsing. . By the way, there may be one more cause for the discrepancy that I can think of. In humaniki I divide (total humans with gender=woman)/(total humans with any gender). Notice that I write "with any gender" because there are a substantial portion of humans in wikidata that have no gender. Humaniki does not include those for statistics, but if WDCM does, then clearly humaniki's denominator would be smaller --- although that would make the ratio larger now come to think of it.
I'll put this on my todo list, although I can't get to it this week, maybe in April. Sorry, I know it's not a quick turnaround. Maximilianklein (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Knowing you are on the case is enough, Maximilianklein. Timescale is unimportant. Thank you for your Humaniki work; it & you are very much appreciated around here.
Meanwhile (total humans with gender=woman)/(total humans with any gender) is arguably saner than (total humans with gender=woman)/(total humans inc. Null gender) since the latter is in effect making a positive statement about the genders of those items without P21 included in the denominator - that they are not the numerator's gender; which is wrong ... some of them will be as the numerator did we but know their P21. So I think Humaniki has it right.
The one thing I miss in humaniki, fwiw, is a weekly diff of the stats, which is to say, how many humans/women/men were added in the most recent reporting period. Not sure if this is b/c I'm not grokking the UI, or b/c it's not there. Clearly, it's easy enough to look at last weeks stats & do some maths, so it's no biggie. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Women - Saving Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Online

Hello all, I've started some works with volunteers to try and digitally preserve as much of Ukraine's cultural heritage as possible, with a collective called SUCHO, lots of work has been done in the past few days, and there's now a project set up on meta and one aspect of that is a list of 100 Ukrainian women without EN biographies. If people feel inclined, I'm sure help would be appreciated! Lajmmoore (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

That sounds a fantastic effort. From that list I'll have a go at Halyna Pahutiak. Dsp13 (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Lajmmoore Excellent effort. I appreciate your work and I will check that list which you have mentioned above and I will try my best to help. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
started Halyna Pahutiak, but def. room for expansion Dsp13 (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for mentioning the list here! It is possible to create localized lists for any language for that list. You can find the instructions on this page. Thank you for all your efforts! – Susannaanas (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can see, 22 biographies of women from Ukraine have already been added by our members, many of them listed at #1day1woman. In particular, the List of Ukrainian women writers has been significantly extended. From our metrics listing for March, I see that many more biographies of Ukrainians have been created by Wikipedians who are not (yet) members of Women in Red. Thanks also, Lajmmoore, for drawing our attention to the need for work on cultural heritage. There's much that could be done to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Ukraine but it's good to see how many are contributing. Several have become members of wp:Ukraine.--Ipigott (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Serbian women writers - help request

Anyone available to help out with a number of longstanding AfCs of Serbian women writers? I just pulled Savka Subotić out of the queue and did some fixes on it, since she's definitely notable, but it needs as much help as it can get. It was submitted by an IP editor who has made a few other drafts on similar women, all also stalled. Going by an earlier note on their talk page, this editor has had a rocky start on wikipedia, so I'd like to get as many eyes on these as possible, and that's not going to happen while they're in the AfC backlog. -- asilvering (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Asilvering, I can help. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Rosiestep! There are a lot more in the AfC queue (or recently declined...) if you or anyone else feel like helping out with them. Ironically, it looks like the women this IP editor is writing on are more clearly notable on average than the men. But they haven't figured out how to use references correctly, so they're really getting stuck in AfC. Warning to anyone reading this to be wary of whether the refs support the text or not. And not all are clearly marked as translations, and might be translated. Savka Subotić was marked (improperly, but usefully), but earlier submissions from this probably-same person are not. -- asilvering (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, first, Asilvering, for noticing this editor at AfC; and ditto, I spotted the same issues you mention. Some of the issues (reformating the refs) are easier to work on than others. Plus, my Serbian translation skills from Cyrillic are weak. I also edited these, Draft:Julijana Radivojevic and Draft:Ana Vidovic (writer) (they need further attention). I haven't looked at these yet but perhaps others might be interested in helping them along. The editor has created many other draft articles (men's biographies, etc.), not listed them here. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Why not use the Lexilogos tool for converting to the Latin alphabet?--Ipigott (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello all, I've made Zorka Velimirović a healthy page now, but there's still an AfC tag on it? Should I do something about it? Many thanks! Lajmmoore (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Good work, Lajmmoore. I've removed the AfC tag. Didn't seem to be serving a useful purpose anymore. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Young Ukrainian woman approaching notability

Some people may have seen on the news that there is a charming 20 year old LGBT photographer from Chernihiv, Ukraine living in a shelter with her family and dog, named Valeria Shashenok, and making TikToks and Instagram posts about life in the war; hopes to find asylum in America; and has been interviewed or covered by CNN, Toronto Star, Huffington Post France, and I heard she was interviewed on BBC News. I’m just not sure if this is only 1Event though. ☹️ If a women’s magazine or something outside of news media interviews her, which is almost inevitable because I’ll be dead honest she looks like a model and it likely won’t be long before she is offered a job, then in my opinion that will put it in GNG territory. Trillfendi (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Trillfendi: Valeria Shashenok is obviously hitting the news but I think it is too soon to include her biography. On the other hand, you could work her in to more general articles about the invasion of Ukraine, for example Siege of Chernihiv.--Ipigott (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

New articles of women artists from Montreal, Canada

Hello! I am a first-time article writer attempting to contribute an article for Women in Red: Women artists. I would like to create more pages for women artists of Montreal has they are very rare (being French speaking and all). To start, here are my draft articles for two artists recognized internationally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joani_Tremblay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Phenix

Would someone be willing to give feedback and/or move it to Wikipedia if it looks acceptable? Thank you so much! EmilieParadis (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Styyx: In what way is the neutral, well referenced Draft:Joani Tremblay not ready for mainspace? (diff). Seems to me like it is ready. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The very long, mostly unsourced "awards" and "publications" sections, the refbomb in the lead, combined with the article being created by a brand new user tricked me into thinking that there was a COI, which have to go through AfC no matter what, completely forgetting that WiR brings a lot of new editors to the project. With that being said though, I'm still not fully convinced of notability per this. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 20:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
@EmilieParadis: At a quick glance, both of these are notable subjects, the articles are neutral and well referenced. I'll point you to WP:NARTIST anyway, especially , or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums - which I think one of the subjects satisfies. The other seems to satisfy WP:GNG. Absent any strong arguments against, I'll promote these later today. Please write more of them, always trying to be clear in the article - or in the initial edit summary - why they are notable in WP terms, so as to minimise the probability they get moved from mainspace or otherwise challenged. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I marked Cindy Phenix as needing secondary sources for collections Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, and Hydro-Québec Art Collection. The Residencies and awards section is unreferenced CV material. Another editor removed the gallery representation as it is promotional. These are all things that place a BLP in danger of an AFD. I am not finding a reliable source for date of birth. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Joani Tremblay also has a mostly unreferenced CV Residencies and awards section. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
EmilieParadis I did want to add one more comment. I think you have chosen a difficult area to begin your editing journey. Creating articles of living people (BLP) is about the hardest thing to do. The bar is much higher for reaching notability. Reviewers place these articles under immense scrutiny because so many non-notable people want a page on Wikipedia. Perhaps if you research artists from the Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec collection who are dead it could be a better place to start. You have a much better idea of their place in history. Perhaps upgrading existing articles would give you a feel of the sources etc. Peruse through Category:20th-century Canadian women artists to see some examples. Many of us spent several months editing before attempt to write an article. Happy editing! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Indeed! I've just been puzzled as how many really important women artists in our Montreal community have no Wikipedia. But it's quite a task! EmilieParadis (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Also, The Cindy Phenix page has been published, but not the Joani Tremblay one. Could someone tell me why? Was going to start other women artists pages based on these two but don't see the difference why one is published and the other not. (Trying to learn from my mistake and make them better!) Thank you!!! EmilieParadis (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
EmilieParadis It looks like you created Cindy Phenix in the main space after creating a red link on RBC Canadian Painting Competition. You created Joani Tremblay as a draft article Draft:Joani Tremblay. It looks like you have abandoned that draft and published an article in the main space as Joani Tremblay. I really suggest you read some more information on editing and wikietiquette, as having authored both the draft and the main article is not the way to go. The people who took the time to comment on the draft (Theroadislong etc.) should not be disregarded as you requested help and feedback here, then abandoned the draft. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia arrested for writing about the Russian invasion

I don't know to what extent Wikipedians in Russia or Belarus have been participating in our coverage of Ukrainian women but from an article in Socialnews.XYZ titled "Top Wikipedia editor arrested for editing articles on Russian invasion" it looks as if this could be a risky business. (Sorry, I was not allowed to provide a link!)--Ipigott (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's a link to a similar article in Business Standard. And we also have Mark Bernstein (Wikimedian).--Ipigott (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Maggie Dennis put a note on lists.wikimedia.org about this - Emerging human rights concern related to invasion of Ukraine - and pointed to a page on meta - Voices under Threat, the theme of which is individual editor's personal safety. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Reopening requests

So, I kind of was a bit away from the project at the end of last month because I was trying to do a bit more of a focused research of my own, which... I feel like the success of it is mainly held back by historical and systemic prejudices more than my efforts, so that's something? Certainly managed to sort out a decent-sized to-do list, even if I do slightly worry about what happens when that's out and I've exhausted all of the easier-to-find material.


In the meantime, anyone want to suggest things for me to research? pre-1930 people and works are most likely, I can sometimes get lucky and hit up to around 1960 if things are right. that said, anyone before 1750 or so is questionable, because you're usually looking at paintings (which have a lot of bias, and are usually pretty obvious if they exist) or the kind of thing article researchers are more likely to find than me.

Also, if anyone's knowledgeable about Asian history, I am very open. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 15:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Juliann Jane Tillman
Hi Adam Cuerden. I tweeted this one on Juliann Jane Tillman yesterday. Loved the photo, but it could use some clean-up. BTW, a bitt off topic, but when I googled her today from my home in California, the Wikipedia article didn't show up on the first page of search results. I thought that was weird. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Adam Cuerden. I haven't uploaded a lot of larger files lately, but this one is another National Archives "professional at her desk" photo that might be of interest, it's Dorothy Houston Jacobson, who was assistant secretary of agriculture during the Johnson administration. The picture seems like it's in decent shape, but you often make a good picture better. Penny Richards (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
DorothyHoustonJacobson1967
Oh, and another: This photo of artist Julia Gridley Severance at Oberlin College (published in 1922) isn't my upload, but I suspect there's a larger version out there and would love to have an edit that shows her better.Penny Richards (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Julia Severance
Adam Cuerden, just to clarify - what suggestions are most helpful for you? e.g. which of (a) wikipages with low-quality pictures where we'd like better pictures; (b) wikipages we care about which lack pictures, but where we know there's one in wikidata / another language wikipedia; (c) wikipages we care about where we can see pictures which look out of copyright; (d) wikipages we care about where we can see pictures on the web but have no idea of their copyright status; (e) wikipages we care about which lack pictures (but where we have no idea at all if pictures are out there). Dsp13 (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@Dsp13: I can research, and am happy to do so - hell, all of February can be considered an extended attempt to combat bias by actually getting a good list of photos of African-Americans - so all of those are possible, but there's only a certain amount I can do for anyone who became famous much after 1950 or so, because the archives start to get a lot harder to navigate, and copyright becomes a problem then. I'd happily work on all of the cases you list, but do note that the answer might be me checking likely archives (For example, for Americans I'd probably check the National Portrait Gallery (or possibly a specialised Smithsonian site), Library of Congress, Met Museum, possibly a military site if relevant, and at that point, I'm Googling or maybe checking the New York Public Library.) and then failing to find anything. I do struggle a bit once we're outside of Latin script as well. With those limitations, try me with whatever.
Last month was Black History Month, and focusing my research for a month seemed very effective. I believe May is Asian History month, but I know basically nothing about Asian women and Asian diaspora women, and it feels like something we're doing particularly badly with, so maybe a slight focus there? But don't limit yourself. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 22:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd say Petscan was your friend... for example, here are Petscan queries for Asian women born in 1891 without images or Indian women born in the 19th century without images. Results here are ordered by page length, which gives a workable measure of priority. Dsp13 (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism on WiR mainpage

The WiR mainpage averages 632 pageviews/day (over the last 90 days); on March 4th, there were 1,811 pageviews! Not a big surprise, therefore, that there is occasional (but rare) vandalism. Such was the case on March 4th -twice- handled deftly by @SusunW and Urve. Noticed and appreciated. Thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I must admit that I was surprised that it happened and that someone else hadn't reverted it before me. Just a luck of timing, I'll wager. Glad to be able to help in the efforts to keep our pages drama-free. SusunW (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I received a few "thanks button" thanks too - it's too bad that we face vandalism at all, I don't think our mission can actually upset anyone with an opinion worth listening to. This is why I have the project page watchlisted :) Urve (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"Storied Women of the Civil War Era" at the National Portrait Gallery (Unted States)

Thought this might be of interest, and if anyone wants one of those photos restored, just ask. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 22:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Personally, I wanted to restore that photos and that was the good step. Fade258 (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Preparing for April

Those interested in helping with our preparations for April are welcome to contribute to our Ideas page. Among other arrangements, we are hoping to launch a three-month translation contest. We look forward to your inputs.--Ipigott (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Catherine Backus

So here is a telling item on the page I am working on, Minnesota State Capitol artwork, of the dozen or so artists on the page, the only one that does not have their own page on Wikipedia is the lone woman. She did the large bronze statue of Colonel William Colvill in the Capitol rotunda. To research her on the web you couldn't use her name but her husband's name 'Mrs. George Backus.' She did have a short career (I suspect the Capitol architect, Cass Gilbert's comments on her work didn't help much). Unfortunately there is little information written on her and there is no catalog of her work. If anyone can come up with more information on her art career and/or thoughts on how an article could be created for her I would be grateful. Myotus (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Myotus. Think there is more than one Catherine Backus, but here is a news clipping for you from Newspapers.com. She and George lived in Florida. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Barbara Maier Gustern

Barbara Maier Gustern, a New York City based vocal coach, recently died after a random shoving attack. Any help with her article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I found the closest thing I could to her birthday. Something about her 85th birthday party being on February 10, 2020. Other reports about it would have people thinking it was later in February though. Trillfendi (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for starting this. I added an image. TJMSmith (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Gender Studies editathon

In a discussion about our upcoming April editathon on Gender Studies academics, it was pointed out that there were few contributions last year. In that regard, I am willing to forgo the work on women's nationality to focus on the topic because I honestly believe that had these women (and men) not created a field of study, our project and the resources we now have available to write about women would not exist. I would remind everyone that many of these scholars were "merely" associate professors and would not qualify under our guidelines as academics, as the field was viewed with skepticism and opportunities for women were limited, not to mention the hard vs. soft science bias issue. Typically these women qualify as notable under GNG as activists or writers, rather than scholars. I'd like to encourage participation in the event and am throwing out a challenge of sorts. If you attended university, when did the women's/gender studies field start at your alma mater? Who founded it? Are they notable enough for an article and will you write it? (In conjunction with the translation editathon, there are lots of articles on other WPs that could also be translated.) Steps off soapbox and thanks anyone who has taken the time to read this. SusunW (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this pointer, SusunW! I hadn't thought of faculty who created gender studies programs, but that seems to be an especially fruitful area to look into. A lot of works will likely touch on that - histories of women's studies as a field of study, pedagogical materials, institutional histories (which won't help with GNG but will help with fleshing out the details), etc. I take your point about institutional bias and academic notability very well... I'm sure we are all on the same wavelength about that here, but I just need to express my frustration. Urve (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Urve, and yes. I get that it is hard. Most of the founders of these programs wrote about women in the past, not each other. Unfortunately also the programs were mostly founded in the 1970s-1990s, a period where materials are not yet often digitized. But, if we each look at our familiarity with a single university, uncovering sourcing may be easier. SusunW (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Jersey Women's Heritage Trail

Thought I'd share this New Jersey Women's Heritage Trail link.

What a great idea. A women stood on this spot and accomplished (fill in ... ). — Maile (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Rescuing declined drafts - does the list auto-update?

I've started going through some of the declined drafts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Drafts and was wondering if I should remove listings that I've done, or if the list updates on its own? Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Looks as if a bot updates the page on a weekly basis - history. Do remove rows if you wish; equally, don't feel you have to, b/c bot. Thanks for giving this corner some attention. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for the quick answer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • ScottishFinnishRadish: It's good to see you are working on drafts. Upgrading them can represent significant encouragement to those who created them while improving our monthly statistics. I see you have been successful with Lisa Winter and have now made considerable improvements to Draft:Peninah Kabenge. It might be useful for you to make a list on your user page of the drafts you have been working on. This could encourage reviewers to move them to mainspace if they are considered suitable.--Ipigott (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    I left a message with the user that created Draft:Peninah Kabenge to let them know I did some work on it, and if they need any help in the future to let me know, and I also left a quick message with the editor that declined it the first time, asking if they could take a second look. I'm pretty sure I have the permissions to just move the drafts to mainspace when I've addressed the concerns, but I didn't want to step on any toes or fail to follow best practices.
    I've been thinking about maintaining a list on my userpage, but that may take away from the large radish and my list of enemies, so I'm thinking on how best to do it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, the radish is really impressive. You could make a list on a separate page in your user area with a link from your main user page.--Ipigott (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    I did end up making the radish less powerful, and put up a quick list of what I'm working on, what is in mainspace, and what I'm waiting on a review for. At this point I'm only waiting for a review from someone else if I feel a second opinion would be helpful.
    I don't suppose anyone has any experience summarizing poetry reviews? Draft:Darcie Dennigan should be a solid WP:NCREATIVE pass once the reviews are summarized into the reception section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

"What’s with Wikipedia and women?"

Some of you may be interested in this article, "What’s with Wikipedia and women?", published on March 8th, and written by Laurel Oldach, a science writer for American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Mostly the same old same old, but the bit at the bottom is interesting - in WP biographies of "the 1,052 researchers inducted into the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2021 and 2022", the women are over-represented by a not insignificant amount (not that they use the word of course). My own research into biographies of scientists just before their election to the Royal Society has shown the same trend developing over the last 4 or so years, but that is only 50-60 a year & harder to draw clear conclusions from. No doubt in ten years or so The Guardian will show awareness of this. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the link Rosie. In my opinion, it cannot be reiterated enough that the major issue is sourcing. Our ability to change racial and gender biases in encyclopedic representation is limited not so much by desire to do so but by availability of sourcing. We cannot create articles if media, be it press, academia, publishers, etc. do not provide us with materials upon which to base articles. It is changing, but that change is slow. Focus on specific sectors may indeed mean that some over-representation is happening, but perhaps eventually that will balance out as more information on all sectors of society is presented. On the other hand, it may not, as dictates of popularity (and thus what becomes a subject to write about) may inherently mean that we remain lopsided in our reflection of the greater society. SusunW (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Kudos to the writer (and the interviewees, of course). This is way more in depth and much clearer than so many similar articles. -- asilvering (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Interesting article. Good to see the efforts of Jess Wade and David Eppstein are recognized. It's also heartening to read that Women in Red seems to have slowed down the deletion of articles about deserving women. Articles like this spread the news of our efforts and are likely to encourage others to contribute. With Rosie's assistance, there may soon be more. Now we've dealt with women scientists, how about encouraging someone to look at our coverage of women writers?--Ipigott (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
A couple of suggestions for people researching articles: 1) use multiple search engines, not just google. Each search engine returns different results. 2) be sure to search under birth names and married names, especially for older or deceased women. I’ve found a lot of information that way!
T. E. Meeks (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for these useful tips but it's not just the search engines, it's the language you have as your preference for searching. As we're about to deal with translations. if you use the English version of Google your are unlikely to find many of the foreign language hits which turn up on the version for the language of the person or people you are looking for. For example, when I'm searching for info in Danish, I use Google in Danish. Even if you do not use foreign language versions, try searching on strings in languages other than English even if you are using the English version. And don't forget all those foreign language biographical dictionaries listed in our redlists.--Ipigott (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely Ipigott and it matters where you are. I can open different sources depending on if I am in Mexico or traveling abroad. Even if I change my language and search engine to a different location, if I am searching from Mexico, I get different results from someone who was doing a similar search somewhere else. SusunW (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_111&oldid=1083324254"