Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 62

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55 ← Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65

Upcoming event in the UK

Hello everyone, the Ditchling Museum of Art + Craft are hosting an editathon on Saturday 1 June from 11am to 4pm UK time. The aim of the day is to improve biographies of female artists and makers, and there will be training led by a Wikimedia UK accredited trainer for those new to editing. If you're in the area, you're more than welcome to come along to this free event. And you are of course also welcome to take part remotely. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Richard Nevell (WMUK): Thanks for keeping us informed of this. Do you have a meetup page? It would help us to monitor progress and help you along with the efforts of new editors.--Ipigott (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Good point, I've just set one up: Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/Ditchling Museum. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Need help with redlists

1000 Women in Religion Wikidata redlist

PKM, thank you for the Wikidata work you did for WP:WikiProject 1000 Women in Religion! I'd like to get a Wikidata-generated redlist to show the redlinks for this new wikiproject. Currently, we have this, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/1000 Women in Religion, which is "crowd-sourced". Below the information currently contained on that list, I'd like to add Wikidata-generated info for their wikiproject. The expanded list would look like this one, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Suffragists. The Wikidata-generated list would have columns for: #, name, image, description, country of citizenship, date of birth, date of death, place of birth, place of death, item, site links. Is this something you or Tagishsimon (or anyone else with time/inclination/know-how) could do? The next 1000 Women in Religion event will be in Vancouner on June 12th (Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/1000 Women in Religion 2019), so it would be ideal if the redlist task were completed before then. Thank you in advance. (cc: Dzingle1 who is facilitating the Vancouver event) --Rosiestep (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I can do that - PKM (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
And it's done: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/1000 Women in Religion - PKM (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
You rock, PKM. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

BBC 100 Women Wikidata redlist

Tagishsimon or anyone else who has time/inclination/know-how... We have this Wikidata list, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/BBC 100 Women 2018, which only contains the 2018 honorees; and this website-generated list, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/BBC 100 Women redlinks, whose data should be moved into Wikidata. I think it would be best if we could solidify everything into a Wikidata-generated list with the name: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/BBC 100 Women, which would also include: the year they were honored, year of death, country of citizenship, place of birth, place of death, number of sitelinks. No rush, as the next group of honorees won't be announced until November/December, but I would be grateful if someone could manage this task as what we have now is a bit messy. Thank you in advance. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Rosiestep: I note with regret that Tagishsimon has not been active on Wikipedia for the past three weeks. I hope this is a temporary absence. He has been making invaluable contributions to the WiR project.--Ipigott (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Article needed for 12-year-old Lucy Gray

Right then; this 12-year-old up-and-coming leader needs an article. There are by now plenty of reliable sources about Lucy Gray, so WP:GNG is fine. I've compiled the most important ones in this tweet. Would write it myself but I've known her for a few years so that's a WP:CoI. MurielMary, is that something that could interest you? Schwede66 21:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Schwede66: You may be right but several other youngsters are mentioned in recent news items, for example Luke Wijohn, Raven Maeder, Tony Huang, Rachel Collins, Sarah Paton-Beverley. At this stage, it may be more logical to create a more general article on the student climate strikes in New Zealand. Alternatively, something could be added to School strike for climate.--Ipigott (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Being mentioned is one thing. Having several feature articles plus that video is quite another. Schwede66 16:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm on it!! However I've had to move a page for Lucy Gray the poem to make room for it and may have stuffed that up somewhat ...... will ask at the helpdesk for someone to check what I've done to the poem page. Thanks for the suggestion of an article for her. MurielMary (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
@MurielMary: Not sure why you thought you "had to move" the poem, but I note that someone else has now reverted that move, so the poem is still/again at Lucy Gray. There are a load of incoming links, and now a clear hatnote directing readers to the new Lucy Gray (activist) and Lucy Gray (album), which all looks fine now. PamD 12:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as I said above, I asked for advice at the helpdesk and the different pages are sorted now. MurielMary (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Job done, case close. Thanks, MurielMary. Schwede66 19:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Late May FP report.

I can do this one quickly. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 13:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

New FPs

Passing, and thus about to be FPs

There will likely be more nominated soon, but this seemed a good time to clear the boards, as it were. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 14:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Your work is truly magnificent. Any chance you can give Rosika Schwimmer a looksee. Her article definitely needs work too and it's on my calendar for "someday" in the future ;) SusunW (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Do note only about half of them are mine. But I'll have a look; that said, I've had two images with enough confusion around copyright that I've restored and now can't bring to FPC, so I think I'm going to be a little careful for a bit. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 01:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Abortion debate

I'm not always sure what I think about some of the issues related to abortion. Anyhow, I'm male. But I do know it's coming back up the political agenda stateside just now, and there's an intriguing deletion discussion going on which seems to have attracted a lot of contributions here. Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. I do wonder if a few of the arguments being made at this AfD might be more measured if the article had been entitled "List of women who have had an abortion". Edwardx (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Gadget which displays wikilinks in different colors

I think someone here told us about a widget which displays wikilinks in different colors, e.g. redirects display green. I've enabled that function, but a friend (user:Gamaliel) is asking how to do it and I don't remember. Help? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

See User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, David Eppstein. (cc: Gamaliel) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Too much headspace?

The lead in question

Can people look at Alva Belmont and tell me if I should crop a bit from the top of the lead image? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 21:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I think so. My preferred crop would be 11x12 aspect ratio (a little taller than it is wide), extending from the bottom right corner to just past the white blob on the bottom left (putting enough black in the lower left corner to anchor it; it doesn't look right if you crop in the middle of the white blob). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Nice. The blob was a good bit of composition, if the framing looks 'wrong' it's probably their eyes being centred. cygnis insignis 22:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I tried a slight variant on that. How's this? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 23:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that second one looks better; the first one looks like it's waiting for the title of a magazine to be added in the top third. Penny Richards (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
How's this?
I think the second one is better for typical uses here. The first one is not bad: by being so aggressively centered, it strongly pulls your eye towards her face. But it's not necessary to do that, because that's where your eye would go anyway, and at the small sizes we typically use I think it's better to spend a bigger area of the photo on her face as the crop does. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree the second one is more suitable. The low angle is accentuated in the first one, and the open space at the gets a little beyond just the facts (it reminds me of this a bit). The second one is just straight visual facts, which is appropriate here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Progress on Inclusipedia

I've just come across this recent article on Inclusipedia by Isabella Fincher with details of progress on writing Wikipedia articles on people (mainly women) from Boulder. (cc Megan3532)--Ipigott (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

How FPs draw views...

Uppsala Cathedral by Emma Schenson ran on the main page on the 22nd. Now, the blurb didn't really focus on her so much as the cathedral, mentioning her in he third or fourth paragraph and in the credit.

Her views still spiked, giving her more attention than she had gotten in literally the year before that day.

Ones that focus on the person seem to be even more effective. Consider, for example, Mary Cassatt, Billie Holiday, Katie Swan, Hester C. Jeffrey.

FPs are buried down the mainpage a bit, but they're still pretty effective. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 14:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Nineteenth Amendment

Hi WikiProject!

Since last fall, Wiki Education and the National Archives (NARA) have teamed up to run a series of professional development courses training historians, librarians, archivists, and independent scholars/researchers to contribute to women's suffrage topics on Wikipedia (much in the same spirit as Women in Red's Focus on Suffrage). This month, seven alumni from those courses have come together for an advanced Wikipedia course. Together, we've been taking a deep dive into a key article for the subject: the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It's coming along really well so far, we think, and we will continue to work on it over the next week or so. We have tentative plans to submit it to GAN soon thereafter. There's still work to be done, but this seems like a good time to put out this invitation to other interested Wikipedians to take a look, provide feedback, edit, etc.! :) --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ryan (Wiki Ed): There has indeed been really impressive progress on this article since 16 May, thanks in particular to the efforts of BonnieEllenBurns, Rosalina523 and De Pisan. Now far more informative, it has doubled in length. ORES currently gives it only a B rating but that's probably because there are still four instances of "citation needed". Once these have been attended to, the article should certainly be a strong GA candidate. Thanks for keeping us informed of your work in connection with women's suffrage.--Ipigott (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Ryan (Wiki Ed): I've carried out some basic copy editing. Not much needed attention. There is still a considerable amount of over wiki-linking and there is a year date "194" which needs checking and correcting.--Ipigott (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Ipigott. I think I've addressed the overlinking. We'll continue working on it this week. Fingers crossed for GA. If anyone has any additional feedback, it would certainly be welcome. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Séverine

Séverine

My inclination is to keep the carte-de-visite mount here. Any counterpoints? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 01:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, by all means keep it as it is. Any way of dating it?--Ipigott (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Zura Karuhimbi

Anyone fancy writing a biography of Zura Karuhimbi? [1] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

More potential sources for Women in Religion

Found some additional sources, in case anyone wants to add to the redlists. (I'd help, but I've got a lot on my plate these next few weeks.)

Hopefully these may be of some use. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ser Amantio di Nicolao! Attention, Dzingle1. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Thank you! Dzingle1 (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Years of birth

I've received a few requests over the years from female BLP subjects to remove their years of birth, because of the ageism women experience, especially in the entertainment industry. It can lead to problems writing the biography: if you remove year of birth, do you also have to remove when they left high school, when they were awarded their first degree, and so on?

I opened a BLPN thread about it in October, but there was no consensus. At the moment, WP:BLPPRIVACY says: "If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it."

I was wondering whether WiR regulars had encountered this issue, and how you handle it, or whether you had any suggestions. SarahSV (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This is an odd one. It's clear that it is basic information about the person, but it's also arguably harmful. Perhaps a good compromise is to move the birthdate information out of the lead, putting it to a slightly less visible location, like an infobox or the section on their early life? My gut feeling - as a man who knows nothing about being a woman, mind you, so discount my thoughts appropriately - is that we're a long-term project, and this is the sort of information we'd want after their death, so if we do remove it, we should still preserve the information, even if we don't display it, e.g. comment out the date and reference for the date, with a brief explanation as to why. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 02:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
A parallel case - which we might be able to do something about - is the deadnaming of Wendy Carlos right in the lead sentence. In bold. We can't even move that to the discussion of her transgender status, when she was amongst the very first transgender people? And it's stressing her out that she now has to relive all the battles she thought were over? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 03:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree about the need for this information for the non-living, but sometimes the living want it gone entirely: not only not in the lead, but gone. I've even had requests to remove it from the history. It's difficult to know how to handle this, but age discrimination against women is very real.
Our current rule about deadnaming is to include the name in the lead only if the person was notable under the previous name (see WP:DEADNAME), and I see that's the case here. It might be possible to gain consensus that they should at least not be included in the lead. Removing them entirely might be difficult if the person was clearly notable, not borderline notable. SarahSV (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I've definitely received emails from subjects complaining about the inclusion of their birthdates. Usually what it turns out to mean is that the Wikipedia article doesn't actually include the birthdate but it is included in Wikidata (possibly badly-sourced as many claims on Wikidata are), and that Googling the subject's name shows the birthday in a format that makes it look like it comes from Wikipedia. In any case, my feeling is that if we have information from the subject, in borderline cases, indicating that it should not be included then we should leave out even the year, and that we should default to leaving out the day of the year for living people. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIVACY says to leave out the full DOB if the person complains or is borderline notable. I would prefer to leave out the year too on request, but it does raise difficult questions about much else we have to remove—e.g. if we include when they were awarded a bachelor's degree, that usually means they were born about 21 years earlier. It soon starts to feel that we're not really writing a biography but engaging in PR. But I do have every sympathy, and I can see that from their perspective, it's really none of our business. SarahSV (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
My position hasn't changed. We err on the side of protecting people's privacy. Unless multiple sources give a full DOB on a living person, don't put it in. I use only the year or the decade, but if I were asked to remove it entirely, I would. To me, the borderline notable thing is a red herring. It's why I mostly write about dead people, I do not want to invade someone's right to privacy. SusunW (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I often feel uncomfortable writing and especially creating articles about living people, unless they're public figures used to the attention. I would like to find a way to add something about year of birth to the BLP policy. But the issue of what else needs to be removed (degrees, early jobs, all kinds of things) can get really tricky. SarahSV (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The real problem seems to be Wikidata which now increasingly picks up information from a variety of sources and not just from Wikipedia articles. Unless policy is changed there - for all language versions - then Wikidata info on date of birth will be displayed on Google searches, frequently together with a snippet from a Wikipedia article. Interestingly enough, in my experience the women who are least prepared to share information on their DOB are academics and, in some cases, actresses. Others often include their DOB, or at least their age, in widely accessible sources. Like several other editors, I prefer to concentrate on people who are no longer living where information of DOB and DOD can be readily obtained from obits, etc. One step to make things easier for those writing BLPs would be to eliminate Category:Year of birth missing (living people) as that certainly encourages editors to check things out as far as they can. Maybe instead we could introduce a category "Date of birth (or year of birth) not desired" with explanations on the corresponding category page.--Ipigott (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
If Wikidata no longer picked up information from other sources there would be no WD redlists for us to create articles from.Oronsay (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Ian, I think those are both excellent ideas: eliminate Category:Year of birth missing (living people) and create something like Category:Date or year of birth not desired. SarahSV (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Even later May Featured Picture report

...I don't like doing featured picture reports unless either all in the previous one have cleared out, or we have at least three new nominations.

...This is the fun kind of FP report.


So! Aletta Jacobs and Ray Strachey have passed, and the other three that were passing still are. But more exciting are the new ones, including a couple heavy hitters:

float
float

 

Alva Belmont is one of the better-known suffragettes, having founded several organisations, including the National Women's Party. This one's passing.

float
float

 

Séverine was a French journalist, anarchist, and feminist. She was painted by Renoir, helped found the International League against Anti-Semitism, which proved to be pretty useful during WWII, and is amongst my list of people I'd love to meet and share a pint with. Oh - while it doesn't really matter, of course - holder of incredible fashion sense. This is amongst my favourite of my restorations visually, for that amazing dress.

float
float

 

Pauline Adams was one of the suffragettes who went to jail because that made for better publicity, were treated abominably... and, in her case, then appealed the decision and won, getting the police and trial heavily criticised. When women's suffrage finally came to fruition, she decided to become a lawyer. So did.

I don't appreciate her fashion sense quite as much, because all those tiny grid patterns were absolute nightmares to fix damage over. (Mostly joking, of course. It was difficult, but that's hardly a criticism of her)

Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 03:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Conflict with redirects

I created a page for actress Lola Lane after seeing her name among those in red on one of this project's pages. I encountered a problem with the title, however, because both "Lola Lane" and "Lola Lane (actress)" are redirected to Lane Sisters. Not knowing how to change the redirects, I named the new page Lola Lane (actress/singer). That title is a bit awkward; if anyone can tell me how to change it to just her name without conflicting with the redirect, I will appreciate the help. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @Teblick:You could just have created the article by over-writing the redirect. You could still just copy the whole article and paste it in at the redirect, as you are the only editor. Or, more elegantly, apply at WP:RM to get it moved to Lola Lane as an uncontroversial technical move. Perhaps better, because that way you are recorded as the creator of the article. PamD 21:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
PamD, Thanks for that advice. I didn't know about the "requested moves" option. I will try that approach. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Eddie Blick me either. I always just ask Rosiestep to fix it and she comes through with that magic wand. SusunW (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@Teblick: Glad to see it's worked. I've finished the job by retargetting the Lola Lane (actress) redirect to point to the new article. PamD 05:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Happy to see this was resolved before I got here. In the future, if anyone would like assistance with a redirect, I'd be glad to handle that task. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone! I appreciate the responses. I enjoy creating articles for this group when I can. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Speakers at the Oslo Freedom Forum

The Oslo Freedom Forum is starting on Monday and there's quite a selection of women whose biographies could be written or improved if anyone has time. -Yupik (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

We still seem to be missing coverage of the 2018 event too. I'll try to check things out over the next few days.--Ipigott (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Wonderful, thanks! User:Jon Harald Søby has made a list of the speakers for this year's event that shows which languages have articles for them and which don't. -Yupik (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Women speakers in 2018 included ​Belquis Al Lahabi, Megha Rajagopalan, Fatemah Qaderyan, Clare Rewcastle Brown, Lebo Mashile, Asma Khalifa, ​Edipcia Dubón, Vanessa Berhe, Galia Benartzi, Mu Sochua, Leyla Yunus, Mai Khoi, Ine Eriksen Søreide, ​Svitlana Zalishchuk, Natalia Kaliada and Tiff Stevenson.--Ipigott (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Women speakers for 2019 who are still redlinked include Mercy Akuot (South Sudan women's rights activist), Laritza Diversent (Cuban human rights activist), Yousra Elbagir (Sudanese journalist) and Laila Haidari (Afghan human rights activist). The article on Esther Htusan (Burmese journalist) needs to be destubbed.--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I've taken some photos of people. Hopefully some of them are good enough to be included in Commons :) -Yupik (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Sweet! Looking forward to seeing them, Yupik. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott I'll be adding in some of the musicians that played at OFF and also some of the names that are missing from the program over the next week, so there is likely to be more redlinks on their way. For some reason, some people are missing off of it. -Yupik (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

10 women featured in the Native Women Voices project

I'm not sure how many of these women would pass notability on the en-wiki, in spite of them all being awesome. But I'm putting them up here in the hopes that WIR could create articles for them that would not get deleted because the lot of you rock :) -Yupik (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning the website, Yupik. Adding their names here. Glad to see that four of them already have articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for adding their names, Rosiestep. We have an article on Maret Anne Sara, but under the name Máret Ánne Sara. I'll redirect the other one to that page, which needs to be updated anyways. There's an article on the Swedish Wikipedia about Pile o'Sápmi which she made to protest her brother's treatment; that would be a good addition to the list if someone would like something to translate from Swedish to English. -Yupik (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikiesfera radio interview

Two or three weeks ago, Elena Gómez from the program Relatoras on M21Madrid radio came and intervieweed a number of participants at the weekly women's editing workshop run by PatriHorrillo's Wikiesfera group. :) Interview here in Spanish. Focus of the interviews was on the work being done by Wikiesfera and why women participate in the group, with lots of talk about the feminist aspect of empowering women through providing information and making women visible. :) (I have been told I appear at some point.) --LauraHale (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary. A 60-minute podcast is rather time-consuming.--Ipigott (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Wi-weekly Women in Red Brussels edit-a-thon

Every 2 weeks on Tuesday we organize in Brussels an edit-a-thon about well-known women not having an article on Wikipedia yet. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Belgium/Wiki Club Brussels for more details. We have been writing about the 50 Worldwide and European Forbes list, and are currently using the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index. Our (mainly) ladies (and some men) are writing in the en.wp, fr.wp, and nl.wp, and we also amend Wikidata items. Geertivp (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Geertivp, I am so glad to hear about your Brussels edit-a-thons, and to learn about Wikipedia:Meetup/Belgium/Wiki Club Brussels. If you or any of your members will be at Wikimania Stockholm, maybe we can say hello in person? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Rosie - We met each other shortly in Berlin 2017. I talked to you about the Belgium National television having a weekly reportage about a freshly created "missing page". See you later... Geertivp (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh yes, I remember that, Geertivp, and thinking it was great that your country's national television station was so supportive of the wiki movement. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Nineteenth Amendment update

As I posted in a section above, a group of editors has been working hard to apply Good Article criteria to the article on the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Collectively, they've made more than 350 edits, increasing the size of the article from 35k to 91k in the process. We're all really happy with the improvements and the state of the article in general, so last night I sent it off to GAN. Just in time for the centennial of the Amendment being passed in the Senate (which is today)! :)

Although there are no current plans to bring it to FAC (that I know of), it would be great to hear the reviewer's (or others') input regarding things that could be improved down the road, even if unnecessary for GAN. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Abortion in the United States

Hey all. I created about 56 articles about abortion in the United States on a state and territory level over the course of about 10 days, mainspacing them on Thursday. They are linked in the template below.

I was wondering if any people involved with this project could be able to help improve these articles, making sure they read neutrally, fixing up spelling, grammar and structure issues and adding content... especially content about more recent developments. I had kind of hoped to put off main spacing articles to give myself more time to work on them but things felt like they were moving so fast that I wanted them main spaced so more people could work on them. And yeah. :) Any assistance appreciated as no matter where you fall in terms of your beliefs as it relates to the topic, it benefits everyone in living in those states to have a neutral well referenced information resource. --LauraHale (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@LauraHale: No, your articles are linked from this template {{Abortion by US state}}:
which confusingly has the same visible title as {{Abortion in the United States}} above. In fact I'll amend that right now to try to reduce confusion... done (I added "by state" - not necessarily the ideal solution, just something for now). Would it not be better to include the "by state" aspect within the existing {{Abortion in the United States}}? I don't know how other US topics do this. PamD 16:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Looking around I find {{CapPun-US}} which looks like this, including both by-state and general content (though "articles" seems an unhelpful heading, where "By state" would make more sense!):
There's also something unusual about your {{Abortion by US state}} template in that it doesn't appear with the little "V,T,E" links top left which allow people to View, Talk, Edit. I don't know the significance of that! PamD 16:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • One tiny typo: I had a quick look at Abortion in Mississippi as an example and found "32th" which I corrected to "32nd" (sudden thought, perhaps that's a US usage? apologies if so and please revert). I don't know if you were using a template to put the numbers in and there may be more little glitches like that one? PamD 16:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@PamD:, Thanks for fixing the template wrongly linked to thing. Brain fart on my part. :) The number issue was likely a trying to use standard formula across multiple articles but changing numbers and leading to accidental incorrect form. --LauraHale (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Whatever the minor problems with template links, etc., these articles are a wonderful historical representation of how the situation on abortion legislation has evolved in the United States and its overseas territories. Well done, Laura! Just the kind of background we need on Women in Red during this critical period.--Ipigott (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks @Ipigott:. :) I had struggled with how to organize the articles because presenting, "This is the legal situation now" seemed problematic as it appears to be in flux in a number of places and taking a historical approach seemed to negate that issue with people able to put the most up to date information at the bottom of the article... and if the history section got to long, then it could more easily be spun off into a child article as "History of abortion in X STATE". There is a huge void missing there that could be updated. I had kind of expected with all the attention to the topic that more people would be editing them but that hasn't really come to pass. (And need to update Nevada given the news from today or yesterday. Just switched back to articles I was working on related to Pride.) It would be good to see more information in those articles, especially as it relates to funding (as huge amounts of misinformation on various sides) and clinic history as those are the ones performing abortions for the most part. --LauraHale (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

BookExpo / BookCon

Hi all,

I'll be at BookExpo [2] / BookCon [3] for the next couple days with my camera. Last year's event was relatively productive, so I'm looking forward to going back. If you know of articles about current authors missing pictures, check those websites. If they'll be there, ping me with the names and I'll try my best. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Looking at the BookCon guest list, these authors have articles but no photos:
Nick Number (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Your festival work is amazing, Rhododendrites. As the founder of WikiProject Women Writers, I'd favor you taking photos of any and all women writers. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Hope to see you at FPC soon! We could CERTAINLY use more modern women. I'm limited in what I can do. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 16:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all. After day 1, I already have an obscene number of pictures to work through later. The conditions are such that I suspect no FPs will come out of it (crowded, fast-moving, messy backgrounds, and poorer lighting than one would think -- especially, for some reason, on the stages/panels). My approach is typically to wind through the aisles taking pictures of just about every author doing a signing, then going down to the autographing tables, and then repeating the process because the authors cycle every 30-60 minutes. BookExpo is through tomorrow, then BookCon is Sat/Sun. I can try to find some on Nick's list over the weekend, but I was more thinking that if someone knew of one or two in particular I could search for them. Otherwise my scattershot approach will cover some of them regardless. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't often start article on living writers, but I did start the Rebecca Roanhorse bio last year (when we were working on science fiction and Native American editathons, she counted for both), and would be thrilled if you could add a photograph.Penny Richards (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@Penny Richards: She was on the schedule for BookExpo yesterday, unfortunately, and I didn't see her. I'll look for her again when BookCon starts tomorrow (they have different guest lists for some reason, with duplication, even though they're basically the same event). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
You're approach sounds reasonable, Rhododendrites Excited to see the uploads! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I've just uploaded the first batch from day 1 of BookExpo here for anyone interested: commons:Category:Photographs taken by Rhododendrites - BookExpo and BookCon 2019. Haven't had time to categorize or add to any articles yet -- will probably have to wait until sometime next week. Two more days to go. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I just love them. Appreciate what you're doing. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Caitlin Zaloom at BookExpo (05471).jpg is my favourite, though Caitlin Zaloom will need an article. She had one deleted in 2006, but it was A. copyvio and B. Over a decade ago so I don't think we're bound by its precedent if we have sources. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 00:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC) File:Maaza Mengiste at BookExpo (05586) (cropped).jpg is probably my second-favourite, and Maaza Mengiste's article is pretty developed. That'd be a good FPC once it's settled in. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 00:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

For those thinking of suggesting one at FPC, here's how I'd judge it. And, of course, none of this says ANYTHING negative about Rhododendrites' photography. The photos are valuable even if imperfect, but FPC needs to be the best of them.
Of course, all these photos are still super-valuable. FPC is that intersection of value, quality, and being there at the right moment.

Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 01:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC) And don't forget Wikidata! This can quickly move a good image into loads of small wikis. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 01:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful feedback/evaluation, Adam. There are indeed many ways they could be better, and I'm happy to take constructive criticism. As I said above, the conditions are difficult for FPC-level quality (for me anyway), and if one FP comes out of it I'd be pleasantly surprised. I'm still working through the other days. Very busy weekend. Day 1 was the most productive, but there are probably about as many in total between days 2-4 still to come. Thanks to all who helped out with the categorization and adding to articles! — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

One more update: everything has now been uploaded. Thanks for the kind words and to those of you who have helped categorize files or add to articles. I've done some more of that tonight (and adding to Wikidata), and will probably finish up sometime tomorrow. Sad to say I was only able to find two of the people from the list above while I was there: Armentrout and Dennard. I could've sworn I took pictures of Roanhorse but looking back now I think I may have connected the sign with the wrong table... :( Next time. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

One more bit of advice: Don't fear cropping, it can be surprisingly effective to just cut out any distracting elements. Nic Stone, say. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 13:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Good, but the person talking to her is distracting...
    Good, but the person talking to her is distracting...
  • Now up at FPC!
    Now up at FPC!

Thanks, Adam. I had the same reaction to some of them, e.g. disappointment that Zaloom doesn't have an article (as an aside, I feel for the academic authors who go to these things -- it's hard for history and journalism to compete for attention with scifi and YA fantasy :) ). I have a bit of a bad habit in terms of composition because I tend to like the shots where there's a blurry person in the foreground off to the side that the author is looking at. I feel like it sets the scene and can be good with the right depth of field. I appreciate that most people don't agree with me, though. :) A couple others I think have some potential are RJ Palacio and maybe Karine Jean-Pierre or Marcia Butler (but chaotic background in both, and hard-to-crop-out foreground person with the latter). We'll see. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. I am reminded that enwiki's FPC process just isn't the place for me. Apparently going to an event to take pictures of people who don't have pictures on Wikipedia is "promotional", and the sole picture of a notable author does not have encyclopedic value. As I said, the conditions were such that I'd be surprised if a FP were to come out of it, so I don't mind them not being promoted, but, well, it's admittedly disheartening that a single person's bizarre opinion that this whole exercise isn't worth doing counts just as much as anything else... meh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Redlinks with Q-disambiguators

I've created a stub for astrophysicist Jean P. Brodie, with a hatnote on Jean Brodie: she appears in the redlist of astronomers as Jean Brodie (Q59670724). What if anything do I need to do to get her linked into Wikidata and blue-d in or removed from that list of redlinks? Thanks. PamD 21:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I have link the page on wikidata for you. For future reference on the wikidata item (put in the Qnumber on wikidata) on the top right section of the page there is a section "Wikipedia" if you click edit on that section you can enter the wiki in the first box, in this case "en" and in the second box you can enter the page, in this case "Jean P. Brodie". ListeriaBot will update the list automatically and then it should be removed. Redalert2fan (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I must say Wikidata is not very intuitive, is it? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 13:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Its entry barrier may seem a little higher, and there are a lot of tools available that might require a little more knowledge, but when you get to know it even manual edits are a lot quicker than on Wikipedia. Its more a GUI than text, think like the visual editor, but everything is inside a nice box (template). Linking a page like I told you above, is not that hard when you actually see how its done/have tried once. Adding Label, Description, Also known as is not that hard either, click edit on the language section and just type. The more difficult part is adding statements, which for sure is less intuitive. I think it's just a case of different styles, It's not harder perse. If you look at it the other way around, on Wikidata everything is point and click + add a small bit of text/P statement / Q item in a predefined box and if its really wrong you get an error, but on Wikipedia you need to type everything, use dozens of symbols (Wiki markup) and in the end you have a big blob of text where you need to search for everything. --Redalert2fan (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Brig. Gen. Laura Yeager - today's news

Army National Guard Brig. Gen. Laura Yeager is slated to become the first female active duty or Guard general officer to lead a combat infantry division. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Jeanne Laisné (soprano)

Could I have a little bit of a hand cleaning this up and improving it? It's my first new article in a while. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 18:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I've created a surname page at Laisné to include her. PamD 19:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I added her to the Jeanne (given name) page. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: I linked it to the French article, made a few style improvements, and added WikiProject and Translated page tags to the Talk page per translation guidelines. Nick Number (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden: Added a few bits and pieces. I suppose you know there's an image of her here titled "Jeanne Laisné (Aurore) lors de la création".--Ipigott (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Will grab that! Article's stll about 500 characters short of DYK, but I chose to translate it as it was (for once) within the capabilities of my limited French. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 01:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Added a couple English-language references. Penny Richards (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Penny Richards: If we can get it a few words longer, it'll pass DYK. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 21:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Aaand up at DYK! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 22:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
By the way, if anyone a little more confident with not making grammatical errors in French wants to back-translate the new content... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 01:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Women Make Movies

List of filmmakers here. Not sure how many of the women listed are notable - my sense is that it's 50-50 at best, given a cursory glance. But film isn't really my thing, so I thought I'd bring it here in the event that it might be of interest to someone else. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

June FP report

All previously-mentioned FPs from the last two reports have passed, except Pauline Adams, which I'll work on the cup of and renominate. We also have two of Rhododendrites's wonderful images

Featured picture candidates/Nic Stone is probably not going to pass. People rather turned on it for.. um... having a non-smile expression and having text in the background. This is fairly stupid, but there you go.

RJ Palacio is almost passing. Same sort of weird complaints about text in the background, but almost has enough supports to outweigh them.

Do I still need to give the "not a guide to voting" spiel? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 13:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 13:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the uncropped version of Nic Stone might have been a better option since then they could see she's not bored, she's concentrating on what someone else is saying. Although the uncropped version wouldn't have passed FP either AFAIK. -Yupik (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Male Wiki editors deleting women

An article by Rosamund Urwin in todays Sunday Times titled "Male Wiki editors deleting women, says Toksvig" tells us that Sandi Toksvig, co-founder of the Women's Equality Party, is to tour the UK, Australia and America, encouraging "every audience member to commit to adopting one woman and making sure her entry [on Wikipedia] is correct or to inputting a new person". She is to be interviewed by the former Australian prime minister Julia Gillard on Wednesday in "A Podcast of One's Own".--Ipigott (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Bummer, paywall, I'd have liked to read the full piece! Maybe some other outlet will be picking it up! Does she talk about where she's getting her information? --valereee (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Valereee: Just delete your cookies and you'll be able to read the full article. Or you can wait until Wednesday and listen to the podcast.--Ipigott (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Hm, that didn't help...it wants me to start a 30-day free trial. I tried with another browser, still no joy. But the podcast will work, thanks! --valereee (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Emma Brossard

I've just created an article for Emma Brossard, a noted expert on the oil industry in Venezuela - I hope it is in decent enough shape to avoid deletion. I post here since I am of the other gender and may have missed important elements. I had trouble finding any obituary at all, for example, and Brossard's birthdate and even year of death remain elusive to me. I believe she had three children - one can note the gap between her A.B. (1950) and her PhD (1970). Her work and reputation were quite good, I believe, but one can see she bounced around for a few years at (with all due respect!) minor colleges/universities before landing at LSU. Anyhow, any attention anyone can give to the article would be appreciated. My interest in Brossard is through San Tome, Venezuela. Bdushaw (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I see the gnomes have been busy with this article overnight - thanks to you all! You are brilliant! Bdushaw (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Need help with photos

I need help from Adam Cuerden or someone who is an expert with photographs for the class A review on the Inter-Allied Women's Conference. I am in way over my head and don't know how to move forward. Research I can do, knowing what tags to use is confusing and unclear. SusunW (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Still working on the lead image. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 16:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Adam Cuerden. That one doesn't appear to be an issue, thankfully. :) SusunW (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering whether Ian Rose could help to clarify some of the problems with the images. He has a great deal of experience with GAs and FAs and is interested in military history. I fully sympathize with SusunW and think it would be a great pity if the review fails as a result of the difficulty she is experiencing with tagging the images (or perhaps deleting some and replacing others).--Ipigott (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Ipigott. Any help at all would be welcomed. SusunW (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi SusunW if you need photo retouching I may be able to help. Netherzone (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Netherzone the problem I am having is with tagging images. If you click on the link above for the review, you can see the issues. SusunW (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
SusunW thanks for your quick response. Unfortunately, I don't know about photo tagging. Netherzone (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, noted ping, bit busy to respond fully now. Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
As is everyone I have pinged, Ian Rose. Life does not bend to the will/needs of WP :) Since I am getting no answers or directions to move forward have just decided to begin replacing images. SusunW (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please remove red links on new pages created.

Could you please remove the red links for Elizabeth Chitty and Cyndra MacDowall. When I created the pages they turned blue but are back to red. No sure why that happened. Also created a new page for Brenda Longfellow. The link is blue but not sure if it will change back as well. Also, can someone take a look at Brenda Longfellow. It has not received any modifications so am concerned that there is something that prevents others from seeing it/or it was created incorrectly. Thanks! LorriBrown (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: Where are the red links? PamD 22:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm guessing they'll be on wikidata redlists such as this one. I've just added the two articles to their respective wikidata items, so the redlinks will disappear in the next 24 hours. As normal, I don't think we have a good explainer of how to add an article to wikidata.
The business with the redlink turning blue & then red again is also explained by the lack of wikidata link. Roughly speaking: there was a redlink created because there was a wikidata page without an article link; you created an article which turned the red link blue; the article was not linked to the wikidata page; and so when the redlist was updated, the logic was, there is a wikidata page for Cyndra MacDowall without an article link, but there's an article at Cyndra MacDowall, so let's create a redlink to Cyndra MacDowall_(Q55217878) ... and ... have I lost you yet? ... the whole thing gets cleared up now that the wikidata item knows that the Cyndra MacDowall article corresponds to the wikidata item. Here's the wikidata page for Cyndra MacDowall and somewhere in it you'll see a Wikipedia box with a link to your article. (btw, I took a quick glance at the articles you mentioned and found them exemplary & excellent & you can consider me a fan of your work. I'm a total sucker for format and infoboxes and references.)
Brenda Longfellow is fine; not all articles get edited by others once created, though I see PamD has visited it now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
PamD ...sorry. The user links where in the artists by occupation section. I think that User:Tagishsimon fixed them already though. Thank you for your response to my request. In the future I will try to follow instructions and connect the links after creating the page(s). :- )LorriBrown (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Tagishsimon Thanks for connecting the links and for the instructions. That is really awesome feedback. Thank You! I've gotten accustomed to other finding things that I missed and by fixing them I learn things.  :~) LorriBrown (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Dalia Leinartė

Hi all

Someone has asked me to take a look at their rejected submission for an article Draft:Dalia Leinartė, if anyone has any suggestions of how to improve it please do add things, currently looking for more references. I feel like its basically ready to be published.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@John Cummings: I've cleaned up a couple of refs & published it at Dalia Leinartė. Obvs, like any article, it could do with more work, but it's more than passable as it is. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon:, thanks very much :) John Cummings (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Astronomer Aina Elvius

Somebody with an interest in astronomy may want to take a look at Draft:Aina Elvius before she gets deleted. --Hegvald (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Also anyone who knows Russian, Swedish, or Ukrainian could help out by translating her article from those Wikipedias. -Yupik (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Riddu Riđđu 2019 (festival in Sápmi)

The Riddu Riđđu festival in July of this year has a lineup of strong indigenous women. I've riffed off of Jon Harald's list for Oslo Freedom Forum and created one of the lineup at Riddu Riđđu. Even though we have articles for some of the women on the list, quite a few of them could be expanded and updated. Also last year, they got massive amounts of good photos of the performers; hopefully this year will be the same! -Yupik (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia for Peace at Europride 2019

There be work to do, set out at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_for_Peace/Europride_Vienna_2019/Article_list and notably at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_for_Peace/Europride_Vienna_2019/Article_list#50_European_LGBT+_activists ... twitter again, Ian: https://twitter.com/josiefraser/status/1138489465679372288 --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I've added some from this corner of the world to the lists. -Yupik (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Jess has a medal from the Queen

Jess Wade BEM

Our @Jess Wade writes #Wikipedia articles Every Day. Today she has a British Empire Medal in the #QueensBirthdayHonours AND she's #OnOurBanner at @Wikiwomeninred. Recognised for services to Gender Diversity in Science. Brilliant. Victuallers (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

💖 Dr. Jess Wade for getting on with her good work, despite the undertow. Well deserved & welcome. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Congrats to her. SusunW (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Congrats, Jesswade88, and well-deserved. You are an inspiration to many! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations! Saw this via https://aperiodical.com/2019/06/particularly-mathematical-birthday-honours-2019/. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Add mine to the list of congratulations as well - bien fait. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Jolly good show. Nick Number (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Wow! Incredible! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 01:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations from me too. Well deserved recognition.--Ipigott (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
That is pretty great! XOR'easter (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations! This is the coolest! -Yupik (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations, Jess! PamD 05:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Specifically at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_over_twitter_storm. DuncanHill (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Worth noting that this one has been closed as facepalm --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Also this [[4]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

And this one isn't in fact at ANI, but on a page providing an outlet for those who have hot takes on the whole Fram business. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Our bad; apologies. Thank you for your concern. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Bernadette Vigil

The article on the Latina muralist, Bernadette Vigil is up for deletion. Could someone with fresh eyes have a look over here: Articles_for_deletion/Bernadette_Vigil ? Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The proposer, TheTechnician27, has graciously withdrawn the AfD nomination, based in large part on Netherzone's work; and so it remains only for the AfD to be closed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you to everyone involved! Ever onward... Netherzone (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Tweets and notification of ArbCom case

FYI, the recent Tweet from your project has been discussed at WP:FRAM. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Now (for no known reason) moved to WT:FRAM. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I have made a statement to ArbCom about the tweets by your project's Twitter account. starship.paint (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, talk about Harassment. Naming Fram off-wiki, calling them toxic, a stalker, a bully, and uncivil. Does Fram not have a right to a safe space or not have an off-wiki attack aimed at him? You could get WMF banned for that, as it seems Fram was for much less. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie: I'm not sure why you think Fram has such a right, nor why you think another wikipedean has no right to call out what they perceive as poor behaviour. I take no position on Fram, being unaware of their interactions on wikipedia, and am aware of WP:NPA and WP:Harass (which, incidently, calls for a pattern of repeated behaviour not evidenced by a single tweet, which in turn calls into question your "Wow, talk about Harassment"). Neither of those preclude calling out users for the four behaviours you list; and you'll be aware that there's a huge dumpster-fire of a thread discussing Fram, WM-Office and such allegations of such behaviour, so it's not as if the WiR tweet was an outlier. But whatever your opinions on those two matters, it's fun to see you effectively amplify the allegations you claim to be so outraged about by repeating them here; even if you are trying to use them as a stick with which to beat the WiR tweeter. Given that the WiR tweeter has deleted what I think we can all agree was a misguided tweet, your Wow I'm outraged post here is now the main bearer of the details of the allegations against Fram, which seems a little phyrric. Almost as if you're bursting at the seams to call out someone else's error whilst being completely oblivious of your own - motes & sticks, &c. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The tweets, and yes there’s more than just one, are documented at the Arbcom request page. You can judge for yourself if they are appropriate if you don’t like my characterization. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie: I'm indifferent as to the question of characterisation of the tweets. I'm mainly amused that if the grevious problem is one of associating the four behaviours you list with the wikipedian you name, your post is now the main place in which that association is made. It's perfectly possible to call out the WiR tweet(s) without repeating the allegations made. My point that your post, above, seems to be an error, stands. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I have added "Whoever operated the @WikiWomenInRed Twitter account to post about WP:FRAM" as one of the Involved parties to the ArbCom case on WJBScribe and related matters. starship.paint (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Good job, @Starship.paint: Thanks for coming here to tell us, twice, of the kerosine you're throwing on the fire. I'm suitably impressed by your diligence. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
When WiR are using external social media to accuse Fram of crimes, it needs to be discussed as part of the overall case. Think about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: - A good friend will always stab you in the front. ― Oscar Wilde. starship.paint (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The use of the WiR twitter account has come up before. As a friend of this project, I hope I'm not out of line by commenting that those with access to the Twitter account may benefit from having a behind the scenes discussion about how to draw attention to issues without becoming part of the issues. Pointing to a discussion and highlighting evidence given by the WMF or even statements by others, would probably have been sufficient to make a point on Twitter. I think the fuss being made above and at the Arbcom case will go nowhere, but we can all take away some pointers for how to handle difficult communications in the future. For myself, I am thinking of how those of use with access to the WM-LGBT+ Twitterstream might need to agree some guidelines, rather than only relying on our common, common sense. --Fæ (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • information Arbitration Committee Clerk Note The Women in Red WikiProject has been removed as a party to this arbitration case at the direction of the Arbitration Committee. For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
 – lesson learned --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

This is what I'd advocate for the account to tweet. Whether you want to listen is up to you: "CORRECTION: A deleted tweet by this account may have implied that real crimes were committed by Wikipedia user Fram. The wording in this tweet lacked precision. We apologize, and do not indicate that real crimes were committed." starship.paint (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps they should tweet "starship.paint is going on and on and on and on and on about a non-issue. We apologize for starship.paint's failure to understand metaphorical language and tendentious behavior." —David Eppstein (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe WiR tweeters could have a regular nomination of Wet Gremlin of the Week? --Fæ (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, tweet that, fellow civil editors. Goodbye. starship.paint (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

New script for making DYK nominations

I seem to recall that some members of this project had stopped participating in DYK because of the tedious and time-consuming process involved. I have created a script for creating DYK noms, User:SD0001/DYK-helper that makes the process easier. Except for the QPQ requirement in which I'm afraid I can't be of much help, the rest of the steps are now quite simplified. Any suggestions or feedback on the script is welcome and encouraged. SD0001 (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Project tagging - is this article in scope?

SoundGirls looks like the sort of article that's of interest here. Is there anything for tagging the talk: page on articles like that to indicate such relevance?

(Also, any editor effort is of course welcome) Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley: You'll see I've tagged it WIR-108 which covers "articles on women in any area of interest at any time". Hope you will be writing more articles about women. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Xifeng Wu

I've just created a stub on Xifeng Wu, a cancer epidemiologist who has been driven out of the United States by the FBI, if anybody wants to pitch in. Abductive (reasoning) 00:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks interesting. Can you provide a Google scholar profile? More sources would help too. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC).
There does not appear to be a Google Scholar profile. Abductive (reasoning) 00:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Abductive & Xxanthippe, check the SCOPUS profile. ∯WBGconverse 09:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this important information. A clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 and would save the BLP from WP:1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC).
She passes multiple PROF criteria (highly cited pubs, named chair) and also GNG for multiple mainstream media stories on her work on cancer. I have expanded the article significantly. I don't think it is in any danger. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't worried about that. I just wanted fellow editors to improve my crummy stub, as I don't usually do bios. Abductive (reasoning) 01:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
It has been even more significantly expanded by Zanhe, but now some IP editor is edit-warring to whitewash the parts about her being forced out of the US by Trumpist politics. This could use more eyes on it for now. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I anticipated that would happen, which is another reason I posted here. Abductive (reasoning) 17:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Abductive and David Eppstein: Thankfully the disruptive editor is now blocked. I've nominated the article for DYK, please see Template:Did you know nominations/Xifeng Wu and feel free to add your thoughts. I didn't choose Trumpist politics for the hook to avoid potential BLP concerns. Thanks for the contributions from everyone! -Zanhe (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Gender gap in Wikipedia editors

Saw this video by the University of Washington where it shows previous Women in Red monthly editathons plus interviews @Rosiestep: --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing it, MrLinkinPark333. Plus another one by Deutsche Welle here. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The DW article, given its wide access, is particularly interesting with its strong call for journalists to cover more articles about individual women scientists. Let's hope that will lead to significant developments. That said, it seems to me Wikipedia could be doing much more to ensure that the sources which are already available lead to biographies. I have been wondering whether it would be possible to be more proactive in increasing ties with key scientific events and conferences in which women are represented. Perhaps we could devote more time to looking for female keynote speakers at some of the important conferences. We could try to pick out the most significant ones from lists at sites such as Scientific Net, World Scientific or World Conference Alerts.--Ipigott (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hearts of Our People: Native Women Artists

A new exhibit at the Minneapolis Institute of Art. Looks interesting - and it's coming to the Renwick Gallery next year, so I'll have a chance to see it. A cursory glance at a number of articles indicates there are a number of artists featured who lack articles. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a complete list of artists - if anyone knows how to develop one, I think it'd be quite useful. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Usually the easiest way is to just contact the museum and ask for one. Often they're also happy to provide more info too. -Yupik (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Adding KellyDoyle as she's a Wikimedian-in-Residence at the Smithsonian, so she may have access to the list of artists for the upcoming Renwick exhibit. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know if a list of women artists has been obtained from the MIA or Renwick? If so, I'd be interested in obtaining a copy. I see that Rose B. Simpson's El Dorado hot rod sculpture, referencing historical black-on-black Pueblo pottery, is on the website (with no caption! - I've seen that piece at the Wheelwright Museum so I know it's Simpson's). I'm interested in working with other editors on adding/improving more Native/First Nations women artist articles. Netherzone (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Roxanne Swentzell

Hi WiR, I've made improvements to the article on Roxanne Swentzell a Native American Santa Clara Pueblo sculptor. If someone could take a look at it, assess it, and consider changing the rating on the talk page Talk:Roxanne Swentzell from a start page to a C or even, if it looks like it, a B if it qualifies. Your feedback would be appreciated if you can find issues with the page that can still be improved. Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Meets B so far as I'm concerned. Talk page now reflects that. Good work; thanks. Referencing for the 3rd sentence in the lede, and/or confirmation that ref 11 covers it, would be handy. Or if Ref 2 covers it ... indeed, whether or not ... that ref's URL needs fixing :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Tagishsimon! I will work on correcting that URL and referencing. Done! Netherzone (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
NP! --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hidden Figures: Women in the Archives of the Royal College of Physicians

FYI - https://projects.history.qmul.ac.uk/thehistorian/2019/06/20/hidden-figures/ --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

PamD 08:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 14

Newsletter • June 2019

Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.

There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:

  • A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
  • We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!

Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:

  • Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
  • WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Harini Iyengar AfD

Harini Iyengar AfD comments welcome. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I have had long conversations with the Women's Equality Party about their image policy. I had to pester them for months to get a picture of Sophie Walker and they now know how to publish free to use pictures but they dont bother. I have obvious bias towards this party, Sandi Toksvig is one of our supporters, but the WEP are not listening. Victuallers (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Patricia Mayorga

Patricia Mayorga was awarded the CPJ International Press Freedom Awards in 2017 needs translation from Spanish and can be expanded.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_62&oldid=962973709"