Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

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

Best month for two years

I'm not sure how many of our participants are interested in statistics but some might like to know that our Metrics page shows that in March over 1,960 biographies of women were created. Not since March 2022 have there been so many. It's also good to see how many new members have been signing up: 22 in March, 18 in February and 21 in January. It all looks very encouraging.--Ipigott (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is great news, Ipigott! Thank you for bringing it up here. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting on these figures, @Ipigott. It's very good to see growth in both numbers – new members and articles created. Oronsay (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Metrics wow reporting 2,005 new articles for March. This may partly be a result of Meta initiatives in Africa and Asia in connection with biographies of women.--Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Seconding that! DrThneed (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

And a third from me. I love good-news statistics. Penny Richards (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

TIME100 Women

If anyone needs ideas for new articles, it looks like there are five women on the TIME 100 list for 2024 who don't have articles yet: Rena Lee, Rachel Goldberg-Polin, Lauren Blauvelt, and Kelly Sawyer Patricof and Norah Weinstein. ForsythiaJo (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

And as a note, have we done checks of previous years' TIME lists for women who might be missing entries on Wikipedia? ForsythiaJo (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas. I have had a go at Rena Lee. Impressive lady! Balance person (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Brittany Spanos

I've gone back and re-worked the Brittany Spanos draft in the hope that we might get the article over the line before the conclusion of the S & T Alphabet run. The original references (of which there are way too many for a stub/start class piece) have been preserved on the Talk page (where I've also included a section: Past discussions relevant to this article). I've given this about as much as I can, and I'm not sure what the best practice is now. Should the article now be submitted via AfC, or can we just go ahead and publish per usual? (Pinging Stifle and Dsp13 out of curtesy.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much for putting this work in, Cl3phact0! I'll leave it to others to answer your question here. Dsp13 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Anyone? (Now we're in a month to think about press women!) Dsp13 (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of wrapper templates

Now that we no longer use a separate template for each event, I have nominated the 300+ wrapper templates for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 April 29. This will not have any noticeable impact, because they are all unused. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Great move, MSGJ. I bow to your expertise. It's been a privilege to participate in this project over the years but I now see that there's not much scope any longer for those of my age. Happy editing.--Ipigott (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a rather unfortunate outcome. Very sorry to see the depth of your discontent, Ipigott.

Out of curiosity (and curtesy), have the changes to the templates actually damaged the project – apart from the time spent creating and subsequently trying to preserve the previous method (as well as the considerable effort invested in altering it)? Does the new system now work properly? Are the project participants generally satisfied with its use and outputs? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)br>

PS: Notwithstanding unresolved bugs such as: Warning: event {{{1}}} is not recognised (seen here). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

No, MSGJ, you may not delete them. They are historical documentation of our work. You don't seem to understand that Women in Red is not just the articles we write; it is also a community that has accomplished something remarkable. You do not have permission to erase our history. Instead, mark them as being preserved for historical records, or some such. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

How thoughtful of you, Cl3phact0. to step in any ask for explanations. It's not so much the templates or the changes in relation to events and meetups but rather the fact that someone who had not shown any particular interest in Wikipedia's coverage of women suddenly decided to modify step by step our previously successful method of handling the project and its activities. I certainly recognize MSGJ's success in contributing to improving the banner shell environment but I did not expect my encouragement of his technical approach to extend so deeply into the basic setup of Women in Red. I realize that you are one of a few younger contributors who feel. the changes are welcome. I am beginning to think that it is probably because of my age (now 81), that I am not able (or willing?) to cope with the new environment. My recent attempt to help Rosie by creating Press women for May was a disaster which certainly did not serve the interests of the project. Rather than upset enthusiasts like you, I thought it better to avoid potential disagreements and conflicts in the knowledge that there are now a sufficient number of new more competent enthusiasts who will no doubt be to ensure the future success of the project. As always, I will of course be happy to help anyone who would like to draw on my experience but I have decided to not to create any more articles about women myself. I sincerely think the project could benefit by encouraging younger participants to deal with tasks such as welcoming new members and maintaining Showcase, Press and Research listings ()if these are still considered useful. I will continue to be active on Wikipedia as I have many other interests. I very much appreciate you interest, Cl3phact0, and have noticed how much you have been doing to support the project. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Redlink index

A month or so ago, I joined this WikiProject and almost forgot about it. I would like to help, but opening the redlink index just breaks my browser and I don't know what else to do. :( Please help! — 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@LunaEclipse you don't need to write about women who are on the redlists - any woman who isn't featured on Wikipedia is fine by us! I often create biographies for women who aren't on lists already. If you're looking for ideas, some lists have (CS) in brackets - these are crowd-sourced so don't usually have the big Wikidata driven tables. This is music & this is LGBT - do those open better? Lajmmoore (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Lajmmoore, they open better, thanks! I will add these pages to my watchlist. — 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous women at the 60th Venice Biennale

Reading this Guardian article I noted that neither of the indigenous women artists it mentions have articles (in any language). They are Rosa Elena Curruchich (WD) and Sarah Ortegon HighWalking (WD). Curruchich passed away a few years ago. I mention them in case anyone is looking for inspiration. Lajmmoore (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I just started a stubs on Rosa Elena Curruchich Sarah Ortegon HighWalking and additional content and sources can be found online. They both meet NARTIST criteria 4 for inclusion. Please feel free to improve the stubs for those who are interested! Netherzone (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Rater tool & talkpage templates

Hello all. Does anyone else use the rater tool and if so, have they noticed that it doesn't seem to pick up the event specific templates any more? Is there a way to fix this? It's slightly annoying to do it manually all the time Lajmmoore (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lajmmoore. Yes, I constantly use it. Same as you: I've noticed that Rater doesn't let me add WiR specific templates to article talkpages. So first I use Rater for all other Wikiprojects; then I go to the article talkpage and add the WiR template(s). --Rosiestep (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Lajmmoore and @Rosiestep. I use Rater all the time but have never used it to add WIR templates, I've always done them manually. I know from any Aussie editor who knows the creator/maintainer of Rater that they are not always available to make changes. I will raise it with my mate and see what can be done. Just warning that change is unlikely to be instant. Oronsay (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has more than 2 million bios

Exciting news. While updating the statistics via Humaniki just now, I discovered that in the last week Wikipedia has reached the 2 million mark for bios, of which 19.81% are female. (The actual percentage is 19.814% which we have always reported to two decimal places.) The march to 20% continues! Oronsay (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know if this is the first time we've been over 2 million? (Considering the number might fluctuate some with deletions and such.) That seems like a pretty big milestone to reach. Whether it's the first time or the fifth, congratulations WiR! Penny Richards (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Oronsay! Exciting milestone! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, long-expected. It is the first time - deletions do not stop the upwards trend. The female % also rises, but now pretty slowly. We discussed this a while back, with better statisticians than I contributing. Does anyone know the link? Johnbod (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Johnbod, the last few discussions I could find were January 2024, August 2023, July 2023 and April 2023. TSventon (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks - I had August 2023 in mind, but the others are relevant. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

To explain the slower growth in the percentage of women bios, I would imagine pouring warm 30°C water into a barrel of 15°C cold water. If you keep pouring at the same rate the temperature in the barrel will rise more slowly as the amount of water in the barrel increases and the temperature in the barrel gets closer to 30°C. If the water is poured more slowly the temperature in the barrel will also rise more slowly. (That may or may not make things clearer and would not work in real life.) TSventon (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have done a summary of Women in Red's statistics by year, as published on the project page starting in mid June 2016. In 2017 the percentage of women bio articles increased by 0.70%, while in 2024 (to April) it only increased by 0.24%. This can mostly be explained by a 36% increase in the number of bios (1.5 million to 2 million) between 2017 and 2024 and a reduction of 45% in the annual growth in the number of bios (101 thousand to 56 thousand) in the same period.

See updated version below

Summary of Women in Red statistics Year Women Bios Percentage Increase in % for year Increase W for year Increase B for year Percentage for year 2016 223,035 1,369,927 16.28% 2017 249,823 1,471,151 16.98% 0.70% 26,788 101,224 26.46% 2018 273,099 1,547,649 17.65% 0.66% 23,276 76,498 30.43% 2019 291,649 1,632,191 17.87% 0.22% 18,550 84,542 21.94% 2020 318,844 1,723,693 18.50% 0.63% 27,195 91,502 29.72% 2021 344,238 1,818,170 18.93% 0.44% 25,394 94,477 26.88% 2022 365,133 1,894,095 19.28% 0.34% 20,895 75,925 27.52% 2023 380,835 1,945,199 19.58% 0.30% 15,702 51,104 30.73% 2024 396,434 2,000,749 19.81% 0.24% 15,599 55,550 28.08%

TSventon (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, TSventon, for producing this interesting table. It might be useful to include a copy on our Metrics page where it can be consulted by those interested.--Ipigott (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Ipigott, thank you, I could do that. Do you or Rosiestep have any stats for July 2015 or thereabouts (date, women, total bios)? For the metrics page I could see if there are figures for calendar years. TSventon (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This is grand, TSventon!! The information on WiR's mainpage addressing "October 2014 = 15.53%" is based on the information in this article; I can't tell if the article addresses the number of women's biographies, and number of human biographies; I can only spot the percentage. The information is probably there; maybe someone else can find it. That said, when it comes to "maths", I rely on Victuallers' expertise, ergo, pinging him. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yay! I did my first 2 WIR bios this past month, so hopefully they have helped boost the percentage :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hitting 2 million is a significant step. Well done everyone. I like the water analogy and I guess thats how it has felt over the last nine years. I hope WiR raised the profile of gender bias and I would hope that many editors would have modified their direction when picking "their next article". They may not have decided to do only women from then on, but if their interest was Swedish WW2 fighter pilots then they may have decided to do all of those women pilots first as "tall poppies". Obviously as time progresses then they may return to blokes as the number of available notable women reduces in the area they are interested in. As we know the chances of getting a gender balance this year is unlikely. We have found the women who were at the battle of waterloo ... and there still dozens of notable blokes who were there. I wonder if it is possible to use the water analogy to work out what the percentage is that we are iterating towards - sadly it wont be 50% if we include all the long dead notable blokes. The good news is that we have seen evidence that 50% may be possible now! if we excluded footballers and concentrate only on contemporary women..... and! ... that Wikipedia continues to grow. If there are no new articles then change is not possible. (Hopefully not everyone is going to switch to tidying talk page templates) Victuallers (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Victuallers, if the number of biographies continues to grow and the percentage of women being added averages 28%, then the overall percentage would iterate towards 28%, albeit slowly. That assumes that nothing much will change in the future, which is unrealistic. There will be more contemporary bios to write with a higher percentage of women and a dwindling pool of 19th-century European men without articles so the percentage of women in new articles may well increase. TSventon (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's be realistic. We might be able to reach 20% this year, 21% in two or three years time and perhaps 23% within the next ten years. But I don't think we should worry too much about these numbers. What is equally important is that Women in Red should continue to cover notable figures from a wide range of interests, demonstrating that women have played a key role in the past and continue to do so today, perhaps even more significantly. The main reason we are not able to cover higher percentages is that men continue to receive wider press coverage as well as more general recognition for their efforts. Future success will therefore depend more on the development of sources about women which are suitable for use in Wikipedia than simply the efforts of our contributors. But I certainly agree that it is something of an achievement that some 240,000 biographies of women have been created since 2015, more or less doubling the number back then. I am currently devoting more of my time to encouraging and assisting new contributors as I believe they will be the ones who will best be able to ensure our future success.--Ipigott (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Ipigott, I agree with your comments above, but how did you get 240,000 biographies of women created since 2015? I couldn't find any statistics for July 2015 and the October 2014 paper was based on 893,380 biographies with gender which may exclude a lot of biographies of unknown gender. TSventon (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• @TSventon:: My figures are approximations based on the table on our Metrics page (total 216,628) with an additional number of biographies so far this year as shown in the figures for January to April. On rechecking, the total seems to be more like 223,000 (rather than 240,000) but now that you have found a figure of around 209,000 for September 2015, it does indeed seem as if we have more or less doubled the number of women's biographies since we started in mid-2015. Some of the figures on our Metrics page may be rather too high as in earlier years we included women's works, organizations, etc. For recent years, however, they should coincide exactly with the figures from Humaniki on our main page as they only cover biographies. I would also like to point out that there are a fair number of articles which Wikidata counts as only one biography (if at all) although they actually cover two or more women. These include closely associated entertainers, singers and sportswomen. But this is certainly also true of men. (Apologies to those of you baffled by 240,000 -- I should have been more careful.)--Ipigott (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I wondered about that too - it would mean we only had c. 160K female bios before, which I don't think is right. And "more or less doubling the number back then" would imply there were something like 240k "back then". I don't think the number of bios with no/unclear gender was that significant by then either. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

If 26,788 women's bios were added in 2015-16, the same as in 2016-17, then there would have been 196,247 in June 2015 and that number would have doubled to 396,434 in April 2024. The number added would have been 200,187. According to the linked article "To obtain gender meta-data for biographies, we match[ed] article URIs with the dataset by Bamman and Smith [7], which contains inferred gender for biographies based on the number of grammatically gendered words", which suggests that counting articles by gender was not trivial in 2014. TSventon (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have done some more research and found a Wikidata report from 30 September 2015 produced by Jane023 following a conversation here. That suggests a 90% increase from 209,060 in September 2015 to 396,434 in April 2024. I have updated the summary below.

See updated version below

Summary of Women in Red statistics Year Women Bios Percentage Increase in % for year Increase W for year Increase B for year Percentage for year Sep 2015 209,060 1,307,779 15.99% Jun 2016 223,035 1,369,927 16.28% 0.29% 13,975 62,148 22.49% Jun 2017 249,823 1,471,151 16.98% 0.70% 26,788 101,224 26.46% Jun 2018 273,099 1,547,649 17.65% 0.66% 23,276 76,498 30.43% Jun 2019 291,649 1,632,191 17.87% 0.22% 18,550 84,542 21.94% Jun 2020 318,844 1,723,693 18.50% 0.63% 27,195 91,502 29.72% Jun 2021 344,238 1,818,170 18.93% 0.44% 25,394 94,477 26.88% Jun 2022 365,133 1,894,095 19.28% 0.34% 20,895 75,925 27.52% Jun 2023 380,835 1,945,199 19.58% 0.30% 15,702 51,104 30.73% Apr 2024 396,434 2,000,749 19.81% 0.24% 15,599 55,550 28.08% Total 187,374 692,970 27.04%

TSventon (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping - yes this looks about right. We could step it up a bit by including more bios of women who are connected through relationships with men as more info about them has surfaced thanks to improved genealogical research online. I am referring to all those pesky royals and other notable women who married, had several kids, and then died in childbirth. They are often listed on Wikipedia pages for fathers/sons/husbands but lack their own pages because there are no reliable sources specifically discussing them. These women have had lots of additional coverage in the past twenty years, if only as heirs of their father's or brother's goods, or as pretty sitters of portraits, or as participants in significant events, or as owners of artefacts in their dowry. Many of the last century do have Wikidata items, but not enough statements to warrant a whole Wikipeda page (yet). I have tried but cannot find an easy way to extract such names from existing Wikipedia pages (due to the age-old problemm of married vs. maiden names). With three sources and three incoming links, such bios have a good chance of survival. Jane (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• According to an update here the September 2015 figures were not human only. Hence I have updated the figures again to show a 93% increase from 205,814 in September 2015 to 396,434 in April 2024.

Summary of Women in Red statistics

Year	Women	Bios	Percentage	Increase in % for year	Increase W for year	Increase B for year	Percentage for year
Sep 2015	205,814	1,299,047	15.84%
Jun 2016	223,035	1,369,927	16.28%	0.44%	17,221	70,880	24.30%
Jun 2017	249,823	1,471,151	16.98%	0.70%	26,788	101,224	26.46%
Jun 2018	273,099	1,547,649	17.65%	0.66%	23,276	76,498	30.43%
Jun 2019	291,649	1,632,191	17.87%	0.22%	18,550	84,542	21.94%
Jun 2020	318,844	1,723,693	18.50%	0.63%	27,195	91,502	29.72%
Jun 2021	344,238	1,818,170	18.93%	0.44%	25,394	94,477	26.88%
Jun 2022	365,133	1,894,095	19.28%	0.34%	20,895	75,925	27.52%
Jun 2023	380,835	1,945,199	19.58%	0.30%	15,702	51,104	30.73%
Apr 2024	396,434	2,000,749	19.81%	0.24%	15,599	55,550	28.08%
Total					190,620	701,702	27.17%

TSventon (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott and Rosiestep: I have added a version of my summary to the metrics page. Feel free to move/ remove as you see fit. TSventon (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon:: Looks good. And thank you for your enterprising efforts.--Ipigott (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a great visual and historical record. Thank you, TSventon; appreciate it. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Behind Every Good Man

I just created the article on the 1967 short documentary Behind Every Good Man (es) on the Spanish Wikipedia. It could be of interest to the wikiproject, given that it stars a trans woman and is an early example of the representation of transgender women in American cinema. --Peridotito (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Peridotito Do you know there's a template for that kind of link? {{interlanguage link}} or {{ill}}. {{ill|Behind Every Good Man|es}} produces the same effect as you did above: Behind Every Good Man. Or more sophisticatedly {{ill|Behind Every Good Man|es|lt=''Behind Every Good Man''}} for Behind Every Good Man, with "lt" being "link text", the version you want displayed. There are various other complexities available, eg if the English wikipedia title would be different from the existing one in the other wikipedia. As I understand it, when the article gets created in English wikipedia the code is automatically simplified into a plain blue link. I'm not a film buff and read very little Spanish, so I'll leave it to others to answer your actual question, just thought I'd offer some info about a perhaps little-known template! PamD 08:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

University of York Open Research Awards

The writing women around the world challenge keeps on giving, with an Open Research Award from the University of York! Lajmmoore (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore: Marvellous to see your hard work being recognised. Congratulations! :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder: Shakers in America: Wikipedia Edit-a-thon

Just wanted to post a quick reminder for anyone who might be interested that the Shakers in America Edit-a-Thon I'm doing with my choir will be this Saturday. The event page is currently live, and there's still time to sign up. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder! I added an article this afternoon for the event: Lillian Barlow. Time zones meant I wasn't really simultaneous with the other participants but I was with you in spirit. Penny Richards (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao, I uploaded several Shaker hymns to Commons and have more to upload in the days ahead after I'm back home from traveling. The hymns are ripe for Wikidata items, if they don't exist already. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about notability - Australian scientist

Hello, not sure if this is the right place to ask about this, please. The page for Josephine Cardale has a notability flag. I am still adding publications from her Trove search results, but I'm concerned by this flag. Could you please advise? Thank you! SunnyBoi (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, notability seems to be established. Theroadislong (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Magdalena Hinterdobler

Your help with finding additional references for the Magdalena Hinterdobler biography would be appreciated. I learned about this opera singer from conversations with Gerda Arendt. -- Rosiestep (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Rosiestep: There's also positive critical comment by Brachmann which I've added. There's probably more in the German press but I think this already makes it a keep.--Ipigott (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for Collaboration on a New Article for Michelle Valberg

Hello, Women in Red community!

I am currently working on a Wikipedia article about Michelle Valberg, a Canadian nature and wildlife photographer known for her extensive work documenting Canada's landscapes and wildlife, particularly the Arctic. She is a Nikon Ambassador, Canadian Geographic Photographer-in-Residence, Fellow of the Royal Canadian Geographic Society, and an International Fellow of the Explorers Club in New York City and was appointed a Member of the Order of Canada in 2022 for her contributions in photography and philanthropy.

Despite her significant achievements and contributions, I have noticed a lack of comprehensive coverage about her on Wikipedia, particularly highlighting her role as a woman in a field that significantly intersects with environmental conservation and cultural documentation.

I have been working on an initial version of the article, focusing on her career, achievements, and philanthropic efforts but would greatly appreciate any assistance to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards in terms of neutrality, verifiability, and depth.

Here is the link to the article: Draft:Michelle Valberg

Any contributions or advice you could offer would be greatly appreciated! Thank you for helping to improve the representation of women on Wikipedia and looking forward to your valuable feedback. Bojamon (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Bojamon As a reviewer I would be happy to accept if you submit.Theroadislong (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your message! I have just submitted it for review. I appreciate your support and willingness to accept it! Bojamon (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Bojamon, you have delared a WP:COI, but not (that I can see) the nature of it, which you should do. She has a what on Lake Whatever? "house"? Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out! There was something originally there, I don't know what happened. Bojamon (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Women in Green GA Editathon June 2024 - Going Back in Time

Hello WikiProject Women in Red:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in June 2024!

Running from June 1 to 30, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Going Back in Time! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 20 centuries by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Netiporn Sanesangkhom

Netiporn Sanesangkhom a Thai activist died in a hunger strike it needs expansion. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible case of mistaken identity: suffragettes Elsie and Mathilde Wolff Van Sandau

A source from the British Library suggests the two may actually have been one woman going under different names. Looks like something interesting to investigate if anyone wants to improve the page! ForsythiaJo (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just checked "Rise Up, Women!" by Diane Atkinson, which is a 2018 book documenting over 200 suffragettes. She doesn't have any Wolff or Van Sandau in the index at all, but that might be because it was before the medal was found. EEHalli (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

ForsythiaJo, I suggest moving this conversation to the article talk page and pinging the author. The article should probably be rearranged and moved to Mathilde Wolff Van Sandau unless there is equally strong evidence that there were two different women. Presumably an article about one woman would be added to the Women in Red statistics. TSventon (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

ForsythiaJo and EEHalli, I have started a discussion here. TSventon (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft article on Hush WAACs for a quick check

I went to add a woman who was a WW1 cryptographer and discovered that their entire WW1 unit was not on wikipedia. I've created a draft, and have three sound sources, plus leads for more. I'd appreciate a quick check that I've created an article that won't be deleted, given I normally do biogs.

Draft:Hush WAACs

Once I make it live, I can then hang at least two more biog stubs off from it, and connect it to the wider topics of WW1 and cryptography. EEHalli (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I've moved this to mainspace and added a few categories and links. I'm thinking I could put it in for a DYK nomination. EEHalli (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

What a great story. Thanks for sharing here. I just made minor edits for consistency. Hope the DYK goes ahead. Oronsay (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Several of the women in the list on the page have potential to become women in red biogs, and I've saved them to my trello board of wiki pages I want to do, but I suspect it will be a while before I get to them. DYK seems to be going well. EEHalli (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Teresa Lavina

Found this via Wikipedia:Teahouse#I_need_some_urgent_advice. Draft doesn't look glaringly bad, if someone is interested in getting into it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Please can someone check User:John Cummings/Articles/Gehad Hamdy before I publish it?

Hi all

If someone could check User:John Cummings/Articles/Gehad Hamdy before I publish I'd really appreciate it, the article was previously deleted so I want to try to make it as bulletproof as I can before publishing. Please feel free to just change the draft.

I've also written one for her organisation User:John Cummings/Articles/Speak Up, if anyone wants to look at that as well I'd really appreciate it also :)

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a good source for any of the awards. A lot of those sources don't have any sigcov. I would call it a tossup, leaning delete at AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Having been previously deleted it would be advisable to submit it for review at WP:AFC to get more opinions and constructive criticism. Theroadislong (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Gehad Hamdy is not only previously deleted but Create=Require administrator access protected. TSventon (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

in which case WP:AFC is definitely the way to proceed. Theroadislong (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

There aren't any independent sources giving substantial coverage to the subject -- everything is either from orgs she's affiliated with (including orgs giving her awards) or quotes from her. I would vote delete at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi TSventon thanks very much Hi Theroadislong thanks I'll do that Hi ScottishFinnishRadish thanks for looking at it, I'll see what else I can find, I'm kind of amazed that so few of the people listed in BBC 100 Women are missing articles now, its great. What other coverage do you think would be needed to make it notable? Can you explain why the vital voices source is no good? (sorry if its obvious, BLP isn't my usual area)

Question for everyone, do you think User:John Cummings/Articles/Speak Up would meet notability? Its the same sources, but I'm wondering if the difference in notability guidelines between orgs and BLP will allow it to be accepted. John Cummings (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The notability requirements for organisations, WP:ORGCRIT, are stricter than those for people, WP:BASIC, so it would probably be easier to focus on Hamdy if the sources are the same. Sources for organisations have to have significant coverage to contribute to notability, while there is more scope to combine multiple independent sources to establish notability for people. TSventon (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi TSventon, thank you for your advice, so just to be super clear, you don't think the organisation meets notability requirements currently either? John Cummings (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't tried to check the notability, if you have read WP:ORGCRIT you will see it is quite complex. As the founders article title has been salted it probably makes sense to use WP:AFC here as well. Also it would probably be useful to list the three or four best sources (reliable, secondary and independent of the subject and offering significant coverage). Otherwise a reviewer has to evaluate 22 sources, many of which will not contribute to the notability of an organisation. TSventon (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi TSventon thank you for the advice, where do you suggest I list the best sources? As the first few refs in the article or something else? John Cummings (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

John Cummings I would suggest a list on the article talk page. Someone here may have time to check 4 sources, but not 22 or more. TSventon (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

TSventon thanks again for the advice, I would say these are the strongest sources

• https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-75af095e-21f7-41b0-9c5f-a96a5e0615c1
• https://www.cairo24.com/1077396
• https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/can-social-media-help-fight-against-sexual-harassment-egypt/

John Cummings (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

John Cummings My initial feeling is the BBC article is probably too short at 99 words. openDemocracy and Cairo24 are reporting what Hamdy and a Speak Up volunteer said, so they are not independent. TSventon (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again TSventon. John Cummings (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Collective Biographies of Women - Madam La Compt not exactly a biography

I started working on the Madam La Compt from WIR Collective Biographies of Women and found out that she's a composite character over multiple generations of Mme. Marie le Comte's family, so I have broken the article down into the "Legend of Madam La Compt" and "The women who inspired the legend and their men" (could be a better title, but working with it at the moment), with subsections for four generations (five with a set of parents).

It got traction because it was in a non-fictional book Pioneer History of Illinois by Governor John Reynolds, who claimed to know the "woman" for 30 years. According to sources, he knew two or three women.

It would be really helpful if someone could take a look at the approach to see if it makes sense. I think the story has become more interesting and I look forward to learning more about the women and their families. I hope it makes sense to keep it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Since I posted this, I added the category Biography (genre) and have been expanding the story about the people that the story is based upon. I know it's just been a day, but does no answer mean no worries?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, it is possible that page watchers have left your question in the hope that a more expert editor will answer. I found the article a bit confusing, possibly because I know very little about Illinois. I suggest starting with a sentence like

• Madam La Compt is a character in the Pioneer History of Illinois written by Governor John Reynolds (1788–1865).

TSventon (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much, TSventon! I knew it needed help. I have been a bit stuck. I tweaked your suggestion a smidge and rewrote the rest of the paragraph, so I hope it sounds better now.

Where this is headed is so unorthodox that I wondered if it was going to be considered a viable article. It looks like it is, so that's really good. I have more to come - particularly about Illinois, so I'll try to tie it together better.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

A few quick edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Errors in metrics

@PamD: Further to the earlier discussion of Louis XIV's elephant I tried editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/February 2024 and saw a message "To remove an entry, turn the whole line into a comment. If you just delete it from the page, the bot may add it back", so I have commented it out. The page has since been updated without reversing my edit. TSventon (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about this, but found the earlier conversation here. The problem was with rubbish information being added to Wikidata in the first place, but thanks for working out how to get rid of the resulting nonsense! PamD 07:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought there were three problems: first rubbish info on Wikidata, second the bot doesn't correct the metric when Wikidata is corrected and third no one seemed to know how to correct the metric manually. I thought that posting here would help with the third problem. Apologies for not linking to the conversation, it only got archived yesterday. TSventon (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Problematic edits to the bio of Camera Bartolotta

It looks like this bio of Camera Bartolotta is in need of immediate help. It appears to have been changed in April with unhelpful editing (or possibly even bias/vandalism) that wasn't fixed; in addition, it was just changed again yesterday by someone who may have ties to the senatorial district office that this biographical subject represents, creating what appears to be a Conflict of Interest situation. (The individual who made the most recent edits may have initially been trying to make a good faith series of corrections to reverse the potential bias/vandalism, but ended up adding phrasing that has now made the bio read more like a political campaign ad than it does a C or B-class Women in Red article.) In my humble opinion, the majority of edits from April 28, 2024 through May 17, 2024 should probably be reverted, but I don't have the time to take this on by doing a series of manual edits and don't have the administrator rights to do a large-scale vandalism reversion of so many changes. Is there a more-experienced member(s) of the group who could take a look at the bio to see if something could be done to fix the issues that it currently has? Thank you in advance for your response. - 47thPennVols (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

If you just want to revert to an old version, you don't need any special rights: go to the article history, click on the date of the version you want to restore to get a view of that version, then click on "edit" (getting a warning that you are editing an old version) and save your edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you, David. (I finally figured out how to revert everything thanks to your help, and was able to take the article back to the last acceptable edit; so, problem solved!) - 47thPennVols (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

47thPennVols if this keeps happening, you could try Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. The editors involved seem to be fairly new, so semi-protection could help. TSventon (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Very helpful suggestion. Thank you! - 47thPennVols (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Eleanor Heartney

Is this art critic and author Wikipedia notable? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi FloridaArmy, I just did a quick search in newspapers.com here and from the number (251) and tenor of the articles, it looks like she warrants an article. In the first article that came out, she's the first person to respond the the article title "What are art critics good for?" I like her answer.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Great! Thanks CaroleHenson, that is helpful. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Cordelia Camp

I picked this one off of a redlist, and I would appreciate some help getting it ready to be an article. I would also like a second opinion on whether they are notable. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Give me a moment. More references incoming. Silverseren^C 00:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright, QuicoleJR. I've got a lot more work for you. :P There's probably more sources to find, but here's what I've got after a quick search. Definitely more than enough to show notability.

• Miss Cordelia Camp Is Leading W.N.C. Teacher (There's a photo of her in this one you can use!)
• Handbook for Teachers Issued
• Dr. Cordelia Camp Honored At DKG Society Banquet
• Miss Camp's Booklet Tells Institute Story
• Swain: Governor And Educator
• New Field In Writing
• President Swain Biography Subject
• David L. Swain, State-Builder
• Biography of Gov. Swain
• Between The Lines

Sorry for dumping a bunch of sources on you, but finding stuff is one of the things I'm best at. Several of these you can just use as references for reviews of her published books, rather than them having to absolutely be used in the biographical text proper. Silverseren^C 01:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I will add these to the draft shortly. Thanks for the help! QuicoleJR (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I don't really know how the upload system works, so do you think that you could help with the picture? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I can, but it will need to be after you're done with the article and have moved it to mainspace, QuicoleJR, since I will need to use the photo in a non-free manner, which would only be allowed in the mainspace article about the person in question. Silverseren^C 01:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I should have it done in a day or two with those sources you found. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

"El Paso librarian takes love of knowledge to Wikipedia"

Wonderful interview featuring Megalibrarygirl posted here yesterday, via elpasoinc.com. -- Rosiestep (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Like Way to go, User:Megalibrarygirl! Appreciate your work and have enjoyed collaborating, too. Congrats! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)