Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WIR)
    Woman of the day: a new one each day from our women's biographies

    Shortcuts

    2024 Olympics

    [edit]

    The 2024 Summer Olympics start soon, with the first competitions taking place on July 24 and the majority of qualifications having wrapped up. For anyone who's looking for sportswomen to turn blue, there are a lot of qualified athletes missing articles, including for nearly every sport and country, a large number of which likely pass GNG (though should not be assumed without proof). Below I've listed the number of qualified women Olympians who are redlinks by sport, with links to the lists:

    Just thought I'd share the statistics I recorded. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't forget the Paralympic Games... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ^ For those interested in writing bios of female athletes who have qualified for the 2024 Paralympics, here are some pages with easily accessible redlinks: track and field athletes, badminton players, powerlifters, shooters, and table tennis players. ForsythiaJo (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for sharing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, BeanieFan11! Sports is a little out of my usual topic areas, and the only one of these events that I have any particular interest in and knowledge of is sport climbing, but I've already added two (Piper Kelly and Jenya Kazbekova). There's more of a language barrier for some, and I think for Beatrice Colli most of the in-depth sources are unfortunately in video rather than text, but I'll see what more I can do. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BeanieFan11, this is a really great list! Have you heard of the WikiLoves Sport contest? We're hoping to encourage the creation/improvement of articles about atheletes with marginalized identities (including women) and it seems like you're on the case! Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Newspapers.com access (I am distraught)

    [edit]
    Tracked in Phabricator
    Task T322916

    Looks like Newspapers.com has been made completely unavailable now (with the button even being removed from The Wikipedia Library, replaced with "Temporarily unavailabe") and no explanation forthcoming thus far. A lot of threads on Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library and Wikipedia talk:Newspapers.com, but no answers. I'm not even sure if there's a Phabricator ticket open on it (or would this be rolled into the several prior tickets covering the many issues we've been having with Newspapers.com access?)

    It leaves me kind of at a loss on how to do proper research though. The vast majority of biographical subjects I have to write on require access to that one directory (and Newspaper Archive is a very poor substitute). Not sure what to do at this point. SilverserenC 18:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a Phabricator ticket T322916. Click on "Temporarily unavailable" for a link.
    Searching for clippings at https://www.newspapers.com/clippings/ may be better than nothing. TSventon (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I didn't realize they had turned that into a link. I see I was right though on this being added on to the same issues we've been having for nearly two years now. And no response on the ticket for three days or even really the week prior to that. That's concerning. SilverserenC 19:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the articles that I start are biographies and this is so frustrating. I don't have the money to sign up for a membership either. SL93 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Super janky workaround: if you have a free account, you can search, but you'll be prompted to pay (or start a free trial) to actually see the articles associated with the results. But, as far as I can tell, only search is broken in the WP Library proxy. So search using your free account, click on a search result, then edit the URL to replace "www.newspapers.com" with "www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org". e.g. this link is paywalled: https://www.newspapers.com/image/124073618/?match=1&terms=%22gordon%20simpson%22%20%22le%20mans%22, but this one works: https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/124073618/?match=1&terms=%22gordon%20simpson%22%20%22le%20mans%22. It's slow and clunky, but better than nothing. pburka (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    pburka Thank you for that. It works great! SusunW (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This old school hack made me laugh . Love this page and I will leave you to your fantastic work ❤️ Bunions Nonsenseses (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an update on different ways to access Newspapers.com given Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library#Still unavailable as of 7/31? I don't remotely understand the technical instructions about cookies, or how to copy them, but perhaps it will work for others. SusunW (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SusunW there is a more recent discussion here "How best to cite Newspapers.com references with the current situation?" TSventon (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TSventon, thanks. I still can't figure out how to clip, but for days I have changed the newspapers.com to www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org to read the articles and then just pasted the newspapers.com link with subscription required tag. It's annoying, but at least it works. SusunW (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Line go up (A WiR Statistical analysis)

    [edit]

    Hi everyone. I caught a statistics bug today and wanted to look at our progress in increasing the number of women's biographies on English Wikipedia. I don't know if anyone's done something like this recently, but thought I'd have a look over. As it says on the project front page, this project was created almost a decade ago, when it was discovered that women's biographies numbered roughly 15.53% of biographies on the platform. As of 1 July 2024, we have gotten this up to 19.86% (accounting for 399,180 biographies), which is a 4.33% difference. We're currently keeping track of this number using Humaniki, but its data doesn't go back as far as 2015; it started collecting data in December 2020/January 2021, so this is the data I had to work with.

    On 28 December 2020, there were 331,934 biographies about women, accounting for 18.689% of all biographies on English Wikipedia. This means that over the past three and a half years, we have created at least 67,246 new biographies, accounting for a 1.17% increase in the proportion of women's biographies. On average, this means we create roughly 19,645 new biographies each year, increasing the proportion of women's biographies by roughly 0.342% each year. (Judging by this, we can expect a 1% increase roughly every three years)

    I was pleasantly surprised to find out that it is a rarity that the number of biographies or the total percentage decreases. The last week that these numbers decreased was two years ago, on 11 July 2022, when the total number of women's biographies dropped by 187 over the preceding week. In fact, in the past three and a half years, we have only seen five weeks where the percentage of women's biographies dropped (of which two weeks saw an increase in total women's biographies, but not enough to increase the percentage figure).

    All this has led to a very steady increase in both the total number and proportional representation of women's biographies. If we keep on track with this, then according to my projections, we should hit 400,000 biographies by the end of the month and we might even hit the fabled 20% figure by the end of 2024! This will definitely be something to be celebrated and might justify a big edit-a-thon towards the end of the year in order to get us over the line. Projections of when we might get to 50% are quite a bit more distant; at current rates, we won't hit gender parity until the year 2111. What Wikipedia, the internet and the wider world will even look like by that point would be anyone's guess.

    It also seems like some of our progress might be slowing. While we increased the percentage figure by 0.415% in 2021 (accounting for over 24,000 new biographies), the percentage increased by 0.329% in 2022 and 0.296% in 2023 (each accounting for slightly over 17,000 new biographies). We're still improving things, but this does indicate a need for further outreach and onboarding if we're to keep going in the longer term.

    In any case, I hope everyone here is getting on well and enjoying the summer. All the best --Grnrchst (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for this! One thing I'd say is that if only because of history, we are most unlikely ever to get to 50%, nor should this be an aim of the project (this used to be often seen as an aim, but I think most people have now realized this). That's unless some new predominately female type of person starts being regarded as notable in large numbers. I won't labour the point, but think about large all-notable jobs with easily-found statistical data, like politicians elected to national legislatures, top-level team sports and so on. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh aye, I didn't mean to say we should have it as a hard goal; it's the direction, not the destination. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, my thanks too! I pulled out some similar figures at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics#Summary of Women in Red statistics from main page following a discussion here. I used figures from the WiR main page edit history as they go back a bit further plus a figure for September 2015. TSventon (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding my thanks! Also, for transparency, clarifying that, in 2015, Roger and I never mentioned a particular numerical goal, rather, the goal was to "move the needle", e.g., improve on the abysmal 15.53% statistic. That said, I'm guessing that most of us will be ecstatic upon reaching that elusive 20%. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    20% would be great (50% would require us to delete history). There is evidence that the new additions of biogs are much more equal but the figure is likely to settle at about 28%. The effect of additional biogs is ever decreasing - but still very important. "Moving the needle" was indeed the aim. (There were paper encyclopedias with the percentage of 3-7% women). Truly terrible - and it hurts to know that a future edition of "famous modern women of Afghanistan" is destined for an even lower target. On the other hand the figures are very skewed by an obsession with blokes who can kick a ball ... and it looks as if that is reducing. Seeing stadia filled with ppl watching women play football is marvellous. I think that if we work really hard then Rosie, and my, granddaughters (who recently met) might think that gender/racial/European bias was a "thing of history". Lets keep moving the needle. Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and Happy Birthday Women in Red you are eight today! ... and we are close to 400,000 biographies... did you realise @Rosiestep: that you and I have written over 1% of them! Victuallers (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy Birthday, Women in Red!!! I did not know that you and I wrote >1% of them, Roger... so, WOW! What I do know is that it's been quite a journey, and I'm glad that that journey included your fam and mine, including your granddaughter and mine, meeting up last month. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy Birthday, Women in Red! As of 15 July, there are now over 400,000 (19.874%) women's bios on English Wikipedia. Well done everyone!. Onwards and upwards. Oronsay (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    National Allotment Week (UK)

    [edit]

    Hello folks! Next month as part of National Allotment Week in the UK, I've been invited to speak on a panel about women and vegetable gardening. Its come about because I told a friend about the event on Plants & Gardens (which started as an idea in my head), and like lots of others here try to regularly edit about women in botany/biology/etc. I have a ten minute slot & I wondered a) if there are key things you'd like me to mention and b) if any of the stats wranglers had any figures for how green-fingered professions might have improved (or not) while the project has been running. (I bet Women in Science has also done a lot of contributing too) Lajmmoore (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know the history, but Category:Women horticulturists and gardeners currently has 63 members. TSventon (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lajmmoore, I checked the contents of Category:Women horticulturists and gardeners and only 23 of the articles existed when Women in Red started in 2015 (marked x below), so 40 have been added since, including some by yourself. TSventon (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Contents of category

    Helen Vickroy Austin 2017 Ernesta Drinker Ballard 2011 x Helen Ballard 2020 Iris Bannochie 2006 x Émile Napoléon Baumann 2018 Jelena de Belder-Kovačič 2018 Rae Selling Berry 2015 x Sue Biggs 2018 Sylvia Blankenship 2023 Andrea Brunsendorf 2018 Maggie Campbell-Culver 2013 x Angelika Campbell, Countess Cawdor 2024 Pamela Cunningham Copeland 2017 Emma G. Cummings 2018 Anna de Diesbach 2009 x Margaret Bell Douglas 2019 Jane Edmanson 2018 Margery Fish 2016 Catherine FitzGerald 2019 Olive Fitzhardinge 2012 x Elizabeth Gilmer 2009 x Jane Norton Grew 2023 Annie Gulvin 2018 Jane B. Haines 2020 Beatrix Havergal 2009 x Isabelle Bowen Henderson 2024 Amelia Egerton, Lady Hume 2018 Alice Hutchins (gardener) 2021 Charlotte Knight 2015 x Snježana Kordić 2012 x Joy Larkcom 2021 Abra Lee 2021 Norah Lindsay 2009 x Cecily Littleton 2022 Tatjana Ljujić-Mijatović 2018 Mary McMurtrie 2014 x Corinne Melchers 2020 Hilda Murrell 2004 x Lady Dorothy Nevill 2008 x Anna B. Nickels 2021 Ethel Anson Peckham 2015 y Frances Perry (gardener) 2007 x Elza Polak 2018 Nora Pöyhönen 2016 Hortensia del Prado 2021 Isabella Preston 2016 Chrystabel Procter 2018 Elsie Reford 2010 x Patricia Easterbrook Roberts 2018 Eleanour Sinclair Rohde 2006 x Lester Gertrude Ellen Rowntree 2014 x Kate Sessions 2006 x Theodosia Burr Shepherd 2018 Holly Shimizu 2021 Midori Shintani (horticulturalist) 2021 Lady Beatrix Stanley 2020 Frances Tophill 2015 x Elisa Bailly de Vilmorin 2014 x Edna Walling 2005 x Susana, Lady Walton 2010 x Karen Washington 2017 Cynthia Westcott 2017 Frances Garnet Wolseley, 2nd Viscountess Wolseley 2016

    "Dramatic deeds are remembered, but too many feminists of the past are forgotten"

    [edit]

    This Guardian article by Susanna Rustin, published today, resonated with me regarding what we're doing here. -- Rosiestep (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the link. Very interesting article. Balance person (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Helen Saunders image

    [edit]

    I want to add an image to the article Helen Saunders. I found an image here. The credit in that article for the photo of Helen Saunders states "Image credit: Wikimedia Commons (public domain)". I can NOT find this image on the commons. Any help appreciated. Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have found that image in other articles but with the credit line "The Estate of Helen Saunders", for example [2] from studio international.14GTR (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks 14GTR! I shall use the image as "fair use". I think it may have been mistakenly uploaded to the commons awhile ago and then deleted as still in copyright --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiProject Kamala Harris

    [edit]

    New WikiProject, in case any WiR members are interested:

    ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Aren't you supposed to get clearance somewhere before doing this, including showing a number of editors claiming to be committed to working on the subject? User:Joe Roe will know. WP is littered with inactive projects. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was bold! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. But what if she a) doesn't end up as the Dem candidate, or b) loses to Trump? Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Another Believer: Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Creating a WikiProject for why being bold in creating WikiProjects probably isn't helpful. A wikiproject is a group of editors. Creating the project before you have the group is putting the cart before the horse. – Joe (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents also exists (and explicitly covers VP's). I T B F 💬 10:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok! I came here to recruit participation and promote collaboration, not to be told I'm in the wrong. If you don't want to join this new WikiProject, then don't join this new WikiProject. Thanks, --Another Believer (Talk) 14:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're expressing doubt that this is an effective way to promote collaboration and concern that it will exacerbate an existing problem (profusion of inactive wikiprojects) that other editors are trying to deal with. Please do consider whether you could achieve your goal by working within the framework of an existing wikiproject. – Joe (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're just boldly telling you you probably jumped the gun. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK! I have nothing else to say here. I am not going to seek page deletion, but do what you must. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, you created Wikipedia:WikiProject Joe Biden four years ago and were told exactly the same thing, this can't be a huge surprise? – Joe (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Barbara Bartuś

    [edit]

    Hi!

    I just extended the article about Barbara Bartuś basing upon the Polish article. Could you please look and check my grammar and other stuff? ;-)

    Best wishes! -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for this. In English Wikipedia we don't link years, and we format numbers with commas for thousands, not spaces - so 12,345, rather than 12 345. I've corrected those.
    You haven't given a source for her birth date: is it in one of the refs? It needs to be clearly sourced. For the benefit of non-Polish readers, it is helpful to use the "trans-title" field in your references to show the title of the sources, so that we can get an idea what kind of source they are. The lead paragraph is a bit confusing for those who don't know what "Sejm" means: could you clarify it? Or maybe just give the dates that she was in parliament, as more meaningful?
    I'm not sure what "She was a councillady of Gmina Lipinki during its 2nd tenure." means. Because "MP" is pronounced "Empee", it takes "an" rather than "a". I've added a few missing "the"s. Remember that punctuation goes before references.
    Thanks for the article, anyway, and Happy Editing. PamD 08:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Less Than 20% of Wikipedia’s Biographies Are About Women — This CCO Wants to Change That"

    [edit]

    Great new article by WMF's Chief Comm's Officer, AAlikhan (WMF) shining a light on Wikipedia's content gender gap, which mentions Women in Red. Thanks, Anusha! -- Rosiestep (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Smart to get that in while the headline is still true (see sections above). Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the headline is about the cross Wikipedia female percentage, which is currently 18.843%, but I agree that it is smart for leaders to set themselves attainable targets. TSventon (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mary Hastings

    [edit]

    I've just created Mary Hastings, a 16th century Englishwoman who was proposed as wife of Ivan the Terrible. Can the project have a look at it and see if they could assist with any improvements? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Research:Knowledge Gaps Index/Measurement/Content

    [edit]

    Hi all. I just became aware of this: m:Research:Knowledge Gaps Index/Measurement/Content#Standard Quality Criteria. It might be useful to review these criteria regarding creating or improving articles, e.g., "It has at least 7 sections". -- Rosiestep (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that struck me as the wierd one. Many short WP articles have far too many sections imo. Where do these standards lead? Do they matter? Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The criteria are strangely mismatched in level. 1 category is something I'd expect even of a stub. 4 refs and 2 interwiki links should be true of most start-class articles. But 8k text and 7 sections are pushing towards at least C class assuming the references are proportionate. Many Good Articles do not have 7 sections. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And not all articles need an image - if it's about a philosophical concept, for example. Agree that 7 sections is ridiculous, 1 category is rarely adequate. I suppose our philosophical concept could squeeze through by using the "5 out of 6" rule - but this would allow an article with no categories, or no references, to be eligible. Very odd set of criteria! PamD 08:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A basic criterion would be "It has a lead sentence which tells the reader the significance of the topic and puts it into geographical and chronological context where appropriate" - but of course that's not measurable algorithmically (though perhaps they should be working towards that with AI?)
    Thinking of the need for a "[Name] (dates) is/was a [nationality] [role in which notable]", compared to the "[Name] was born in [city, no country] to [father's name] and [mother's name]." which we sometimes see. PamD 08:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This really seems like something written for a different language wiki (especially with all the strange grammar), or written by someone who does not actually edit Wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or both - meet Miriam Redi of WMF. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why doesn't the WMF have these things vetted by actual Wikipedia editors...? They're funding all this research that will have utterly meaningless results because no one is consulting qualified people for experimental design. Like, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the WMF read that atrocious TOOSOON paper and uncritically set up a task force to address en.wiki's egregious bias against using GHits to establish STEM women notability at AfD... JoelleJay (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good questions all! One shouldn't complain about the WMF being concerned with all WPs, not just English. It's not at all clear to me what use will be made of this. Most of the page was written by Redi in March 23, but this set of criteria appeared (by her) in December 23. Why, where did they come from, and what are they related to? Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fictional Women

    [edit]

    Wondering if this project covers fictional women as well as real ones? I ask because someone raised an issue at Talk:Women in Shakespeare's works and I wondered if this was a good place to draw attention to the article and to encourage an expansion of it. AndyJones (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes the project does cover fictional women, so it is a good place to ask. You could also try WT:SHAKESPEARE, which also seems to be active. TSventon (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Women in Red August 2024

    [edit]
    Women in Red | August 2024, Volume 10, Issue 8, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 313, 314, 315


    Online events:

    Tip of the month:

    Other ways to participate:

    Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

    --Lajmmoore (talk 19:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

    Suggestion for October - archaeologists?

    [edit]

    Please see the proposal here and follow it to comment on whether you'd be interested! Lajmmoore (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Help accessing a source?

    [edit]

    If I have to ask over at the Resource Exchange, I will, but I was wondering if anyone here knew how to access this source from New Scientist? I was looking around The Wikipedia Library, but I'm not sure if any of the databases give access specifically to that magazine. SilverserenC 18:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unhelpfully, Gale in The Wikipedia Library has access to New Scientist from February 25, 2023, while the article is from 2000. TSventon (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now resolved at WP:RX. TSventon (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, sorry for not noting that here. Apparently, what you see in my link is the full (somewhat short) article. Their whole "subscribe to see the full thing" is complete BS and where the text fades out is the real end of it anyways. Such nonsense. SilverserenC 20:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How best to cite Newspapers.com references with the current situation?

    [edit]

    I've been trying my best to go with biographical subjects where the sources wouldn't be newspaper based (scientists and such), due to the current situation discussed above about Newspapers.com access. But I can't avoid that entirely even with these biography subjects. So, question, if I still need to cite a Newspapers.com article, but am unable to clip things with the current situation, what's the best way to make a reference citation? Is a URL link like this okay to use in a reference? SilverserenC 22:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Silver seren: I've been linking to https://www.newspapers.com/image/foo and adding |url-access=subscription for now. I've bookmarked all the articles and plan to go back to add clippings once (if?) this is fixed. Nick Number (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been using those links and there's a bot that comes along and removes the Wikipedia Library proxy from the url. Gamaliel (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I pointed this out at Wikipedia_talk:Newspapers.com but I have access to Newspapers.com. If anyone needs help with clippings let me know on my talk page. Timur9008 (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Silver seren: I learned from the comment here how to log in to newspapers.com on www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org so that I can create clippings again. The full discussion is at Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library#Still unavailable as of 7/31?. Cunard (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It works!!! SilverserenC 22:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    List of women sportswriters

    [edit]

    Hey there! So I recently made a list of women sportswriters and have purposefully added red links to it of women who have had significant careers as sports writers. Since this month focuses on Women in Sports, if anyone is interested, do check this out! Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Omnis Scientia, for starting this list. At the moment, it looks rather like a set based on categories. It would be more useful if you could add basic details such as DOB and DOD, and any important types of involvement. Many of our other lists of women carry such information. See for example List of women architects or our many lists under Template:Lists of women writers by nationality. Maybe your sportswriters could also be included in pertinent nationality lists.--Ipigott (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ipigott, its very much under construction ATM. I'm gathering more names where I can and was surprised how much distinguished women don't have articles. Will definitely be adding their basic info and the newspapers and works they are known for, of course! Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Omnis Scientia In an international encyclopedia it's not appropriate to divide the list into "American" and "Others"! Please rearrange it into a neutral geographical arrangement. See List of women architects as an example - by continent and then by country. PamD 13:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PamD, will do! Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Omnis Scientia But I see your list still started with North America. Why? It's just an ordinary continent and files under "N", even if it's some editors' centre/center of the universe. I'll change it to a neutral A-Z sequence. Also, are the headings to be adjectives or placenames - they were a mixture so I standardised it on adjectives, not sure that was the best choice but at least it's consistent.
    I see that Category:Women sports journalists includes woman from a wide range of countries (India, Greece, Honduras, Venezuela, Spain, just clicking on a few of the entries) - though some may be broadcast journalists rather than sportswriters I suppose, even though the category is a child category of Category:Women sportswriters! PamD 20:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PamD, oh I didn't notice. Will fix that. I kind of got sidetracked there looking for more names outside the U.S. (not a lot, I'm afraid).
    It is odd that sports journalists is a child category of sportswriters, though. Should be the other way around. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know that it makes sense to have a distinction between sports journalists and sportswriters; I thought they were synonyms...unless journalists is meant to include non-written journalism, I guess. pburka (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pburka, sportswriting has a long history which is very interwined with sports itself. Until quite recently, sportswriters even considered themselves as being in the same profession as athletes rather than journalists. Expansion of media from print to television and then internet lessened that connection.
    As for "journalists", those include a wider range of people now, including television analysts, broadcasters, writers, bloggers, and so on. Its a catch-all term, basically. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh you've already fixed the order. Thank you! :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to see this is now progressing. I know from experience that these list require considerable time and effort to develop. I'll try to help out as time permits.--Ipigott (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Omnis Scientia. A friendly FYI that a list of women sportswriters will be helpful not only while WiR is facilitating our Women+Sports campaign, but also next month, as every September, WiR facilitates a month-long "Women Writers" event. Thanks for starting the conversation on this topic. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Living parameter in the biography wikiproject template (and also women in sports)

    [edit]

    While going through Category:Biography articles without living parameter, I noticed a slightly disproportionate number of women Olympic athletes were within it. I suspect, but am not certain that this is because of the article run WiR is hosting on Olympic athletes. I wonder if adding "living=no" or "living=yes" can be semi-automated somehow in the WiR article creation process.

    Also, as an aside, I noticed Wikiproject Women in Sports is believed to be inactive. Now would be a good time to revive it. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I dream of horses: The project is actually Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport. Thanks for pointing out it is considered inactive. It seems to me the state of activity is frequently based on the extent of editing on the project page and its talk page. This is only one measure of activity and can be misleading. I make wide use of Women's sport when reviewing or assessing articles. The information displayed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport/Assessment shows that there are now over 138,000 articles carrying the template and that a considerable number of articles are listed under Article alters, etc. I therefore think WhatamIdoing, MSGJ, or other members of WikiProject Council should list it as active.--Ipigott (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ipigott Yes, I meant Wikiproject Women's Sport.
    Is anyone actually coordinating with each other to create/maintain the articles of women athletes (or other aspects of womens' sports)? If so, we may as well consider Wikiproject Women's Sport active, and start the cat herding process of getting people to actually use the project page. If not, is Wikiproject Women's Sport really active? It's not like adding a Wikiproject template takes a lot of effort. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 10:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the basis of this discussion and recent activity, I've changed the status of Women's sport to "active". In my opinion, it's one of the most important of the "women" projects listed on sites such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women.--Ipigott (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for updating the group's status.
    A WP:WikiProject is a group of people (i.e., not a subject area, a collection of assessments, or a bunch of pages). If there are no people there, then the group should be marked as inactive. However, if there are people responding to questions, then it should be marked as active. (I suggest using semi-active for borderline or unclear situations.) It's perfectly fine for groups to change their activity levels over time. The main point behind the active/semi/inactive tags is to give people a hint about how likely they are to get the help they need. Unlike, e.g., a WP:PROD tag, marking a group as being inactive does not have any direct consequences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Birth/death date for Puerto Rican nurse Susana Centeno?

    [edit]

    I just started an article on Puerto Rican nurse and public servant Susana Centeno. She is the namesake of the Susana Centeno Hospital. I am having trouble finding her year of birth and death. Best I can find is that she was born in 1911 or 1912 and died before 2006. I also can't find any photographs of her. Hoping someone else may have better luck. TJMSmith (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I found this in the Social Security Death Index via Ancestry. Also there's an Ancestry family tree that claims that the same Susana Centeno as in the SSDI has the same names for the parents as the ones in your article. Not sure if this is conclusive under WP:RS standards but seems plausible. Gamaliel (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Birth Date 24 May 1911
    • Issue year 1952
    • Issue State Puerto Rico
    • Last Residence 00949, Toa Baja, Toa Baja, Puerto Rico, USA
    • Death Date 11 Dec 2001

    PD Image Question

    [edit]

    I asked about this over on Media copyright questions a couple days ago, but no response thus far. So I thought I would bring my question to you good people. I finished an article on Janet W. Hartley the other day and was looking for a potential public domain image for her. I ran across this photo posted by the official social media account for the NIH History Office. Is there any way to figure out if this counts as an "official publication of a US government employee during the course of their work", which would make it public domain? SilverserenC 21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe? The problem is that the post doesn't say "... and this is a photo from that 1995 interview" or even "and this is an unrelated NIH photo of her", so, even though that does seem likely, it still might be "and this is a personal photo of her taken by her grand-niece who doesn't have anything to do with the NIH, thank you very much Shirley". But the bottom of the page says "Email: history@nih.gov". Maybe send a quick email? "Hi, I'm a Wikipedia editor, who wants to know whether this photo you posted on X/Twitter is an NIH photo (which would make it public domain, so we could use it in our article). If it is, would you be so kind as to send a copy of your reply to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org?" --GRuban (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. Email sent. We'll see if I get a response. SilverserenC 21:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Slightly less pretty photos that I would consider NIH photos are in the NIH Record here: https://nihrecord.nih.gov/sites/recordNIH/files/pdf/1994/NIH-Record-1994-10-11.pdf --GRuban (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True, those are an option. If it comes down to it, which of the two there would you think turns out better if cropped to just be Hartley? SilverserenC 22:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, so I got a response, GRuban. They said that photo in particular was also scanned from an NIH publication (though didn't say which one) and they also linked to this issue as yet another photo option. All of them should be in the public domain, they said. Though I'm not sure I should use the original one I linked above if we don't know the exact source publication it's from. SilverserenC 23:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that was fast! Were they kind enough to CC permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team)? Then it depends on which VRT person you get. Honestly, I think if an NIH person says that it's an NIH photograph, that should be sufficient, without demanding publication name and page number (after all, the point is not where and when it was published, but that it was taken by the US federal govt); but you could well get a VRT person who demands a shrubbery; I have had one who demanded my article subject scan in and email their driver's license. --GRuban (talk) GRuban (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I, uh...may have forgotten to ask that part, GRuban. >_>; They did respond again though and said that the specific photo I was asking about was from the 1987 NIH issue of Women in Science, page 138. Also, they linked another issue of the NIH Record with a photo of Hartley. They said that all of these photos of her in NIH publications are public domain and requested that the Office of NIH History and Stetten Museum are put as the attribution as the holders of all said issues. But, otherwise, free to use. SilverserenC 03:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the image license template for NIH PD photos: PD-USGov-HHS-NIH TJMSmith (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I can't find information about any magazine called Women in Science. (I can find lots of pages on the subject from various science magazines and websites, including a https://womeninscience.nih.gov/ website, but that says it was created in 2007). The 1987 NIH Record issues can be found at https://nihrecord.nih.gov/past-issues/1987 and I have not flipped through them, but doubt any one has a page 137, they normally run 20 pages or so. So are you quite sure the NIH person meant this was an NIH magazine called Women in Science? If so, again, I'd be willing to take their word for it; but if not, it would be a shame if it turned out to be a Women in Science issue of some different non-NIH magazine, that happened to have a section about the women of the NIH. --GRuban (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hartley in 1987
    The photo appeared in the publication National Institutes of Health Women in Science published in 1987 on p. 138. It is public domain.
    Here's the exact quote from the email I received, GRuban. SilverserenC 22:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a similar book on Google books, unfortunately with no preview. TSventon (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that's good enough for me. I uploaded that image and put it in the article. Now if you either (A) want to go for GA or FA or something or (B) have editors that don't like you (basically anyone who might be unusually picky), you probably want to reply to your wonderful quickly-responding NIH contact, and ask: "Thank you so much, but could you please resend that email saying 'The photo appeared in the publication National Institutes of Health Women in Science published in 1987 on p. 138. It is public domain.' to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, CC-ing me?" Then the VRT responder will very likely stamp the file with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PermissionTicket, which will be good enough even for the unusually picky. (Say 90% chance; I am occasionally surprised by the evidence demanded by our fearless volunteers, as mentioned above.) The VRT people will want the link to the Commons file, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Janet_W._Hartley.jpg; including TSventon's Google Books link may help convince a skeptical VRT-er that such a thing did likely exist. --GRuban (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A woman on stage

    [edit]

    Marina Kondratyeva, who shaped the history of the stage of the Bolshoi Ballet for 70 years, first as a dancer, then a master tutor, died and appeared among the recent deaths. The attempt to also present her on DYK resulted in a tag for better sources that I hate. Any help in finding secondary sources which may be in Russian (which is very foreign to me). Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to me you have already does a pretty good job with your sources, Gerda Arendt. I see there's a snippet in Classical Music Daily which might be considered "secondary". There's also a piece in Oxford Reference but I have not been able to access the full article, even through Wikipedia Library.--Ipigott (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also this piece in the NY Times.--Ipigott (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I don't know where they get the 102 from, though. - I did what I could, but that was not enough. I hope for someone knowing Russian, and I hope that the rest of the NYT is more solid and can be quoted by someone who has access. I am busy with two men who died more recently, but really don't want to leave a celebrated ballerian of the #1 ballet in the world with the tag that I think is appropriate when a starlet has nothing but her own website. I am not in a position to remove it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda Arendt, I was able to access the International Encyclopedia of Dance article Ipigott mentioned via Wikipedia library and Oxford reference and searching for Marina Kondratieva (not Kondratyeva). It is only a couple of paragraphs, but every little helps. TSventon (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, can you please add that ref and use it where applicable. I'm busy - two RD articles on the Main page at the same time - and it would also look better if more people showed interest. I guess it's more or less what Classical Music Daily also has, and Oxford looks more serious ;) - Anybody to read the NYT. We got the advice to archive it and then read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On NYT, it has been suggested that if you remove the cookies, you can read the article in full. My problem is that I don't know how to remove NYT cookies without making a mess of everything else.--Ipigott (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Forget the NYT. It refers to someone else.--Ipigott (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red&oldid=1239324141"