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

    Shortcuts

    Draft:Cordelia Camp[edit]

    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)[reply]

    Give me a moment. More references incoming. SilverserenC 00:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.
    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. SilverserenC 01:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will add these to the draft shortly. Thanks for the help! QuicoleJR (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. SilverserenC 01:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Were you still working on this, QuicoleJR? SilverserenC 02:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I got distracted. I'll try to finish it soon. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Silver seren: I published the article. I also think that your sources show notability for Camp's biography of Swain, so I'll put it on the to-do list. Thanks again for all your help. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, QuicoleJR, I've uploaded and added in the photo and I also threw the references not currently in use on the article's talk page so they don't get lost when the section over here is archived. SilverserenC 20:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone good at 'formalizing' help me with the draft for Gianna Bryant?[edit]

    Hello! First off, thanks for your patience and help, as I'm new to wikipedia and riding the learning curve.

    I recently started a draft for Gianna Bryant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gianna_Bryant and I had no idea I was wading into such a tough/contentious article. I just went to the women in red redlist index, looked for a subject I was interested in (sports), and chose a name I was at least semi-familiar with and was surprised didn't have a page.

    So, I made a draft, but apparently there was a huge discussion at the time of her death where the consensus was that she wasn't notable enough outside of her dad (Kobe Bryant), and her name would redirect to him.

    However, when learning all this through comments and the Teahouse, I was told that if I could make a case that she's become more notable in the last 4 years that maybe things have changed and she would be notable enough for her own page.

    Well, Nike's had 2 shoe releases in her honor, the WNBA now gives out a yearly award with her name attached, there was a basketball camp done in her name in honor of what would've been her 18th birthday, etc. So, with things that have occurred in the last 4 years, it seems to be that people are actually potentially accepting her notability at this point.

    But now the issue is that my draft isn't written in a formal enough tone and that perhaps there's too much in the death section. (You can read the note they left at the top of the draft article.)

    I'm not the best at formal writing (though obviously I'm working on it, if I want to help with this Women in Red project), but since this particular article is so contentious, I'm wondering if anyone out there has a desire to help make the article sound more formal, and potentially edit out part of the death section, and just generally get this up to wikipedia standards before I just keep climbing this (unintentionally) uphill battle alone?

    Sorry and thanks so much! MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I took a quick look at your draft and did some minor formatting, however the content as it stands is totally unsuitable for an article it would need a complete re-write after WP:TNT. Theroadislong (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the "Death" section is about the crash and covered in another article so needs to be removed. And you refer to "Mambacita" a few times but have never stated that it was her nickname (which I presume it was, to make sense of the mentioms). That nickname and its appearance as brandname might, possibly, be a reason to claim notability for someone who was otherwise a teenage daughter of a celebrity with little claim to fame. There was a statue of Kobe and Gianna placed on the site where they died just for a day in Jan 2022: has that statue been completed and found a permanent display? That sort of thing might contribute to her notability. PamD 07:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This suggests that a statue is planned but not yet there. PamD 08:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi and welcome @MoreWomenOnWiki! I know it can definitely be tricky to get the hang of “wiki voice”, but it’ll happen sooner than you think! I made some edits to the first section of the body of the entry, in case that can help give a sense of the encyclopedic tone that’s needed (it’s rather different from the tone of a lot of the coverage of her death, I imagine). I also trimmed some of the detail out of the death section, removing things that weren’t explicitly about her. The next step I would say is to try to summarize that section more concisely; for example, the tick-tock of the helicopter flight isn’t strictly necessary to a WP biography of her; it’s meant to be an overview or summary of why she is notable, rather than granular detail like that. I hope these suggestions are helpful. Don’t hesitate if you have more questions. Welcome to Women in Red! Innisfree987 (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Innisfree987. I may try my hand at some simpler/easier edits before I try working on this page again; we'll see. I appreciate your help! MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MoreWomenOnWiki Having now had a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Bryant (2nd nomination), which was almost unanimous in opting to redirect her name to her father's article, I think perhaps you should just give up on this article. In that discussion only one person, a now-blocked editor, voted "Keep": others were divided between "redirect" and "delete", but the closer went for "redirect" on the basis of the little bits of notability. It might be quite dispiriting to keep trying to get this article approved at AfC, and if it ws to get to mainspace it might well be nominated for deletion again. The previous version which was deleted in 2020 was well sourced and neutrally written, but the contributors to the AfD discussion agreed that she simply was not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I doubt that anything much has changed in 4 years. Sorry, but that's how it is. PamD 11:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Pam, thanks for looking into this, but as I stated above (though I know my post was a bit long, so maybe you missed it), I didn't know about those when I first wrote it, but as I got the first denial, I was talking about this/learning more in the Teahouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse (which my understanding is a place with experienced editors) and they said that if things changed in the last 4 years, she may be notable enough to deserve her own page now.
    In the last 4 years, she has had a yearly NBA award named after her. And she had 2 Nike shoes released in her honor (for what would've been her 16th and 18th birthday). She had a basketball camp played in her honor/under her name. Also, it didn't say these things in her deleted Wiki article (because I don't think these had happened at the time), but she had a tribute done by the University of Connecticut (the school where she was eventually expected to play), who said she was "forever a husky." She was an honorary member of the 2020 WNBA draft class, and the day school where she was currently a student at the time of her death retired her jersey number. So, I actually think a lot has changed in the last 4 years that should speak to her notability. And when I made that case in the Teahouse, someone even agreed that it seems she is notable enough on her own now. (Of course it probably needs more consensus than just one person, but it seems like enough has changed to merit a re-look/re-discussion.) And the most recent reason for deletion from the draft I made was style/tone, not notability (not to say that couldn't happen, but it doesn't seem to be the *current* reason).
    I probably will do some smaller edits/get more comfortable on some more straightforward articles before resubmitting it, but I do think there's a strong case for resubmission if I can get the tone right. MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so we have (a) a well-written previous article which was converted to a redirect because she was then thought not to be notable enough and (b) some new information which perhaps makes her notable (the brands etc), and (c) a draft which has been declined twice, first for notability on 1 June and then for "tone" on 3 June.
    The previous article was pretty good for tone, and well sourced too - eg it had her full name, which you hadn't included in your draft, and it explained "Mambacita" with two good references. It might be best to rescue it and add the new content, the additional claims to notability which have arisen since that 2020 AfD.
    I don't know what the process is for rescuing an article which was previously moved to a redirect and adding more content to show current notability. I think it might be OK to revert to the version which was AfD'd, add a {{under construction}} template, and then carefully improve the article over a short period of time by adding the new content, without undue detail about the crash which is covered elsewhere, and stressing the new things commemorating her in particular. And making a redirect from Mambacita (which really ought to already exist and redirect to her father's article, as the nickname/trademark is explained and referenced there). But I'd be happier if someone else commented on the procedure. I think the page history of the earlier version needs to be preserved, as is pointed out in one of the comments at AfC, and this might be the better way to do it. @Robert McClenon and Anachronist: might be able to advise, as the two decliners? Since the conversion to a redirect there have been a lot of edits to the article, but the net effect of them was just to add a useful batch of categories. Presumably doing "Restore this version" for the 15:28, 28 January 2020 version would be the way to start such a reconstruction? PamD 13:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Mamba and Mambacita Foundation would be worth more of a mention too: see here and its home page. PamD 13:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And another point I've just noticed: "Retrieved" should mean "I looked at this article online on this date and it supported the content I've added here". It's important so that if the online link stops working someone knows which version to go back to, or if it changes content we know that you were using what it said on date "x". You have a lot of references "Retrieved February 9, 2020" and similar, though you don't seem to have been editing that long. Does that mean that you just copied a chunk of someone else's work, refs and all? Or, I hope, that you followed up the references from another article, looked at the online source yourself, but then copied the actual formatted reference as being easier than working out how to do it (we all do that sometimes, it's not a problem), but without updating the "access-date"? I'm slighty surprised that neither of the AfC reviewers picked this up, but I suppose once you've decided to "decline" a draft there's perhaps no point wasting time looking at any possible further concerns.
    There's a huge amount to learn about editing Wikipedia but it's an interesting journey. I'm sorry you've launched off with what turned out to be an unexpectedly contentious topic! Good luck with it all. I think I'm now just about persuaded that Gianna/Gig/Mambacita should have an article (with a lot of incoming redirects from all the versions of her name!) PamD 14:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ipigott: I see you've just done major surgery on the draft. What do you think about the idea of resurrecting the original article, with its history, and grafting into it the new content? PamD 14:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a bit of a non-sequitur: "In the 2020 WNBA draft, Gianna Bryant, Alyssa Altobelli, and Payton Chester were made honorary draft picks", but there's no mention of the other two girls elsewhere. Looking at 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash shows that they were included in "Gianna Bryant together with her father and family acquaintances died...", but if they're worth a mention then they need a bit more explanation! (This happens, of course, when chunks of an article are stripped out: loose ends are left.) PamD 14:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Theroadislong: It looks like WP:TNT has been done as you suggested, give it a look.
    @MoreWomenOnWiki: @PamD: The recent changes to the draft are a vast improvement.
    Merge in what you can from the history in article space, and expand the lead a bit so that it summarizes the body text, and it should be ready to go. Ping me when it's done and I can do the necessary things to merge the edit histories in article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep...well done everyone. Theroadislong (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like material from the deleted version is already there. Probably just one sentence needs to be added to the lead about the helicopter crash and legacies. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to argue that it seemed unfair on the creator of the original article for them not to get the credit for the revived version... but they seem to be a blocked editor, so I don't care so much about their rights! PamD 17:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked apparently for acting out after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Bryant (2nd nomination). That looks to me like a one-time incident rather than one of our long-term problem editors. Let's hope they did or will eventually return with a more constructive attitude instead of being driven away from Wikipedia editing for good. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hope I have not been treading on anyone's toes but I've now moved a downsized version of the article to Gianna "Gigi" Bryant. Further improvements are of course welcome. It seemed important to me that after such an enthusiastic start, MoreWomenOnWiki should have at least one article to her name. We now need to tale a look at Draft:Lauren Blauvelt which was also declined at AfC.--Ipigott (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow, everybody got it done! How cool! Thanks to all who stepped in and helped. Also, Ipigott, thanks for your kindness.
      The other article I've worked on so far (but hasn't been denied or accepted yet) is Olympian Anna Hoffmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anna_Hoffmann, if anyone is interested in checking that out as well MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We can't leave it at that title: do we need to make a formal WP:RM to get it back to Gianna Bryant? (With redirects from every other name, of course). PamD 17:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You should have asked me, as I suggested above. I am skeptical that this new article title complies with WP:COMMONNAME. The histories of both articles still need to be merged. Shall I move it to Gianna Bryant and merge the histories? If I do, then the person who originally created the article would be considered the creator. No RM is needed, just ask. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:PamD, User:MoreWomenOnWiki - I see that an article has been accepted, which presumably answers the original main question, which would have been how to get the draft to be accepted as an article. I don't think that I will comment any further, because we have accomplished what we were trying to accomplish. You may ping me if there are any questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will comment that I tend to be very cautious in accepting a draft when an article on the same subject has been deleted after AFD, and other reviewers are more willing than I to review and accept such a draft, especially if they have seen the deleted article and know that the new article is better. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has now been moved to Gianna Bryant and the histories merged, so although User:MoreWomenOnWiki doesn't appear as the original editor, we do have a complete record of the various versions it has been through (creation a few times by a now-blocked editor, re-creation by a now-banned editor ... quite a saga!) I've added the {{Old AfD multi}} template to the talk page too, for completeness. I guess something to take away from all this is how important it is to check before starting an article or draft: if there is an existing redirect, have a look at its history to see whether there was a previous article which could be retrieved and improved. I've done quite a bit of work improving the article but it still has some bare URL refs I couldn't find the enthusiasm to fix. PamD 07:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Procedure (rules?) for creating a previously deleted article[edit]

    Thank you PamD for going to all the trouble of re-establishing the article's history from previously deleted versions. I must say I was rather surprised to find that earlier versions had in fact existed and after over 18 years on Wikipedia am still confused about the procedure for re-creating a deleted article. I have now looked through Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages but could not find any specific recommendations on the need to re-establish an article's history. Does this apply to all deleted articles or only to those which have become redirects? It might be useful to draw up more detailed explanations, perhaps also adding something to our essays.--Ipigott (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ipigott (Dealyed reply because some quirk means that I can't reply on WP Project talk pages when editing on my phone, and I've been away from my computer for a few days!) It wasn't me who re-established the history. I put in a WP:RM to get the article title back to its natural title of Gianna Bryant, and then others more familiar with situations like this (@Ahecht and Pppery:) decided that the history should be merged and did so. I'm sure the result is appropriate: it shows the entire complicated history of the article, including its previous creation, conversion to a redirect a couple of times, etc. It's perhaps disappointing for @MoreWomenOnWiki: that they don't get credited with the creation of the article, but everything now shows in the history, as it should.
    I think we've all had a reminder that when creating an article, if we find a redirect occupying the title, we need to have a look at the history of that redirect in case it shows that there has been a previous article at the title. If there has been, I guess the appropriate thing to do is to create the new article there, overwriting the redirect, but I'm not sure how that "new" article gets picked up, if necessary, by WP:NPP - does it have a mechanism for spotting redirects which have been converted (back) to articles? Or should the new article be created in draft anyway, and then a histmerge done when the article is approved at RfC and moved to mainspace to replace the redirect? I really don't know. PamD 07:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I note that Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages, which IPigott mentions above, is only an Essay and a Failed Proposal. It certainly doesn't mention this interesting situation of "How to re-create an article which has been converted to a redirect at AfD": I don't know whether there's any advice on that anywhere else. PamD 07:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC),,[reply]
    Thanks for your explanations, PamD. I don't understand the mechanics of any of this but from here, it certainly looks as if MWOW has received credit for creating the article.--Ipigott (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good, and interesting. It's also credited to its original creator, here, but not to the editor who re-created it from a redirect in 2020, here. Goodness knows how this all works! The page logs show the various deletions and reviews, but unfortunately don't list the creations. At least the page history is now comprehensive.
    In looking at the article again... I realised it didn't mention her mother Vanessa Bryant in infobox or text except as the source of a quote about a statue, although VB has had an article since Feb 2022, created by @TJMSmith: and tagged for WIR:222, Women in Sport. Shame on us all that we didn't spot this sooner and ensure that VB was included in the article! Now fixed. (OK, I added the quote about the statue and didn't think to check whether she had an article, so I'm at fault there.)
    Has anyone got a source for her place of birth? It's in the infobox but not the text, and should be added, sourced, to the text. PamD 13:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Anne Finucane's biography[edit]

    Hello! I have submitted a request to update the article about American banker Anne Finucane, who has retired from the vice chair role at Bank of America and taken on other responsibilities. Here is a link to my first request. Are any WikiProject Women in Red editors able to take a look and update her page for me? I am also notifying User:Victuallers, who has reviewed the article previously. Thank you! KMBrightSide (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi KMBrightSide, when making requests like this could you please indicate at the top that you are a paid editor? Thank you. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you and a good point. I think all biogs that are updated by paid editors should record that imput. I have exchanged emails with one of the people who paid KMBrightSide and I don't think they realised what mesaage you send when you pay an editor to write about you. The article I saw by KMBrightSide was (IMO) sycophantic. None of it was actually 100% wrong but on the spectrum between marketing and biography it was not as close to biography as I would expect from an uninvolved editor. The article has since been substantially improved by having sections deleted. Victuallers (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be useful if KMBS added a clear COI icon to their talk page. It's some consolation to hear that I am not the only member of Women in Red to be repeatedly invited by COI editors to incorporate suggestions for "improvement". While some of the requests I receive seem reasonable, most require extensive examination and seldom meet immediate approval. I must say I am not at all happy about spending so much valuable time reviewing requests from paid editors who are obviously primarily interested in supporting those who pay for their services. Perhaps we can take a more coordinated approach. Any suggestions?--Ipigott (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Innisfree987, Victuallers, and Ipigott: Thank you all for your responses here. I appreciate the time you've taken to engage with my request and for your guidance. I thought I had properly disclosed my COI when I listed it on my account page and the Talk page where I initially posted my request for an edit review, but I can see now that I should have called it out here too. I will make sure to note it at the top in any future edit review requests and I have added that COI icon to my talk page, as suggested. On Victuallers' reference to "the article I saw by KMBrightSide," I just wanted to clarify that I've never authored an article on Wikipedia, and this recent request we are discussing is the only intervention I have ever made on the platform. I respect and am fully committed to working within Wikipedia's rules. KMBrightSide (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Innisfree987, KMBrightSide, and Ipigott: I do apologise unreservedly KMBrightSide. I had been mistaken by edits I had recently seen by another paid author and I had negligently failed to check in enough detail. That was completely my fault. Thank you for your gentle reposte. Victuallers (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Victuallers: Please accept my belated thanks for your very kind reply! I hope you’re having a lovely week. KMBrightSide (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Secretaries of State of New Mexico[edit]

    Attention @Elisa.rolle: and other interested contributors...

    over on Commons, commons:category:Secretaries of State of New Mexico has the official portraits of the female Secretaries (which is most of them) uploaded; however, most are too new to be in the public domain through expiration of copyright. These images are not federal works, and unlike California works by officers of New Mexico are not automatically PD. I have therefore nominated the problematic photos for deletion at Commons, but local copies can be kept at Wikipedia if they have a non-free use rationale template attached to them. Thank you for your attention. Arlo James Barnes 22:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It is more or less impossible to get approval for non-free photos of living people on the English Wikipedia. The only way might be if there is some specific event that is so central to their notability that we need a photo of the event, rather than of the person. It would also be unlikely to pass muster to use such a photo, even of a deceased person, in the context of a list like the one in Secretary of State of New Mexico#List of New Mexico secretaries of state. However, we probably could keep a local copy for Shirley Hooper, Ernestine D. Evans, Betty Fiorina, and Beatrice Roach Gottlieb, at least. Additionally, the list linked above has many names of people who don't appear to have articles and maybe should. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned at the discussion page at Commons, the portraits between PD year and 1989 may still be PD through the various exceptions laid out at c:Commons:Hirtle Chart (published without notice, copyright not renewed, etc.), so this should be checked. Curbon7 (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Calling for any European royalty/nobility history experts[edit]

    A sizable batch of unreferenced articles on European monarchs and noble women have been tagged as "Unreferenced" in June 2024. If you have expertise as a researcher in this area and have access to reliable sources across various languages, please have a go at reviewing this list and adding at least one citation to the articles worth keeping...and give some thought as to what should happen to the rest. Because otherwise, the default outcome might be to delete or redirect to one of their male spouses...and maybe that's not always the right choice. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Phoolan Devi (again)[edit]

    Hello, I've nearly got Phoolan Devi on the front page and there's a request for an image of her at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests/Phoolan_Devi. If anyone can point me towards a free to use image of Phoolan Devi, that'd be helpful, although I feel like users including @GRuban have already tried their best. Cheers! Mujinga (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mrs. E. J. Ottoway/ Ruth Haller Ottoway[edit]

    Ruth Haller Ottoway

    Just uploaded an image to commons of Mrs. E. J. Ottaway (Ruth Haller Ottoway). She was vice president of the National Federation of Music Clubs at the time this photo was published in May 1927. I found this article on her later marriage to composer and conductor Nikolai Sokoloff in The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/1937/05/09/archives/mrs-ej-ottaway-wed-to-musician-married-in-the-home-of-mrs-olga.html It states she was chairman of the National Council of Women of the United States at the time of her marriage and that she was a leader in a number of civic/non-profits of note. She probably would make a nice little article if someone takes the time to dig for more sources. I added her image to Sokoloff's article.4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    CFD on Category:Women who experienced pregnancy loss[edit]

    Hello everyone. There is an important discussion going on at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 6#Category:Women who experienced pregnancy loss. It's a complex topic with good arguments on both sides for having and not having such a category. Last year, the discussion (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 6#Category:Women who experienced pregnancy loss) ended in no consensus. Your input may be appreciated, especially with reference to relevant policies and guidelines, or similar discussions in the past that have reached clear agreements. Hopefully, we can have a nuanced conversation about it, and find agreement. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Customized training sessions?[edit]

    Hello team: I'm interested in coordinating with experienced editors to have some custom training sessions for a group of mostly women, in a women-dominated skill/craft. This includes biographies of unheralded women in the field, but is not only bios.

    I'm hoping to get grant money to support that. Is there a way to reach out to members who might be able to help create this? I'm thinking of zoom sessions, recorded, that our group can use. I'd welcome pointers to previous examples of this too. Thanks for any guidance. Mmangan333 (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi there, Mmangan333 and welcome to Women in Red. To answer your question, as a first step, you might find it useful to look through the essay Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon. I would be happy to assist you but am no expert in zoom sessions.--Ipigott (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestions, I have looked at the edit-a-thon materials and someday want to do that. But what I really need is upstream of that. I have to convince people to want to edit, and want to show them that it isn't onerous. They need the very basics of "Why wikipedia matters" and an overview of philosophy of editing. Also: why women and womens's work is underrepresented. They aren't ready to touch anything yet.
    Also: some of them might never edit themselves (many are not tech-savvy or confident), but they could help us manage the project in other ways: review exiting articles, identify absent things, and suggest/prioritize the needs, offer pointers to the references, etc. So I'd like to create contributor roles for them somehow too. Mmangan333 (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Trying to get more musical theater writing women on Wiki[edit]

    Hey! By my count only 8 of 29 of the BMI alums on the BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theatre Workshop are women, and I think they are a few who are missing who could be notable enough to have pages. I've written a base-level draft for Draft:Sara Wordsworth for anyone who'd like to jump in and help. (I haven't submitted it to AfC yet, as I don't think it's ready/could use some sprucing up, but I hope there's enough to justify notability!)

    Buf if anyone has an interest in musical theater and would be interested in jumping in there, I'd greatly appreciate it! Additionally, the next person I have my eye on, is making a page for Kate Leonard https://www.yourfriendkate.com/about I'm not 100% sure if she's done enough to warrant a page, but she was a cowriter of some reasonably popular musicals, including Ratatouille the musical which raised $2 million dollars for the Actors Fund during the pandemic - which I think was the most they ever made from a fundraiser.

    So, those are just some ideas for anyone with a love of musicals who's looking for pages to work on! Wikipedian339 (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedian339: It seems close to meeting notability requirements, There may be some useful material in this. While the links to the awards are useful, it would be good to find more independent biographical coverage. If you cannot put together a full biography, you could always expand on her involvement in In Transit.--Ipigott (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much for the guidance @Ipigott! I did a deeper dive and found more things in the personal life section in addition to some more projects for the career section. If you get a chance, can you let me know what you think now Draft:Sara Wordsworth? Thanks a million! Wikipedian339 (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Following improvements, now in mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Help with new page creation for queer disabled woman artist/author[edit]

    Hello, I hope this is the right place to post this. I am having trouble getting a new page approved for Draft: Maria Sweeney a living graphic novelist. My page has gotten rejected three times for not having reliable sources, however all sources are notable publications. I am fairly new to page creation and not sure what I’m missing. Can anyone assist and offer guidance? Kapyidu (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem may be Wikipedia notability, which is normally based on reliable sources with significant coverage which are independent of the subject. The sources for Maria Sweeney don't appear to be independent: The Comics Journal, The Philadelphia Inquirer and Publisher's Weekly appear to be interviews and Street Noise Books is a publisher's listing. Ashbury Park Press is not used as a reference, but appears to be independent, albeit in a local publication. TSventon (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for your reply. That makes sense for why this would be disqualified, but I'm confused about the reasoning -- why would an interview be considered not reliable or independent? Interviews are a very common form of conveying information about a subject in journalism, and would be fact-checked by the publisher, all of which are independent publishers in my draft. Is there any way to use interviews for this draft? I appreciate your clarification, and I'll re-work to prioritize the Ashbury Park article. Kapyidu (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kapyidu interviews can be used to add details, but they can not be used to establish notability. It's like just accepting that she believes she is important, if that makes it clearer. Independent, means an organization she is not affiliated with or which contains information she has provided. SusunW (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, SusunW. I know you did not make this rule, but I think this rule is misguided -- the subject doesn't commission interviews. The fact of being interviewed by the Philadelphia Inquirer is evidence of notability. And, given that interviewing is a common and low-cost means of creating content for journals and journalists, I worry this rule further marginalizes marginalized persons. Kapyidu (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The good news is that for novelists (and graphic novelists), the bar is actually pretty low. We can fill in the details of her life from the interviews, but she can be deemed notable through WP:AUTHOR as long as we can find enough in-depth reviews of her works (independent, not pay-to-play reviews, in publications such as magazines that have some level of editorial control rather than taking all reader-submitted content). "Enough", to me, would mean at least four reviews of at least two different works, but others' thresholds may differ. If she only has one novel so far (as your draft suggests) that won't work, and instead it would be better to focus on the novel rather than the novelist, but the standard is the same: multiple in-depth reliably-published reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kapyidu, I think there is some confusion about how ‘notability’ is being used. On Wikipedia, it is not used to mean how important someone is. Instead, notability is just whether one qualifies for a page in the encyclopedia, and the standard for that, in a nutshell, is whether there’s enough secondary source content describing the subject that we are able to write a page about them without resorting to original research. Interviews are primary sources (and I don’t think there is general consensus that they are fact-checked?) so they don’t help us with this purpose. I know this is somewhat different from what most folks expect when they first start editing. Reading WP:WHYN may be helpful on this. Even if this page doesn’t work out, I know you’ll get the swing of things in no time! Welcome! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One more thought. It is true that because of bias in media coverage, this policy means there will be bias against marginalized people in who gets a Wikipedia page, but after many years of editing and hundreds of biographies of living people authored (overwhelmingly from marginalized groups), my experience is that it often doesn’t do a living person any favors to have a sparsely sourced WP page, because it frequently ends up happening that they get a flurry of negative media attention on a single episode (say, if they tweet something that draws opprobrium), and that episode ends up dominating their WP biography even if it’s really not a fair account of their life, just because there aren’t sufficient sources to describe the rest of their life and provide balance. Better to wait for solid sourcing that can develop a substantial entry that won’t later risk being so dramatically skewed by a minor incident.
    Also, there are at least thousands of marginalized people who do meet the current standard and just haven’t had anyone write up a page about them yet, so I personally think the best thing to do is to start by writing those pages. We won’t run out any time soon! Innisfree987 (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a few refs and links. If it turns out that she doesn't quite meet notability right now, it sounds very possible she will in the future (she is quite young), so... maybe keep the draft in a file someplace, anyway, so it's handy when the moment arrives. Penny Richards (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for your work on this draft! These are wonderful additions! Kapyidu (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another source that can help from an issue of The Comics Journal. SilverserenC 00:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! This was one of the interview sources that seemed to cause an issue before, but I hadn't used the Google Books link. I'll add this to the external links. Kapyidu (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Low-hanging fruit? Lady Layard[edit]

    LADY LAYARD, christened Mary Enid Evelyn Guest, was born on 1 July 1843 ... from short bio, as intro to her 8,000 pages of journals, much of which are online. Currently only seems to be a para in her husband's bio Austen Henry Layard. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    help - Good articles project?[edit]

    Hi! I thought I signed up for something happening in June trying to increase the number of Good-rated articles about women; where I could ask for an article to be read through quickly by experienced reviewers to tell me if/how it might be quick-failed within the Good review process. But now I can't find that page. Does anyone know what I'm talking about and/or have a link? jengod (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Was it Women in Green’s editathon? ForsythiaJo (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yesssss! Thank you @ForsythiaJo!! jengod (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by birth month/Women born in February[edit]

    There is a person named Silvia Reyes in this list, but I am afraid that your bot will remove this entry from the list, thinking that there is now an article about the Peruvian referee. There isn't!!! That new article is about the Spanish transgender activist of the same name. I am currently going through articles linking the referee and amending the text [[Silvia Reyes]] to read [[Silvia Reyes (referee)|Silvia Reyes]], tedious though this is. I know, though, that I cannot edit the page named in my heading. Could somebody please arrange to keep the referee Reyes's name on the list? There is still no article about her, after all, and the transgender activist is far from being one and the same. Thanks.Kelisi (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This problen occurs not only on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by birth month/Women born in February but also on the pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by time period/1980-1989 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlinks/S1. Kelisi (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikidata has two separate entries, and the referee has articles in German, French, and hu.wiki (Hungarian?). The Spanish activist has 4 articles in other wikis. PamD 20:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Women's firsts[edit]

    Category:Women's firsts (and its various sub-categories, associated lists, etc.) may be of interest to participants of this wikiproject. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikiesfera and other Wikimedia gender gap projects on Guardian[edit]

    Hi and sorry if I put this in the wrong place, the projects changed the structure and is hard for me to understand where to highlight this. Recently The Guardian and EuroWeekly News dedicated two articles (1 & 2) to Wikiesfera (a Spanish gender gap project and affiliate). There also nominated Whose Knowledge?, WikiDonne and Les sans pagEs for enwiki, itwiki and frwiki. Kudos to all. Camelia (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the infos! Mujinga (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know anything much about Spanish WP, but "Just under a fifth of Wikipedia’s content, including biographies, is focused on women,..." (Guardian article) sounds suspiciously like a typically mangled Guardian distortion of the en:wp stats, where - crudely - 25% of articles are biographies, of which 20% are of women, so only 5% of all articles are biographies of women. In the unlikely event that the Guardian's numbers relate to any reality, then the Spanish Wikipedia has done a fantastically good job! Or they don't have many articles on places, species and the other non-gendered subjects that make up the majority of en:wp articles. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Guardian article links to this WMF page, so the confusion is at least partly due to the WMF. TSventon (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or totally. That page says "As of March 2023, only 18.5% of the content in all Wikimedia projects, including biographies on Wikipedia ..", which seems oddly high to me. What's the male figure? Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, from the Humanwiki page they link to that is "All Humans with at least one Wikipedia article", so very far from all "the content in all Wikimedia projects"! Pah. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Redlists[edit]

    Hi! Sorry if it has been asked before, but could I add articles to the redlist at the LGBTQ+ women meetup? Many thanks! NoonIcarus (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    NoonIcarus The redlist section says "Add other red links here, if possible with a source", so you could add more. TSventon (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TSventon: Ah, silly me, roger. Thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Public domain photo for Janice Underwood?[edit]

    I just started Janice Underwood as part of the education and LGBTQ+ editathons. I thought for sure there would be a PD photo of Underwood because she was the first chief diversity officer of the U.S. Fed Government. I can't seem to find any. Maybe someone else may have better luck. TJMSmith (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Janice Underwood, United States governmentwide chief diversity officer, in 2023
    Hello! --GRuban (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you!!! TJMSmith (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Sandra Hemme, longest serving wrongfully convicted woman in US history[edit]

    I just created a draft for Draft:Sandra Hemme. Her conviction for a murder over 40 years ago has recently been overturned. It is believed the murder actually was committed by a police officer. Thriley (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I just realized there is already an article about the case: Murder of Patricia Jeschke. Not sure if Hemme warrants a separate article. Thriley (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keily Blair draft[edit]

    Hi editors, I wrote a draft for OnlyFans CEO Keily Blair that may be of interest to the folks here. I have a COI so I cannot create the article directly, but would love it if someone here could take a look and offer their feedback, even move it to being a full article if you think it merits that. I appreciate any insight you have. You can find the draft here. Cheers AG at OnlyFans (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks pretty balanced to me, and I made a few edits. It might be good to get one more editor's opinion on moving it to mainspace. Nick Number (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hurdlers in red[edit]

    I am planning to soon start a good article nomination for the article 2024 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres hurdles. At the moment, it still contains ten women in red who may of interest to this project (i.e. the ten red links in the table in the Round 1 subsection). – Editør (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unable to verify knighthood[edit]

    I am working on an article about Sister Anita Smisek in my sandbox. I am trying to verify "In 1995, the Czech community honored Anita with that nation's highest award. The Order of Knights of Comenius" from this source. I have been unable to find proof that the Order of Knights of Comenius is an actual thing. SL93 (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    According to page 4 of this Smisek received The Order of Knights of Comenius from the Czech Cultural Center Houston in 2004. According to page 2, 1995 was the year the Czech Cultural Center started. TSventon (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. That page also includes information that I previously couldn't find. SL93 (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple sources contradict each other on things so I scrapped the article. SL93 (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Transgender pioneers in Spain[edit]

    Given that LGBT Pride month is coming to an end, and therefore also the activity of the Women in Red Wikiproject related to it, I have thought of highlighting 4 Spanish trans women whose translation could be of special interest to the members of the wikiproject.

    --Peridotito (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Corinne Peek-Asa draft at Articles for Creation[edit]

    On behalf of the University of California, San Diego, I have submitted a draft article about American epidemiologist Corinne Peek-Asa (red-linked in this list and at WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships) as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Sharing a notice here in case any WikiProject Women in Red participants are interested in taking a look. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red&oldid=1231126923"