Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 128

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

→

New Article? Kimberly Seals Allers

Categories for Santoshi Shrestha

Beverley Lawrence Beech

Draft:May Al-Ibrashy

Viking women at AfD

Mona Morales-Schildt (New article)

Recently added one from my WiR to-do list. Please take a moment to read Mona Morales-Schildt article to ensure that I've not left any untidiness en passent. Also, wasn't sure if the article should be tagged as a stub. It seemed at the limit (190 odd words), though somehow slightly less stubby than a clear-cut stub. Please advise. Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the article, Cl3phact0, and adding all those beautiful photos. At slightly more than 1,300 characters (I added 2 sentences to the lead), I would characterize it as Start class (not Stub); others might disagree. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Cl3phact0, thank you for an interesting article. My feedback based on Help:Translation is that you could improve the article by making sure the information in it is supported by inline citations. Secondly, the article includes sentences translated or paraphrased from the sv Wikipedia article, so they should be clearly attributed in an edit summary. TSventon (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello TSventon, thank you for your feedback.

Re: the attribution of translated source text, I placed the {{Translated|sv|Mona Morales-Schildt|partial=1}} tag on the Talk page (per HELP:HOWTRANS), but wasn't certian how best to indicate this in the article itself. I had used the {{expand Swedish|Mona Morales-Schildt|date=May 2023|section=no|topic=cult}} in the earlier stages of the Draft, however, as there isn't much information in the Swedish article that hasn't made it into the English version, this seemed like overkill (and a distraction for an ordinary reader). Please advise.

Re: citations, most of the claims made here (and in the Swedish version) are also supported by the biography on the American Swedish Institute site (deadlink source, unfortunately, so can't be 100% certain it's not WP:CIRC). I wasn't sure if it was best to use this for inline citations or as a external reference link (MOS essentially advises either/or, not both), and as the WP:VER wasn't 100% (in my view), I opted for the latter. In either case, the various national museum data in the inline citations supports most of the factual claims (dates, education, employers, relationships, etc.). Again, please advise.

Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks to me, Cl3phact0, that you have covered any problems of attribution by referring to the Swedish article in your first edit comment. Many of my articles are based on biographies which are covered in the Scandinavian versions but I seldom translate anything word for word. The way I try to avoid attribution problems is to give the following kind of comment on my first edit. In this case, I would say: "Inspired by the Swedish article on Mona Morales-Schildt, creating article on the Swedish designer and glass artist Mona Morales-Schildt". Like you, I also include an appropriate translation tag on the talk page. From time to time, I've created Scadinavian biographies from sources I found myself without realizing an article already existed in one or more of the other languages, perhaps based on a variant of the woman's name. On occasion, after adding the article to Wikidata and discovering another language version already existed, I receive reactions like the one from TSventon implying that I have not properly respected attribution. To avoid such problems, I always search Wikidata carefully for alternative names in other language versions and include a translation tag on the article's talk page just to keep everyone happy! The main problem is that women can use so many different names as a result of marriage, spelling following emigration, pen names and an occasional preference for maiden names.--Ipigott (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Rosiestep, thank you! If you like the photographs in the article, take a minute to look at the treasure-trove on Commons. If someone writes a biography about Morales-Schildt, the "Mediterranean Sailors" chapters will no doubt be fascinating. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone find any coverage for these three Olympians?

500th women's biography

Introducing iOS Watchlist: Empowering Women's Participation and Seeking Your Feedback!

Quantifying the Gap: The Gender Gap in French Writers’ Wikidata

For those who like this sort of thing, Melanie Conroy, Quantifying the Gap: The Gender Gap in French Writers’ Wikidata; Journal of Cultural Analytics Vol. 8, Issue 2, 2023May 11, 2023. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Abstract: One of the recurring questions of world literary history is how to ensure that marginalized writers are represented. The advent of a data-driven literary history has made this question even more pressing, as collaborative and distributed projects like Wikidata have been shown to exhibit large gaps between groups, despite the diversity of topics and contributors represented. In order to get an idea of how entrenched the gender gap is within literary Wikidata, I will examine the representation of male writers versus writers who are women or other genders using Wikidata. Since the data are vast and complex, I will particularly focus on the subset that is related to French and Francophone writers in Wikidata with an eye to how the gender gap evolves across nations, geography, and time. I will show that the gender gap is less significant in recent periods and in smaller Wikidata communities and that the largest Wikidata communities with the longest histories have larger gender gaps. As in other subject fields, literary topics in Wikidata are disproportionately linked to male authors. Finally, I consider some ways that the gender gap intersects with linguistic justice movements and how the gender gap can be reduced in literary Wikidata. The patterns in the data and procedure may be generalizable to literary Wikidata as a whole, especially larger Wikidata communities, because the gender gap in both the French and the Francophone subsets of the data is close to the global average; there is also a higher-than-average representation of writers of other genders that resembles other large Wikidata communities.

I am certainly one of those who "like this sort of thing". It's good to see more attention is being given to the usefulness of Wikidata but in fact the paper also provides a great deal of background information about the Wikipedia gender gap and covers developments in languages other than French. There is a short passage on the significant contribution of Women in Red (although the project's concern with quality may be over-emphasized). As for the recommendations, it is interesting that the professional communities involved in biographical data are urged to contribute directly to Wikidata. I was interested in the suggestion that "it is possible to create—computationally and/or in bulk—short biographies of writers who appear in Wikidata from statements about writers. Once these are visible to users and editors, they can be corrected or modified by native or near-native speakers". Is this something we could use as a basis for improving our coverage of women writers?--Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I think @Fuzheado might have used/mentioned this tool at one of the Smithsonian online events? I can't remember properly though! Lajmmoore (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting report on gender equality in the corporate sector

Professor Shelley Haley

Mellon family women

Women in Red - June 2023

He and She (play)

Need some help with article subject editing Wikipedia

I don't want to take this to ANI, that drama is not wanted. But I'm not sure what to do here. Thriley, Lajmmoore, and I worked together two months back on improving (and taking to DYK) an article on Celine-Marie Pascale. Now, the article subject appears to have made an account and is objecting to a line in the Early life section that says her birth place and birth year. A sentence cited to a university interview she did and stated that information. I tried talking with her on the talk page and she says that that information makes her vulnerable to identity theft and that she's working to get the university interview page taken down. What should be done here? It's very basic biographical information that, if someone actually wanted to identity theft her, could be found easily from a Google search. Silver seren^C 22:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Technically speaking, WP:DOB says, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." Unless there’s some good reason to disbelieve this editor is who they say they are, it sounds like we cannot plausibly believe they have no objection. I would leave at least DOB out, and to be honest for a low-profile notable person like this, I would (and have) generally deferred to their perception of harm, save for info really is “widely published” (which one interview with their own institution isn’t, to me.) Thanks for your thoughtfulness about this. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Innisfree987. My understanding of the policy toward living people (BLP) is to defer to their preference. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Broadly writ WP really needs a more straightforward way for people to share concerns like this. I see the subject here did not go through proper channels, and I have left them a welcome message with information about what those are, but the truth is it’s hard to learn WP policies and we should not make it hard to get these issues addressed. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a flag when a new editor or IP tries to edit a BLP, saying, “If this entry is about you, please contact [I’m not sure who. The Teahouse?].” Innisfree987 (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Her year of birth (YOB) is also available through her VIAF identifier, clickable from Authority control on her Wikipedia bio. Although not so obvious as if it were written in the Wikipedia bio itself, it is certainly available publicly. Removing it from the interview with not remove it from all records. Oronsay (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

We’re what, the seventh most read website in the world? Adding to a WP bio dramatically increases the visibility over a VIAF page (even I only sort of know what that is and I use it periodically.) I really do agree with the general spirit of our policy that we should be in the business of summarizing well-established info, not being the ones to publicize it. I recognize there’s a tension there with WiR’s mission but I think if a living subject tells us they’re harmed, we gotta prioritize that. Harming living women should not be what happens here. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

100% agree with Innisfree987 here. I rarely write about living people for exactly this reason. Even if I write about a person who is deceased, I often ask a family member, if I can locate them to look at the article before I publish it if it contains information that isn't widely known. Long dead people is a different story to my mind. I would rather err on the side of caution than provide potentially harming information. SusunW (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately the DOB will still appear in the article's history. The only way for it to be removed permanently, in accordance with the subject's wishes, is for it to be redacted - but I don't know whether there are any precedents for this. Although categorization calls for precise information on DOB, I think that in general we should be more careful about giving dates of birth for living persons unless the information is clearly displayed in related biographical material. WP:BLP states: "Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." Especially for women, DOB frequently appears to be an item deserving careful consideration.--Ipigott (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I took out the family details - it sounded like they were alarmed by that level of knowledge as well, so hopefully that will help ease their concerns. I definitely agree there needs to be a route that makes it easier for people who are concerned about their entry to share those concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Note that her year of birth is included in Wikidata, where it is sourced to the Czech national library database. It is out there, and TBH year of birth is hardly a risk for identity theft. Many women prefer to be discreet about their age because of ageism added to sexism, but Wikipedia has traditionally not gone along with this and has included year of birth where publicly available. Is agreeing to remove this year of birth really such a good idea? Would we do it if a man asked? Plenty of people would prefer to be coy about, or even lie about, their age. Just wondering. PamD 09:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

If it's listed by the Czech National Library, then there certainly seems to be a solid case for including it on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, given the specific concern of the subject, I would personally not reinsert it. As for men's reactions, I seem to remember a discussion in connection with a male actor who wished to appear younger than he was but I can't remember his name. I believe many national biographies strive to include the date and place of birth of their subjects but some only include biographies of people who are no longer living.--Ipigott (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter what reason a low-profile person has for wanting their privacy respected. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

While I read the date of birth guideline as siding with the person who wants their date of birth removed in this instance, to be honest, if there was ever a time for WP:IAR this is it. If someone who is not extremely prominent feels very strongly that relatively minor trivia should be removed from a page about them, it's just the right thing to do. We can dream up borderline cases where people want to remove their date of birth for unsympathetic reasons or whatever, but that's not really relevant here. We can respect the page subject's wishes for free, with barely any meaningful impact on the page, but presumably a big impact on how they feel about this major portion of their online existence. - Astrophobe (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should include something about this in one of our essays, perhaps in the Primer.--Ipigott (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we could do that Ipigott. Looking at the article, I think a good place would be immediately following Writing about living people presents particular difficulties. Besides neutrality, articles should avoid promotionalism, attacks, and adhere to the policies for Biographies of Living Persons. Proposed wording:

A living subject who is not a public figure may ask for birth dates or other personal details to be removed from an article, even if the statements are sourced. A best practice would be to comply with the request, especially if the information is not widely available on the internet. SusunW (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Unless there are further reactions I suggest you go ahead and add it.--Ipigott (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Newspapers.com again

Elizabeth Wilkins

Wikidata help?

July 18th

Any ideas on how to celebrate our 8th anniversary on July 18th? Rosiestep (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

My idea is to create a page (like a "meet-up" page) Happy 8th Anniversary Women in Red and invite members to share information about an article or articles they have created or edited for WIR. It could be anything: first article, favorite article, most recent article. We could create an 8th anniversary barnstar and send it to those who post to the anniversary page. I know we usually only use the mailing list for the invite, and I don't know the "spam" rules, but perhaps, just this one day - the 18th - we could send out an Anniversary Announcement with a link to the Anniversary page.

I think it would be fun to hear from the members, and the lurkers could enjoy it too. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Love this idea, WomenArtistUpdates! Unless there are objections, let's go with it. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I also think it’s a great idea! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

While for some of us it's great to see that the project has been running so well for the past eight years, I think we should also devote attention to our more recent members, especially the younger ones who will be increasingly responsible for ensuring future success. How about asking those in their teens and twenties to come forward with ideas for enhancing the project in the years to come: anything from the way we present the project and its goals to how to encourage wider participation, including suggestions in connection with out monthly and annual priorities, attracting new members and participating in the social networks, in educational fora, etc.?--Ipigott (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

As the idea is receiving some pretty strong support, I suppose we should be preparing the Anniversary Page. Would you like to make a start on this, WomenArtistUpdates. The rest of us, including Rosiestep, could then begin expanding it.--Ipigott (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Let's jump the conversation over to the July planning section of Ideas. Ipigott Rosiestep Innisfree987 and anyone else who wants to plan a party :) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Breaking Three Hours: Trailblazing African American Women Marathoners

Marie C. Bolden (redirect vs. redlink)

Slightly off topic, but...

Google Scholar

Hello all, Could someone point me to some guidance about how you can use H-index on Google Scholar as part of a biography? A page I started for Jerelle Joseph is nominated for deletion and my response is on the talk page, but I'd like to add that she has a h-index of 15, after only 5 years of research (20 is fair for 20 twenty years, I understand). Thanks in advance Lajmmoore (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless secondary independent RS, or at least non-independent RS like her personal profile (not material autogenerated by GS scraping), have noted her h index it isn't DUE. Also, in her field, the average professor is going to have an h index well over 30. Biological/chemical physics is extremely high-publication and high-citation; I know of current PhD students who already have 15+ papers and 250 citations. I haven't looked at the article to see whether she meets GNG or (somehow) NPROF C7, but she definitely doesn't meet any other NPROF criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Assistant professors usually have not accumulated the scholarly impact to pass WP:PROF. It is not impossible but it is rare and we need some evidence that they are a star, not just an ordinary assistant professor at a research university. My advice in selecting targets for article creation would be to look among full professors at research universities — they can still be notable or non-notable, but more of them are notable, and many of them do not have articles already. In any case, I agree with JoelleJay that the case for WP:PROF#C1 notability is weak, and that Google Scholar search results should not be quoted directly in articles. I would add that student scholarships, early-career awards, and awards local to a single university are not enough for WP:PROF#C2; I often deliberately omit them as being too minor to be of encyclopedic value. (This is not supposed to be a CV, which would list everything, and being too much like a CV can trigger some editors into trying to delete it.) So in Joseph's case it looks like you would need to make a case for notability through WP:GNG rather than PROF. To make that case more apparent to other editors, it may help to trim from the article its sources that are not reliable and independent of Joseph and the institutions she has been affiliated with, and the sources that do not cover her in depth, so that the sources that count towards GNG stand out a little more obviously in the reference list. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @JoelleJay for explaining the h-index and providing more context & thanks @David Eppstein for the advice, especially about GNG. Happy editing! Lajmmoore (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I added her Scopus and Google Scholar profile to her Wikidata entry. They now appear in the article via authority control. TJMSmith (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The second item on her GS profile is not by her! Xxanthippe (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC).

It's apparently an edited collection in which she co-authored a chapter. I've seen GS get confused by that before. Heck, I think at some point it was giving me credit for all the citations to a volume in which I had something published. XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Then she should not be credited with all those citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC).

Seri Wati Iku

I created the above article during our contest a few years back, and it's been prodded for deletion as of a few days ago. I'd appreciate some eyes on it to see if a.) it can be salvaged, or b.) it has to go. I do understand some of the concerns, but don't agree that the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are so small as to negate all concerns regarding notability. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

My view is that this meets NPOL, altho I have not dealt with this specific question (legislative body of a territory) in a few years so I can’t swear to current AfD practice. Personally I would deprod unless you want to take a few days first to shore up the sourcing, to reduce hassle at a possible AfD? Innisfree987 (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: Honestly, I have very little in the tank right now to work on it...it's been a long weekend and a busy/rough few weeks. Things are starting to cycle up, but it's taking some time. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Totally understand! Hope things ease up. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Cocos Isle shire council is a local body akin to a county council, so no inherent notability via WP:NPOL, but her high-ranking position within it means a WP:GNG pass is more likely than typical. Curbon7 (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that it’s the legislative body of a territory, so it’s on par with a provincial rather than local council. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree: I think it's equivalent to the Northern Territory or Western Australia and the interpretation of NPOL in this case is sufficiently uncertain that PROD is inappropriate. pburka (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Realized the PROD expires tomorrow so I went ahead and removed. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Despite two additions, now up for deletion.--Ipigott (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I've added a little more, which helps towards GNG I think. There might be more information in The Atoll, which is the paper of the Cocos and Keeling Islands, and copies are available in pdfs on online here (you need to hover over where it says Atoll on the right, and a drop down list appears). I don't have time to go through them right now, but there might be useful coverage there, for someone who has a bit more capacity Lajmmoore (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Vera Freeman

Women in red: Pan African Congress

Help with Draft:Elisabeth Niggemeyer

If anyone has the time and inclination to help the editors working on this draft that they wrote on a photographer for German Wikipedia and translated, I'm sure they'd appreciate it. I've done a bit of work on it and added two sources on De gemordete Stadt ("The Murdered City"), which appears to be analogous to Jane Jacobs' The Death and Life of Great American Cities - really quite unquestionably notable. Complicating factors: most information will be in German; she was most notable in the 1960s-1980s. At least one of the editors may have a COI, but it's not presenting WP:NPOV problems so much as WP:V problems. I'm pretty confident that she's notable, but I don't know if sources can be found for all of the information in this draft. -- asilvering (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Asilvering: The subject is notable but in the absence of many inline citations in the German version, it looks to me as if it would be pretty difficult to bring the present draft up to an acceptable standard for the EN wiki. If I were to create a biography in English, I would begin by looking for acceptable biographical sources such as this one from De Gruyter. I would then draw on some of the sources cited in the draft/German version and look for others such as those listed in searching for books under Elisabeth Niggemeyer. Once a short English biography has been created, others such as Benjamin983 could expand it with normal sourcing.--Ipigott (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

That is precisely what they need help with, yes. -- asilvering (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Well let's hope "they" see these suggestions and respond. If not, in a week or two I would be happy to create a new article on Niggemeyer but not on the basis of the German version with its unclear sourcing. Looking at the history of both in the EN and DE versions, it is quite clear Benjamin983 has not contributed to articles other than Niggemeyer. Seems therefore to be a case of COI or something similar. I would therefore suggest a new start would be a better solution. Looks to me as if Asilvering was wise to be wary of accepting the draft.--Ipigott (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned the possible COI. If you follow the link to my Talk page in my AfC comment, you will see something of an explanation (auf Deutsch). While some of the draft may need to go because it cannot be verified in reliable sources, I do not think a fresh start would be fair to this new editor, who appears to be acting in good faith and has gone to the trouble of creating the article in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

In the light of the discussion on your talk page, Asilvering, it looks as if we need to give Benjamin983 a little more time to work on the sourcing. I would recommend that the material provided by the contact who knows Niggemeyer should simply be removed from the English version. That would provide a better basis for other contributors (such as you and me) to work the article up to an acceptable standard. I'll try to remember to return to the article about a month from now to see if there has been any progress. I think it would be a mistake to wait longer than that as Niggemeyer deserves an article on the EN wiki.--Ipigott (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Isabella Weber, economist

I was shocked to see that Isabella Weber didn’t have an article. She’s a major figure in the inflation debate and has been the subject of numerous articles including this one in the New Yorker: . Thriley (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

There's a well referenced article about her in German as Isabella M. Weber].--Ipigott (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Wonderful! I am not at all proficient in German. Would a machine translation be ok? I am worried about technical jargon being mistranslated. Thriley (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

You are responsible for the text you add, so you should be reasonably sure what you're writing is correct. Read the translation, and if you are not reasonably sure, leave it out; less information is better than incorrect information. That said, we're fairly forgiving if you try your best to be careful but still make a well intentioned mistake, we're all human, and it's a wiki. Good luck and - have a free image! --GRuban (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thriley: As long as you prepare it as a draft, you should not worry too much about the quality of the translation. I am fluent in German and would be happy to check it out and move it to article space when it is ready. Google translate is now pretty good from German to English but mistranslations can occur from time to time, especially when the source text is not too clear. You can of course also use Google and/or other machine translation systems to check the source material if you would like to be more careful. And make sure in your first edit comment that you say you are translating from the German article. (See Help:Translation.) That said, it is also a good idea to incorporate information from good English language sources such as those you have already mentioned. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thriley: Thanks for expanding the article on the basis of the German. I've checked and edited the translation and moved the article to mainspace where you (or other contributors} might be interested in expanding it further on the basis of the German version.--Ipigott (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I moved it back. Bunch of uncited paragraphs. I also didn’t finish translating the article. Thriley (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I just finished up the translation. Thank you again for your help. Thriley (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Are there any sources for her life in Thailand? Thriley (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Refs 2,3,5,6 are fanstastically weird and good looking but are non-standard. So that is what happens when the reference tags are not in English. scope_creep^Talk 13:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That is a sterling effort for such a quick translation and article definition. scope_creep^Talk 13:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Beautiful article. User:Thriley!--GRuban (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts on this, Thriley. You seem to have handled the translation very competently. I hope you will feel tempted to create more women's biographies on the basis of articles in other languages.--Ipigott (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I’ve done more than a few. I’m very grateful for the help. There’s many more to come for sure! Thriley (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Janaki Tschannerl, Influenced Daniel Ellsberg

Results on Humaniki

Requested move at Talk:Women in the Popular Front in the Spanish Civil War#Requested move 13 June 2023

Oxana Timofeeva

Our eighth anniversary

Thanks to Rosiestep, in connection with our eighth anniversary in mid-July we have been thinking about asking contributors to comment on their early experiences with Women in Red. We even have a tentative meetup page which could be included in our July invitation, but up to now, no one has responded. Unless we can make a start with at least three responses within the next few days, it may not be such a good idea to include it in the invitation although we could still send something out later. I could add a few words myself but would be particularly happy to try to get the ball rolling with inputs from some of our keenest contributors and all the others who have helped to ensure the project's success. Anyone interested?--Ipigott (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, Ian, I'm just seeing this. I'll stop by and add a few words in comment about WiR and the wonderful contributions this project has made to closing the gender gap on Wikipedia and creating or bringing attention to amazing articles on women that would otherwise go unnoticed. --ARose Wolf 15:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to add my 2 cents, but I am always reluctant to "be first". IMO it's the most supportive and cooperative team on WP! SusunW (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

SusunW: According to my members log, you were the 10th editor to join WiR. You should therefore not be afraid of being the first to contribute here. I'll then follow up as I was No. 12 after reading about the outcome of the Mexico meeting.--Ipigott (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Ipigott 10th is a good spot, lost in the middle ;). But, since ARoseWolf cracked the bottle open, I've posted. SusunW (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

SusunW, more than happy to set you up, beautiful Rainbow. :) --ARose Wolf 17:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

10th? I'm 970 :) (Though I recall being encouraged by WiR, and trying to do my bit to collaborate, before officially signing up.) Dsp13 (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Now that we've made a start, others might like to contribute to our meetup page.--Ipigott (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

How many times is she mentioned on EN-WP?

Looking at the this redlist and trying to find one I might want to translate, I thought it would be useful to choose the women who is mentioned the most times on EN-WP but doesn't have an article yet. She might have redlinks or not, but I'd like to know who on this list is mentioned the most number of times in other articles, and the second most, and so forth. I know how to check a name the old-fashioned, time-consuming way but is there a bot or a tool that would give me that info? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I know that Wikiproject Academic Journals has a missing journals by wikilinks list. Looks like it's updated by JL-Bot. Maybe we could get something like that for our redlists? Silver seren^C 17:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Some but not all of our redlists have a final column for the number of other wikipedias in which the person has an article (or some near approximation to that), and I often sort on that column and then skim down looking for someone who's in a lot of other wikis but not ours. Sadly, if it's a geographical listing, the top several seem often to be porn stars who I'm not interested in, but it can lead to some interesting suggestions. PamD 18:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

For example Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Afghanistan produces a possible "XYZ" candidate, Afghan policewoman Zala Zazai who is in 4 wikis - and her Portuguese article has a couple of English-language sources PamD 18:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Rosiestep: I think what you have in mind corresponds to the women in Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles. I see that Angelica Schwail-Düren, Angelika Graf, Annette Faße and Astrid King are listed in the most recent list but these are all under the As. It looks as if they are German politicians associated with the Bundestag. Perhaps Certes or other contributors could adapt the script to run longer listings and cover the other letters of the alphabet, one at a time. Maybe there could then be a tie-up with Wikidata to look for women (although some of them are not yet in Wikidata). If all this is successful, we could perhaps then draw up a redlist as a basis for focus in one of the coming months.--Ipigott (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

A customised script probably should not include links from articles via templates. Angelika Graf is mentioned on 7 pages but has 706 incoming links, mostly via templates including Template:Members of the 13th Bundestag and the 14th to 17th Bundestag templates. TSventon (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

(duplicate of the previous comment; ec resolved automatically) Beware that many counts are inflated by redlinks from templates. For example, Angelika Krüger-Leißner appears to have 815 links but is only actually mentioned in nine articles; the rest link via navboxes such as Template:Members of the 14th Bundestag. It's not possible to weed those out using a database search, though the feature has been requested. (She also had an article, which was deleted.) Certes (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Certes: Thank you for your explanations. Although the template occurrences are annoying, I think we could probably deal with them ourselves once we have lists for each letter of the alphabet. Do you think you could initially adapt your script to make lists for articles starting with B, C and D. If possible, they should be longer than the current list on the As as we would then no doubt be able to get a better picture of how to proceed further.--Ipigott (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for these insights. Seems like there's potential for new redlists. In particular, WhatLinksHere seems promising. Of course, there are all the times when she is mentioned in articles but isn't wikilinked -- unfortunately, those instances wouldn't show up using WhatLinksHere. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Rosiestep I had to search for "Angelika Graf" and "Graf, Angelika" so I would have found any unlinked mentions of Graf's name. TSventon (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

TSventon, yup, that's what I do -- I search using both instances. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I've tried limiting this to known feminine given names and to people not linked from templates, in User:Certes/Reports/Most-redlinked names. This has a button allowing anyone to re-run it; you may wish to change LIKE "B%" to LIKE "C%" etc. in two places first. There will be false positives – I'm pretty sure Brooklyn Arts Council isn't a woman, despite Brooklyn (given name) being in Category:Feminine given names – but there should be less dross than my previous attempt. One source of potentially unwanted entries is certain activities which list and link all participants, notable or not; this is particularly noticeable in curling. Unfortunately, this list will exclude cultures where the given name is not at the start of the name, such as some east Asian name styles, so these may need to be checked separately. It also excludes anyone who may be linked in many articles and also via templates. Certes (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your efforts, Certes. I'm pretty sure Rosiestep will be very happy with this.--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

This is great, Certes! Is it possible to further refine the list with sex/gender=female? I find it fascinating that there are so many "Bretts". --Rosiestep (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I was also wondering whether it would be possible to obtain a list for all the letters of the alphabet in one go, for example by deleting 'AND page_title LIKE "B%"' from the script or as Rosiestep suggests by looking for Female. This could then be used in conjunction with one of our future monthly focuses on creating biographies of women. But maybe this is not the best way to go about it. I would therefore prefer to rely on your expertise.--Ipigott (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Brett is in Category:Feminine given names. We could weed out anything that's also in Category:Masculine given names but that would lose a lot of actual women (Drew, Hilary, Jamie...) too. Theoretically we could do the whole alphabet in one go, but there's a 600-second limit on this type of query and B takes 300 seconds, so anything more would time out. (Quarry allows 1800 seconds, but still not enough.) Certes (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Feminine given names is likely to be incomplete, for example Birgit is in Category:German feminine given names, but not in Category:Feminine given names. TSventon (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. The category did look a bit light; perhaps I took the {{allincluded}} at the top too literally. I've changed the report to include the subcategories. Surprisingly, it now seems faster; perhaps the server was busy last time I tried. We have new non-women such as Brittany Farms, and Brett is still with us, but it's better than an unfiltered list. Certes (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I have just added Birgit to Category:Feminine given names and added 12 Birgits to the list. However that probably just shows that any list of female given names is unlikely to be complete. TSventon (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the only way to get a complete list is to show all the redlinks including men, buildings and many other topics not of interest. Any filtering will be a compromise that excludes some women, especially those with unusual names. Certes (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

As a result of these explanations, I suggest we should run separate lists for names beginning with each letter of the alphabet, for example starting with the As and Bs in conjunction with our new Alphabet run in July. We can simply add the lists to the lists of redlinks. I realize this will cover only the first names but as we run through the alphabet over the coming months, we should eventually cover them all (at least those for the English alphabet). What do you think, Rosiestep and WomenArtistUpdates and any others who would like to comment? (I've also suggested something along these lines on the Ideas page.)--Ipigott (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. You may want to start at a letter other than A, as previous initiatives at article creation (not necessarily concentrating on women) may already have covered the start of the alphabet before running out of enthusiasm. If desired, we could make the lists longer by including unisex forenames, or shorter by excluding feminine names which are also masculine/unisex. Certes (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Ipigott, Certes, and Rosiestep, I am going to cross-post this into Ideas/July. My understanding is that it IS possible to run the requested list, however due to its massive size it is best to attack the project 1 or 2 letters at a time. We are intergrating this effort into the Alphabet run (New and improved with more red links!), starting with A and B. Am I following? Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes; Wikipedia has millions of redlinks, so checking them for plausibility as a name is slow. Trying the whole alphabet at once would fail with a timeout error. Of course, many suggested titles won't turn into articles, but I expect that evaluating up to 600 names for B should keep article writers busy with productive work for a while. The current report attempts to include everyone with 5+ redlinks, sorted by link count. It may be that targets near the bottom of the list are generally not notable and it's most productive to stop at a higher threshold such as ten and move on to the next letter, but it's hard to guess without actually trying it. Certes (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

As an experiment, I've filtered out links from articles with a year in their titles. This should remove sportspeople linked only from a host of similar articles such as 1998 Vanuatu Junior Tiddlywinks Qualifiers, 1999 Vanuatu Junior Tiddlywinks Qualifiers, ... I've also added an example of articles which link to the alleged woman. We can easily revert if it's removed too much. Certes (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Tiddlywinks! :) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I've completed A–C lists and collated the work so far: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index#Alphabetical (most frequently redlinked). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Certes (talk • contribs) 03:33, June 19, 2023 (UTC)

Certes: Sorry you've had so much difficulty with these but now they look really good.--Ipigott (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Certes: These lists are fascinating! Thank you for creating them. Appreciate you taking the time to sort that out. I believe the lists will be quite inspirational! Ipigott: do you think we should promote them in some special way at the outset, e.g. on the July monthly invite? --Rosiestep (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Certes - question: Regarding number of redlinks, does this include {{Interlanguage link}} redlinks? Why I'm asking is that I've been doing a lot of translations this year, and I tend to use the "ill" redlink format if the redlink has an article in another language Wikipedia. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The counts should include interlanguage links. I excluded links via templates, but only when the redlink appears explicitly in the template. Certes (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

For a start, Rosiestep, I think it would be useful if you could add WIR headers to each of the lists, explaining briefly what they are. I then suggest we adapt the meetup page for the July A & B alphabet run and add the redlists for the As and Bs there. The invitation could then include a word about the extended approach.--Ipigott (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that would be useful, Ipigott, but maybe someone else would like to do that besides me. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggested you should do it as it was not only your idea but you have done such great work with WIR headers and page formatting over the years.--Ipigott (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; I appreciate that... truly. But I think it's useful for others to be involved, come up with the wording (I'm not sure what would be best) and gain experience in so doing. I need to take a back-seat here. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Each list links prominently to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index#Alphabetical (most frequently redlinked). Could improve the explanation there, rather then needing to duplicate it on each list? Certes (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

What I am thinking of is something along the lines of the header and explanation on other WIR redlists, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/University teachers. Have a go at it if you wish, Certes. Once we have a model, it can be used for all the others.--Ipigott (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Reactions to new template

I've added a template which can be copied to future lists. Certes (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Certes: What splendid lists! I started to look ... fell down a rabbit-hole by noting contrasting example links for Anita George, discovering that while most were as a scientific writer one was as a character in a film about David Lloyd George ... in fact she was his sister-in-law, probably not notable in herself but her husband, DLG's brother, certainly was, so she now redirects as Anita George (nurse) to the new article I spent most of yesterday afternoon creating on William George (solicitor): that's the way the encyclopedia grows, though only a tiny contribution on Women in Red in this case! But I noticed some fascinating things about the lists: curlers, tennis players, race-horse owners and trainers, and actors in minor telenovellas, seem heavily represented: indicative of areas where there's a pattern of very detailed articles which link every name mentioned, however unlikely they are to be notable (owner of a 1957 winning racehorse, etc), and where the same name will come up repeatedly (eg first-round loser in several years of tournament...). There are some gems in these lists, undoubtedly, but there's quite a lot of dross to be picked through. There are a lot of hard-working biologists who are repeatedly cited, in an area where editors have been conscientious about linking authors to full versions of their names in the pages for the multiple species they have writte about: some of these women might be "notable", given enough digging around. Thank you very much for assembling the lists, anyway, which will give us all lots of material to gp at. PamD 16:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I noticed lots of curlers who had taken part in many minor events which seem to redlink everyone, from winners to bar staff. The counts exclude links from articles with a year in their titles, which mitigates that somewhat, but some will slip through. Certes (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
They need to be taken with a pinch of salt. For example, there are lots of Italian male names like Andrea which coincide with female names in English and other languages. But we'll no doubt get used to these as we examine the various lists. I was surprised to see how many genuine women were involved in tennis or other sporting events such as athletics and even curling, as you say.--Ipigott (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Mentioned but not linked

These lists by Certes are awesome! Another aspect of Rosie's original question might be whether tooling could help find women who are mentioned without being linked. I manually collected some of these in looking at underlinking to women on articles classified as Wikipedia:Vital_articles. For example, the video game journalist and comedian Ellie Gibson has >200 mentions, and the archaeologist Kathryn Bard has ~140 mentions. The problem is that, without explicit linking, some sort of named entity recognition would be needed to identify these mentions. I wonder, though, if author names could be programmatically gathered from citation templates, to build frequency-ranked lists of author names which lack links. How hard would this be? Dsp13 (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The current query uses a database which records wikilinks but not wikitext, so it cannot detect anyone who is mentioned without being linked. (Of course, once we find someone who is linked, a normal search can detect further unlinked mentions.) To add people without links to the list would need a bot with access to a recent dump of the wikitext, either at Toolforge or downloaded manually to the bot owner's PC. Certes (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Statistics

Women in Red July 2023

Breaking down numbers by century?

Do we have any members who read/write Japanese?

Ann Carson

Two Ada Dundases - help detangle?

Feedback requested at proposal to drop 'your first article' link from welcome templates

The text below has been posted by Mathglot to WT:TH. As this Project works with (and runs inumerable editathon and training events for) a huge number of brand new editors to create articles about significant women, I felt I should re-post it here. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"The Wikipedia:Welcoming committee—among other things—maintains a set of a set of welcome templates aimed at new users. Many of these templates include a list of helpful links. A proposal to drop the link to Help:Your first article from welcome templates has been opened; your feedback would be welcome at WT:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#Proposal: drop 'first article' link from all templates. "

Nick Moyes: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. As you may know we welcome many new members to Women in Red each month and are hoping to attract even more. I agree there is something to be said for dropping direct links to "your first article" from the basic welcome messages although I don't think article writing should be completely removed. In this connection, priority should of course be given to improving the "default" welcome template. I would however like to point out that many of the new members of Women in Red, though newbies as Wikipedia editors, have often received basic introductions and training from WP Edu, from institutions such as the Smithsonian, or from local editathons. Where appropriate, I think we should therefore continue to invite them to look through our essays which provide guidance on writing women's biographies. I must say I am constantly surprised at the quality of many of the first articles written by new editors who have joined our project. Those with experience of programming, library sciene or information technology are obviously more prepared than others to cope with Wikipedia requirements. We should of course strive to help them along when they run into trouble.--Ipigott (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for posting here. I just wanted to make it clear that any responses on the question itself, should be added to the linked discussion, both to prevent fragmentation of the discussion, as well as to ensure that your opinion is taken into account at closure. I think issues about what impact this might have specifically to Women in Red are perfectly appropriate below and would be O/T at the Rfc; so there's a question of appropriate venue, depending on what issue you want to raise. @Ipigott: your response appears to straddle both, so in practical terms, I'd say you may wish to copy at least a portion of your response above to the Rfc, if you haven't already done so. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot: As a result of your suggestion, I've added a comment to the proposal. My comments above were intended principally for members of Women in Red and do not really apply to the basic welcome template.--Ipigott (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Reactions to new template

Mentioned but not linked

Related Articles