Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 145

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 140

←

Archive 143

→

Women economists less likely to be covered than men

A recent paper by Nicole Venus titled "The Representation of Female Economists on Wikipedia" concludes that women economists are 53% less likely than men to be covered on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting link. If I'm reading it correctly (which I may well not be) much of the 53% that you quote comes from the women economists in their data set being on average less accomplished than men economists for reasons beyond our control. When the authors factored that out, and considered people of equivalent levels of accomplishment, they still found a gender gap, but a smaller one, 9%. They write that "editors affiliated with initiatives promoting gender equality" (i.e. WIR) have helped close this gap, and there isn't really any pattern of anti-women editing within Wikipedia; instead they suggest that the remaining gap is caused by male subjects being more self-promotional than women. They also write that the main way that this bias comes to exist is through article creations rather than deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful summary, David. I was surprised to see no general background was presented on the under-representation of women as economists as explained in items such as The gender gap in economics is huge – it’s even worse than tech and The Gender Ratio in Economics in 2022. Perhaps Table 1: Summary statistics for actively publishing economists is a sound basis for comparison but I have difficulty in interpreting the figures. No doubt the Number of authors is being used as the basis for comparison.--Ipigott (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm very glad to see this research; thank you, Ipigott for sharing the link. It is my hope that many other occupations are researched by those who are qualified to do so in order that we gain understanding regarding where "Women [foo] less likely to be covered than men" is valid and where it isn't. That said, I don't know how easy it would be to change out the occupation and replicate the study. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Should we maybe start a subpage of this project that lists the occupations that have been studied, along with the dates of the studies, and gives the figures like @David Eppstein did here? I think this would be helpful information for editors looking at what academic/etc redlists they might want to target. It looks like the economist gap is actually quite small (when controlled) relative to our usual gender gap, but there are surely other fields that exhibit a much larger gap (again, once controlled). My hypothesis would be that fields that are less hostile to women in general are worse off on wikipedia (ie, that where the field's own gender gap is smaller, the wikipedia effect is likely to be larger). -- asilvering (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for these interesting suggestions. While most of the women in Category:Women economists are indeed from the academic sphere, quite a number are involved in politics, financial management or banking; further coverage here is equally important. More generally, it may indeed be interesting to draw up statistics on academics in other areas on the basis of publications but it seems to me to be equally important to cover those employed in non-academic positions. I'm not sure which other fields we need to consider. We obviously need STEM (perhaps looking separately at mathematics and engineering) but perhaps also medicine, computer science, biology, geology, social sciences, anthropology... Any suggestions on priorities here? Maybe we could also draw on existing research.--Ipigott (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The paper on economists is interesting. In response to some of your questions above @Ipigott (and because it's an area of interest to me) engineering might be the most underserved area here. Despite best efforts it continues to struggle to recruit women (there's many studies and articles on this). I had come to the talk page with the intention of asking WIR if there is any appetite to look at women in engineering in more depth? I did have a look at Category:Women_engineers and it seems that there is a general lack of categorisation, the numbers are very low. I'm an Engineer and Academic who has begun pursuing the identification of role models in more earnest in the last 6 months, hence I'm now here on wiki as it seemed like a good vehicle to do so. I would be very interested in any projects or streams of work to improve the representation of women in engineering. TheResilientEngineer (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

In regard to published papers, Table 4 in Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions may be of interest.--Ipigott (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Figure 1 proves my point above. In the UK I've just read that the numbers of women in industry are dropping...which is concerning. https://www.engineeringuk.com/research-policy/diversity-in-engineering/women-in-engineering-and-technology/

Looks like undergrads are about 21% although these numbers are a little out of date. https://www.stemwomen.com/women-in-stem-statistics-progress-and-challenges#:~:text=The%20percentage%20and%20overall%20number,of%20Engineering%20and%20Technology%20graduates. TheResilientEngineer (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rosiestep I've just sent the link for this paper to a colleague, maybe if we manage to find time we might be able to rerun it for engineers. However, I've noticed on the Category:Women Engineers page the numbers are very low though so I'm not sure how reliable a study like this would be for engineers specifically given the low categorisation. There were two against civil engineers and Dorothy Buchanan was not one of them! TheResilientEngineer (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@TheResilientEngineer: As for Category:Women engineers, you also need to take the subcategories into account. For example there are 452 in Category:American women engineers and probably a few hundred more if you look at the other subcategories.--Ipigott (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Very good points! Still getting to grips with how wiki works. Perhaps a campaign of categorisation to get a more complete/accurate picture would be a good step for an engineering campaign too? TheResilientEngineer (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@TheResilientEngineer, the way categories work is that usually items are only in the most relevant bottom-level subcategory (see WP:DIFFUSE) and not a higher-level one. See WP:DUPCAT as well. -- asilvering (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, sent comment too early: you'll probably find it's better to search for targets on wikidata, not wikipedia, since you can query individual statements like "occupation: engineer" and exclude "sex or gender: male". -- asilvering (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering very helpful thank you! I will try and read up on this. TheResilientEngineer (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Need for focus on engineering

Thank you, TheResilientEngineer, for bringing this up. Traditionally we have included engineers in our STEM events (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/285) but there seems to be a sound case for a firmer focus on engineers. If there is more general interest, perhaps we could include Engineers as a priority for this coming October. We already have Wikidata lists on Engineers and Civil engineers and a crowd-sourced list on Engineering which could be extended.--Ipigott (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for creating a new topic on this ipigott! Three great places to start are for page creation:

1) Creating pages for all Women's Engineering Society Presidents

2) Creating pages for all Society of Women Engineers Presidents

3) Extending the lists of the "notable members" of the above.

Also noting this is UK/US this should be expanded to other countries. Further the Women in Engineering page needs extending to more countries.

I'm also hoping to create a page for Nina Baker who has done SO MUCH in this area in the UK. She deserves her own page. TheResilientEngineer (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Women in Engineering redirected to Women in engineering in the United States, but I'm relieved to find that Women in engineering exists - and will retarget that redirect.... done. PamD 11:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Is Nina Baker WP:NOTABLE? She may be if her publications have been reviewed in reliable sources. TSventon (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Wow, she certainly seems notable - and opens a whole lot of Wikipedia rabbit-holes I could fall down and spend the day on:

According to her Twitter handle she's "Nina Baker OBE, DL, PhD, FIES, HonMWES"
- OBE is near-notable on its own - just need to find her in a London Gazette listing, and she'll be in one of our "nnnn Birthday/New Year Honours" lists
- Deputy Lieutenant of Glasgow - per https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2870517, but List of provosts of Glasgow#Deputy lieutenants is woefullly incomplete
- HonMWES is presumably Hon membership of the Women's Engineering Society, but there's no mention on their website ... needs a bit of research
- FIES is not FIES and I'm not sure which of several IES she might be a fellow of...?
She's also a deacon of the Incorporation of Hammermen of Glasgow, who shouldn't be a red link (nor as Hammermen of Glasgow) - see https://hammermenofglasgow.org/ - they look pretty notable, though not specifically Women (they may well have had a "First woman fights for membership of ..." at some point?)
Other refs:
- https://womenalsoknowhistory.com/individual-scholar-page/?pdb=135510
- https://defenceresnet.org/book-review/
- https://greens.scot/team/nina-baker
- https://www.magnificentwomen.co.uk/top-100-women.html - judged the list, has a nice little profile

Looks like scope for an article. But I have RL stuff to do. PamD 12:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

And another little story: https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/118942/rare-find-focuses-on-scottish-american-history/ PamD 12:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Found her in 2023 New Year Honours after a mention in https://hec.lrfoundation.org.uk/whats-on/contributors (I was rummaging around trying to identify "FIES", looking at "Nina Baker" + institute !) It gives her full name as Nina Crampton Baker. PamD 12:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

And she's in the Royal Museums Greenwich with https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/blog/library-archive/journal-first-female-navigating-cadet-merchant-navy , with quote: "Born in the 1950s on a Thames barge, Nina joined the sea rangers at 14 and her love of ships and the sea grew from there"! What a woman! PamD 12:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

London Gazette ref is: <ref>{{London Gazette |issue=63918 |date=31 December 2022 |page=N11 |supp=y }}</ref> PamD 12:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm so glad that you've learnt about the wonderful Nina Baker @PamD! Hope you had fun down that rabbit hole! So as I understand (from a conversation with WES folks and may be written somewhere) her honarary membership was because of her contributions around identifying the women in the WES archives. I think I'm right in saying she is largely behind the magnificent women website. Which is one of the main "reliable secondary sources" that the UK WES women wiki pages largely relies on for references. Having been through the Women's Engineer's Journal archives I know a lot of this information comes from there, particularly from the "news of members" sections.

I also have RL stuff to do so this hasn't happened yet, but I'm determined to create a page for her. I'm also determined to get connected with her IRL too because she may be of great help to my current side project at work I expect. TheResilientEngineer (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@TheResilientEngineer I expect you've come across it but a few years ago the Women's Engineering Society ran a National Lottery funded project in the UK which trained people to edit & (I think) created quite a few new articles. There's a legacy running still, with this recent event in June - it might be worth connecting the dots with them? Also the journal The Woman Engineer is online here. It might also be worth going to the Women in Red Ideas page and suggesting Engineering as a focus for one month next year? Lajmmoore (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

& tagging in @MumphingSquirrel & @GraemeGooday & @AnneLLib & @Emily.f.rees now I've got your usernames remembered! Lajmmoore (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

& I got a tip that @Womanwrites might be interested too! Lajmmoore (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore:: Why wait unit until next year? I suggested this October. October has traditionally been a month for focus on STEM. I suggest that this year we should clearly focus on engineers (although other STEM women could be included if necessary). Any support for this?--Ipigott (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think there was support for Archaeology as a STEM-in-focus for October to collaborate with the Women Taskforce in WikiProject Archaeology? Lajmmoore (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Lajmmoore, I certainly agree it is important to support archaeologists but as I have suggested on the Ideas page, I think we could also include engineers now that there seems to be so much interest in improving their coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore & @Ipigott What do you normally do in November? In the UK we have National Engineering day on the 13th of Nov I think and the founding date of WES was 12th Nov. Potentially could stick with archaeology for Oct and do Engineers in Nov? Just a suggestion.

Alternatively, we do both in October!!! :) TheResilientEngineer (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Worth checking out the women engineers embedded in these two pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_women_in_engineering_in_the_United_Kingdom and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_women_in_engineering - needs a lot more non US/UK adding to latter and more international context, loads of pages that could be translated on the red lists, but quality of originals is variable.

https://archive.wes.org.uk/centenary-map runs off wikidata SPARQL query, not sure its being kept an eye on tho...

MumphingSquirrel (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

For the stuff I'm doing as a side project at work I'm now connected with some of the WES folks and we will be (hopefully) doing stuff with them. They are supportive of the project for sure. The wikithon was before our side project kicked off but would LOVE to be involved in future events in this area. Particularly as I expect it will help build my skills (I'm still new here). Thank you for flagging! TheResilientEngineer (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Further, if there was appetite for a UK based in person event on this, my company would host. I'm fairly certain I can swing that. I'm also hoping to have Jess Wade speaking at an event I'm doing in November, we're just waiting for her to confirm she can join on that date. TheResilientEngineer (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate bios for Kathleen Parker

Hi. I just came across duplicate bios for a former member of the Illinois State Senate, Kathleen Parker. The first, Kathy Parker, appears to have been created/redirected in May 2018. The second, Kathleen Parker (politician), was created in June 2018. Is there a way to merge these two articles? 47thPennVols (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

47thPennVols, I have blanked and redirected the shorter Kathleen Parker (politician) article and merged the Wikidata items. All the information before you expanded the politician article seems to be present in the Kathy article, I have corrected one date. TSventon (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help! 47thPennVols (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Should I give up on this one?

Rejected at Afc, should I let it go? Draft:Tracy Schorn Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Allthemilescombined1: In order to avoid problems of notability, especially in connection with living people, I suggest you start by finding at least three reliable independent sources which cover the subject in some detail (in accordance with the guidance in our Primer and our Ten Simple Rules). If you cannot find such support for Tracy Schorn, then it might be more useful to spend your editing time on creating another biography.--Ipigott (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Allthemilescombined1

Please also take a loot at Manual of Style/Biography.

your article doesn't provide the basic information such as the date of birth to your audience. Hounaam (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting article on Wikipedia's existential crisis

Writing in today's The Guardian, Stephen Harrison presents some interesting ideas in "Wikipedia is facing an existential crisis. Can gen Z save it?" with quite a bit more on Hannah Clover.--Ipigott (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting! thanks for sharing. Hounaam (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

How and when to confirm 20% women's biographies

As you can see from our main WiR page, we have just reached 19.94% women. This is actually a two decimal approximation based on Humaniki's 19.935%. Over the next few weeks, Humaniki will no doubt produce figures in excess of 19.95%, which we would normally round up to 20% on our main page. Should we celebrate a figure which has simply been rounded up or should we wait for Humaniki to give a figure actually stating 20% or higher, without any rounding? In view of establishing such an important milestone we should perhaps wait for an uncontroversial, non-rounded 20%, even if this could take a couple of weeks longer. We would then be able to present the full figure and related data, exactly as produced by Humaniki (including women bios of something like 20.033%). I would be interested to hear whether others agree. (To avoid any premature celebrations, we could simply reproduce the three decimal figure on our main WiR page until it exceeds 20%.)--Ipigott (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say that more than 20% means more than 20%, so check the calculation if the figure is greater or equal to 20.000%. fr Wikipedia celebrated 20.001%. TSventon (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We won't celebrate 7 million articles at 6999500 articles either. —Kusma (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

WikiWomen Erasmus+ Project

I just became aware of the WikiWomen Erasmus+ Project, which will be launched at Celtic Knot Conference 2024 on Thursday, September 26, 2024. What I've been able to glean from the project's mainpage is that it's a toolkit for "gender gap and minority languages". -- Rosiestep (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Good to see you drawing attention to this interesting EU project, Rosiestep. There are more details under the partner Mercartor although the coordinating partner is actually Afük, providing more details here. There appears to be strong interest in Frisian but other partners also address Irish and regional languages in Spain. I'm pleased to see there is strong emphasis on involving schoolchildren who have also been a focus of Wikipedia's development in Norway. The project has apparently been running since early 2022 and is scheduled to end in 2025. As far as I can see, the Celtic Knot Conference will present some of the resources and toolkits which have been developed and will discuss the project's progress. Perhaps some of our Irish friends will be attending the conference.--Ipigott (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I have just seen that Yupik is speaking on developments with the Sami languagges. We can therefore expect useful feedback.--Ipigott (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Carolina Botero

I just created a draft for Carolina Botero. She received an EFF Award this month for her work. Thriley (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, you have made a good start! Are they more sources available? As I think that would help the article, especially if the sources discussed her life and what led her to receive the award, which would really help the article. Also I highly recommend fully sourcing the links as this can prevent them from Wikipedia:Link rot. I can help you with that if you would like :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I was going to put it into articlespace as a stub as I think she meets GNG. Thought I'd post here in case anyone was interested. Will add a source or two more for now and then move it. Thriley (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia North America Conference

I see from here we already have a detailed schedule for the WikiConference which will be held from 3 to 6 October in Indianapolis. Several presentations report on developments related to Women in Red while speakers include Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight, Christine Meyer and others from WikiProject Women in Religion, and Deena Larsen from WikiProject Electronic Literature. Looks like an interesting conference.--Ipigott (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Feminism page

I have just noticed the recent edits on the Feminism page and wonder if they are in accordance with the idea of citing references for everything or indeed of giving as much weight as is due but not more. Perhaps someone with a good deal more experience than I have could have a look and see what they think? They read as a bit pointed to me. Balance person (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the offending additions have now been deleted. Thanks, Balance person, for drawing our attention to them.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Rayne Rouce

Does this look ready to submit? Draft:Rayne Rouce Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks good to me, but I think a few more sources would be helpful to strengthen its nobility. Funny enough, the name is almost identical to o Rayne Royce, a fictional character I am making an article on! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I added a few more sources. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The reviewer said my tone was too admiring, but I really don't know how to change the tone. She's a total badass in every possible way. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the main issue is this line: "Rouce's performances of her original science rap songs have captivated audiences at national meetings. She has performed at the American Society of Hematology’s ASH-a-Palooza since 2018, and her special 2020 video performance can be viewed online". For the first sentence I would recommend removing it and/or saying what the source or people say about her performance song (e.g. "X from y believed her performance was "xyz"" or "x from y noted how the audience enjoyed her performance" or something along those lines. That would make it sound more neutral. Alternatively, you could remove all opinions and just list the facts (e.g. "Rouce's performance her original science rap songs at national meetings").

If possible, I think getting some more sources would make it a bit more neutral if possible, so then there is more varied coverage of her.

Also, the apostrophe in "Hematology’s" should be a ' instead per WP:CURLY.

I am not an expert but these are just minor suggestions. I really hope it is accepted next time as I agree that she is an icon! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I gave it a go. Thanks for being my wikipedia friend. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I looked at your user page and I wrote you this haiku:

In my own rom com

One character is missing

Where's my gay best friend?^[1] Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Omg thank you!! That is so lovely! (Also sorry for my lateness, I just saw this!) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

❤️ Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

References

[1]
Harris, Mark (March 11, 2024). "Missing the Gay Best Friend". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 September 2024.

Margaret Nichols

Category:Biography appearing in new biographies

Struggling to find sources for Vivienne Gray

Draft on Nina Baker

Draft on Nepalese artist

Two articles which may be about the same religious institute

D'yan Forest

Women in Red, the Wikipedia article, has questions on this project

I noticed that users were asking questions on the Women in Red article (not the WikiProject!) I don't think it would be appropriate to redirect that talk page to this one, but a template box to tell people that questions on the project should be asked here would be nice.

I'm reminded of the ChatGPT article, where people thought that they could prompt the program to respond on Wikipedia on the article's talk page. Cheers :-). LR.127 (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, LR.127. Does anyone know of a template which could be used in this connection?--Ipigott (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we will need to produce our own Wikipedia:edit notice like the one at talk:ChatGPT. I have put a link to this discussion at Talk:Women in Red in case anyone watches that page, but not this. If we agree what we want, we could ask the editor who set up the Talk:ChatGPT edit notice if they would be willing to help. TSventon (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm just being a pedant, but correct your link to Wikipedia talk:ChatGPT to just the plain Talk:ChatGPT :-). The Wikipedia talk page doesn't have the edit notice, only the article talk page. Edit your comment at Talk:Women in Red too. Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. TSventon (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I should do something like that on Google Scholar. Most recent additions to its talk page look like attempts at search queries. UPDATE: done. If we agree on what we want the edit notice to say and how to format it, I can put it in place. I don't think the ChatGPT edit notice template will work as-is for this talk page but maybe we can use it as a model. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The edit message at Talk:ChatGPT uses {{Generative AI editnotice}}. I can't find any other en Wikiprojects with articles so we could just create an editnotice with bespoke text. I suggest something like

This is not the place to talk to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. To do so, please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. If you would like to discuss this article's content or suggest improvements, you are welcome to participate and post on this page. The format could be copied from the Generative AI editnotice. TSventon (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Lucy won!

Pulling Cherokee Nation tribal councilors into Wikidata

This is a directory of the 343 current and past Cherokee Nation tribal councilors. There seems to be an option to export as an Excel file. Is there an easy way to upload this into Wikidata and identify them as Cherokee Nation citizens? Eventually, it would be great if the female councilors could then populate on the WIR Native American redlink lists. TJMSmith (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm noticing now that some in the directory may have had different legislative roles, like Amber Fite appears to be a lawyer might not have been a councilor and Amy Page was a member of the district court. TJMSmith (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Is the notability of these roles established? Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Tribal councilors yes, not sure about the others that may be in the directory. TJMSmith (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

In this connection, I think it would be useful to have reactions from editors more familiar with Cherokee history such as SusunW, ARoseWolf and Blaze Wolf.--Ipigott (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Not sure why you pinged me....I'm not actually familiar at all with Cherokee history. I've never even shown interest in it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 13:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Blaze Wolf, for confusing you with someone else.--Ipigott (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It's alright Ipigott, I assumed you thought I was familiar with Cherokee history given that I frequently interacted with ARoseWolf in the past. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 14:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Tribal councilors are national legislators, so definitely presumed notable, as would be an occupant of any national office. On the others, a preliminary search for Amber Fite-Morgan and Amy Page indicates that both appear to have a claim for notability. Fite was the general counsel for Northeastern State University and is now in the same position at the University of North Alabama. Page helped write the statues for paternity and child support in Oklahoma per this. Obviously both are BLPs, so the question becomes are there adequate independent sources to meet GNG? SusunW (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Susun's assessment that most tribal councilors would have a presumed notability as national legislators. From there it would be about providing the necessary independent sources to withstand a potential rebuttal to that presumed notability should the challenge occur. --ARose Wolf 23:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Chronological list of operatic sopranos

Jean Ensminger

Women in Green's October 2024 edit-a-thon

Hello WikiProject Women in Red:

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

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Just dropping a note to say this motivated me to work on the article for veiqia, which I nominated for GA last night! Lajmmoore (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore: That's great! You're technically a little early (GA noms are meant to be submitted between Oct. 1st and 31st to be part of the WiG event), but I'm really glad you've gotten a boost out of it for your wiki projects. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

AAAAHHHHHH, that's so funny! I'm never early for anything! Please can it still count? I was looking at the WiG page and was like "it's very quiet", durrrrrrrr Lajmmoore (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: Is there an easy way for Lajmmoore to withdraw her GA nom and renominate it on Oct. 1st? Or alternatively, what do you think about opening up the event a bit early? (I'd rather wait for October to start, but don't want her to lose her WiG editathon submission!) Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave: Easiest way is just remove the GAN tag from the top of the talk page and add it back once the event starts. Definitely don't want to disqualify the nomination, but I'm not quite ready for the event to start yet :') Article is looking great btw, thanks for working on this Lajmmoore! --Grnrchst (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore: Does that sound okay? Just remove the GAN tag for now and re-nominate when the event starts in Oct. Then we'll be good to go! Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

100% - thank you both! Lajmmoore (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Need help accessing obituary

WMF criticized for funding left-of-center non-profits including Art+Feminism

Haitian-Canadian Yolette Lévy

Paper on Wikipedia entry requirements for men and women

Initially released in March 2024, Traces of Unequal Entry Requirement for Illustrious People on Wikipedia Based on their Gender by Lea Krivaa and Michele Coscia from IT University of Copenhagen presents an analysis showing that "there is indeed a higher bar for women to have their own biographical page on Wikipedia". I must say I found the paper difficult to follow and could not see when and on what version of Wikipedia the data were collected. Perhaps David Eppstein can take a look and let us know if there's anything of real significance. (Also published after revision in June 2024 here.)--Ipigott (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

More explanations by Michele Coscia here.--Ipigott (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think they are looking at en Wikipedia, but I could be wrong. The sample is selected using the pantheon.world dataset of articles present in 15 Wikipedia language versions. Pantheon does not have its own Wikipedia article and I can't find any previous mention of it here. TSventon (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest, TSventon. Pantheon was mentioned years ago on Wikimedia. A Wikipedia article might be useful. There is a detailed description in Nature here. The current list up to 2023 comprises 115,750 people. Interesting that the first woman does not appear until No. 36 Marie Antoinette.--Ipigott (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Ipigott, Having read about Pantheon and about Network theory, I feel I have a better idea what the paper is about. The articles were collected on 12 February 2023 and the examples of Aristotle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle) and Hu Shih (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Shih) show that they were collected from en Wikipedia. It is an interesting calculation, but I am not sure what action it would suggest on en Wikipedia. Perhaps there should be a Women in Red project for Pantheon.

According to Humaniki, en Wikipedia had 1,928,008 biographies on 12 February 2023.

They checked the 88,937 biographies on Pantheon (each present in 15 Wikipedia language versions) on 24 November 2021 and found 84,463 classified as male or female

They reduced the dataset further by selecting birthdates in the range 1750-1950 leaving 32,901 articles (nodes)

They then looked at wikilinks (edges) between the selected articles and rejected unlinked articles, leaving 9,540 (8,177 male and 1,363 female) articles, around 0.5% of the total population on Humaniki.

Finally they analysed the wikilinks between the articles and found that women's articles had better links to other articles than men's articles did. They concluded "a woman is added on Wikipedia only when she has stronger connections to the existing structure than a man". TSventon (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, TSventon, for giving us such a clear summary of the paper. From the figures given, the differences between linking in men's and women's articles are however very small for such assertions to be made. Another explanation could well be the more highly developed discipline of editors creating or improving biographies of women. Women in Red has devoted a considerable amount of effort to encouraging editors (e.g. through our essays and feedbacl) to write biographies meeting high Wikipedia standards while Women in Green has specifically sought to improve women's biographies up to GA standard and beyond. It would have been interesting to see whether there were measurable differences in the quality levels (Stub to FA) of men's vs women's biographies in the dataset under analysis. I seem to remember earlier studies indicating a generally higher quality standard for women's biographies.--Ipigott (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, TSventon, for helping save me from trying to go through the same close reading.

I'm not convinced that a correlation between gender and link structure implies causation in the article creation. There could be other reasons for better connectivity of women once their articles exist, such as explicit efforts by editors such as us to create that connectivity (as I try to do for the articles I create and did today for one of JessWade's new articles, Eloise Marais). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing @David Eppstein - wasn't there a different paper a while ago that suggested that women's biographies in general are "better" because there's a higher threshhold, so wouldn't then greater linkage be an effect of that? Lajmmoore (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I am also sceptical about the conclusion. Firstly, the connectedness of the sample of women on en Wikipedia will partly be due to the work of editors on this project, secondly women in the 18th and 19th centuries probably had to be better connected than men to become notable and thirdly 71% of the biographies from the period from Pantheon had no relevant wikilinks, so connectedness on en Wikipedia is clearly not a barrier to inclusion on Pantheon. TSventon (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I left a note under her blog post about this discussion Lajmmoore (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The dataset used was the Pantheon 2020 Person Dataset, which is available as a spreadsheet here. 19,993 (22.5%) out of 88,937 entries are female.

It appears that Pantheon entries need an en Wikipedia article, so creating articles for notable topics from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Number of links could increase the number of women on Pantheon. It could also be useful to have a Wikiproject:Pantheon to highlight which articles on Pantheon should be improved. TSventon (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

for a start perhaps, one of 2025's monthly themes could focus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Number of links? This is the first time I've seen this list! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Or we could encourage links in a tip of the month. As for improving Pantheon articles, it looks to me as if we would need to do quite a bit of preparatory work, creating lists of articles with ÷shortcomings, etc. Any volunteers?--Ipigott (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Lajmmoore, one problem with the "Number of links" list is that the names with the higher numbers of links have mostly had an article previously, which has then been deleted for lack of notability or another reason. I noticed that Rosiestep had written two articles from the list recently.

Ipigott, I was wondering whether it would be possible to set up Wikiproject:Pantheon as a taskforce of wikiproject:Biography and then use AWB to tag 88,000 articles. I was thinking aloud rather than suggesting starting any kind of work immediately. TSventon (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your overview here, TSventon. In my translation work, I have looked at that list and tried to find someone who would meet the requirements for inclusion on EN-WP, but as has been mentioned already, many of the articles on that list don't meet criteria for EN-WP. I think the idea of Wikiproject:Pantheon as a taskforce of wikiproject:Biography has merit, or, alternatively, maybe someone creates items in Wikidata for all the Pantheon entries, and includes a property that attaches the items to Pantheon, and then we generate a redlist for the missing women's biogs? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is a redlist, if there was it would be the top few lines of the "Number of links" list, which I have checked. The only woman from the top of the redlist on Pantheon is Mila Nitich, whose article was deleted after a PROD in March, so it is possible that Pantheon periodically removes articles which have been deleted from en Wikipedia. Although 20 articles about her have been deleted, Nitich still has 15 articles, including 11 stubs added by one IP account. TSventon (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

If I can be one thing, it's hasty! Thanks so much for clarifying I thought the Numbers list was drawing on the same data as Pantheon! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore:, I didn't explain very well. The Numbers list is drawing on the same data as Pantheon (i.e. Wikidata), but the Numbers list is selecting women not en Wikipedia ("periodically updated by Listeriabot"), while Pantheon is selecting people who are on en Wikipedia (updated less regularly). Mila Nitich is on both lists, but the Pantheon information for her is not up to date. TSventon (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2024

The 'Mental Load' comic

Mystery (or perhaps "mistry")

Along the lines of the Artis Henderson discussion above, another article which has not had much success clearing the bar at AfC is Draft:Brittany Spanos. Here too, I'm baffled by why we would NOT want a short article about this person (whose work is cited over a thousand times in this very encyclopaedia).

In this case, I honestly feel like the original AfD may have been a (rather hasty) mistrial of sorts. When I now read Due to the recent AfD discussion that resulted in a consensus to delete based on a lack of notability, this draft must overcome those concerns in order to be accepted, I do wonder if the stain of the previous AfD has introduced an inadvertent prejudice that has led to yet another mistrial.

The history of the draft has been preserved on Talk, if anyone has the heart (or stomach) to take this one on. I did my best – short of simply overriding the reviewer who declined the article via AfC (which may also be an option).

Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0:: I see there has been no further work on this since 1 July. While in my opinion the earlier draft met basic notability criteria, the fact that it was deleted on the basis of a discussion will make it difficult to justify unless significant new developments come to light.--Ipigott (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Yes, that is because my feeling was (and remains) that the reviewer who knocked it back (July 1) didn't actually take much time to consider the history in detail, nor did they acknowledge the fact that I essentially re-worked the whole thing from top to tail before ~~re-submitting (June 30)~~ it was re-submitted, by which time it was already a completely different article from the draft that was deleted (and subsequently draftified) post-AfD – which itself, had been (and was still in the process of being) heavily revised between the initial submission and rather abrupt conclusion of the AfD. Hence my frustration and why I'm rather flummoxed by the whole affair (again, see Talk). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: I'm rather confused about the history of the article and would be interested to see the version that was first refused (with date) as it would be useful to see exactly what changes were made before the draft was again refused on 1 July. I think FormalDude, who is a member of Women in Red and has produced excellent work, may be interested in this discussion and in the details on the draft article's talk page. I think it would also be useful to pick out three or four of the sources which provide informative details of the subject rather than just passing mentions. Reviewers do not have time to look at a long string of sources in detail and sometimes base their decisions on monitoring just a few of the references.--Ipigott (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Having already sunk way too much time into this one, I am loathe to escalate this into anything even vaguely resembling a contentious spat. That said, of course FormalDude's take would be welcome. My perspective is simply that I don't think the article ever really got a fair review from the moment it landed at AfD – which is where I first spotted it (I didn't originate it, nor do I particularly care about the subject). Dsp13 (who made the original stub) may also be able to help with context/history. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, to help ease any confusion about versions: article sent to AfD (Feb 6); deleted and then draftied (Feb 15); re-submission (May 23); my AFCH comments (June 30). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: In my view, what's played out is a rather normal and routine process of Wikipedia. A topic with borderline notability was discussed by the community at WP:AfD and editors made policy-based arguments in favor of keeping and deleting the article, and it so happened that a consensus emerged in favor of deletion. While I would've voted to keep the article, it's important to understand and accept that other editors are making valid arguments. Maybe you're seeing something in that AfD that I'm not though. If you feel that process was invalid or incorrect, you could open a WP:Deletion review.

I appreciate that you re-worked the article, but its structure was not the reason it was deleted. It was deleted for notability, specifically a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, and therefore it needs more sources to overcome that. Hopefully that will happen in the future and the article can be created then. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I also want to add that the consensus to delete will not permanently impact the topic. Even if it doesn't get more coverage in the future, Wikipedia policy could change such that the topic ends up meeting notability requirements in its current form. And, after enough time has passed, it would probably be fair to reevaluate the topic altogether simply because community consensus can change overtime.

But if an AfC reviewer were to independently approve the draft now, they'd be completely disregarding the consensus of a group of editors that gave their time and effort in evaluating the article at AfD. AfC reviewers do not have that authority, the only way that can be done is with a new consensus developed at a deletion review discussion. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Thank you for this. What's odd about the situation (and therefore, perhaps a flaw in the process itself) is that you would've voted to keep the article, Ipigott is of the opinion the earlier draft met basic notability criteria, presumably Dsp13 (who published the original stub) thinks we ought to have an article about Spanos – and obviously I wouldn't expend my time on it if I didn't agree. Furthermore, the references that support some of what I imagine would be fairly uncontestably acceptable criteria to justify her inclusion if this were a brand new, fresh draft hadn't been published when the article went to AfD, and the "Swiftposium" at which Spanos was the keynote speaker (and which is mentioned in the AfD discussion by Oaktree b as a possible decider) hadn't yet happened. (I suspect that we're there with WP:JOURNALIST #1 and possibly #3, and my instinct is that WP:COMMONSENSE applies here too). I had hoped these facts, plus a thorough reworking of the article to make all of this clear, would have gotten us past the initial (hasty, and again, in my view, none too consensual) AfD outcome. I chose to ask the Administrator who closed the AfD and deleted the article to Draftify instead (rather than elevating the whole matter to a process of contestation) as this seemed the least fractious (and therefore best) way to see that the article gets published (which, let's not forget, is our objective here). All of this to say, in response to your thoughtful remarks above: as yours was a new, fresh AfC, I was indeed surprised by the outcome. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Based on the information and points of view laid out here (especially the summary of notability opinions highlighted in the last paragraph), I've re-submitted the draft at AfC with a link to this discussion. Giving it another chance for review seems like the best policy. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Notwithstanding the opinions expressed above (see quotes in green), this unfortunate draft has been declined yet again (ostensibly, due to the deficit expressed in the AfD). At this point, it is nearly impossible (for me) not to see this as a serious flaw in our system. The article, it appears, is tarred with an indelible stain (for what are now inexistent flaws, alas). I hang my head. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Nina B. Lamkin

Help with Newspapers.com for a pending draft?

Translation contest July–September 2024

A Hawaiian Magazine

Adrienne Cullen article

Hallo, I've drafted an article about Adrienne Cullen. She was an Irish journalist who successfully campaigned for open disclosure by hospitals when patients are damaged in the course of their treatment.

I've been advised by editor TSventon to approach you for help in getting the article published. It's been declined for publication twice.

Here's the link to the draft Draft:Adrienne Cullen

Thanks Janep1814 (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Janep1814: Certainly looks to me as if it should be in mainspace but perhaps you could first help by adding missing citations, particularly about her early life.--Ipigott (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott - will do. Janep1814 (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you being paid for this article in connection with the info on your user page?--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott - I was reimbursed for expenses related to research. Janep1814 (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a bit, added a ref or two and standardised it somewhat, but it looks perfectly mainspace-worthy to me. The barely-disclosed COI is a bit of a disappointment: why am I spending time on a project for which someone else is getting paid? COI disclosure needs to be much clearer, and the template at User:Janep1814 is malformed (seems to be "Nowiki", which isn't helpful - if people are being paid to edit, they should spend some of that paid time in understanding how Wikipedia editing works.) PamD 12:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@PamD - I've seen your changes. Re the COI, I found the information on wikipedia to be pretty confusing and did the best I could to disclose. I thought the information I provided was all that was required. From other conversations with editors here I now appreciate that I need to be even more explicit. Janep1814 (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I've moved the article to mainspace but Janep1814 needs to look carefully through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and adapt her user page. Further suggestions for changes to the article should be posted on the article's talk page for review by non-paid editors.--Ipigott (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott ok. What other details do I need to put on my user page. I was only reimbursed some research expenses. I note the request to put suggestions to changes on the articles talk page for review. Janep1814 (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Janep1814:: The instructions under "How to disclose a COI" on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest page seem very clear to me. You should make the suggested changes both on your user page and on the article's talk page. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties.--Ipigott (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Janep1814 take a look at my user page - there's a section where I disclose all the paid editing programmes I've been involved in. If you click edit on my user page, then switch to source editing you can see what the code looks like in that section and adapt it for your circumstances. It is really really really important to do this. I'd also recommend you keep an on Wikipedia list, on your user page for the editing you're paid to do. Transparency is really paramount. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore - thanks, this was useful. I've added the necessary details to my user page and will also add them to the article's talk page. Fully agree that transparency is important and at the heart of what Wikipedia is about. Janep1814 (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott - I've added COI information on my user talk page and on the article's talk page. I'm keen to get this right! Janep1814 (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott - thanks. I'll see how I get on. Janep1814 (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

New article about a ghost

Getting a Wikiquote removed

I find the first Wikiquote for Nora Ephron offensive and I suspect Nora would want it removed in today's day and age, though it presumably made sense in 1975. Should I make an account there and start a discussion? en:q:Nora Ephron Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Allthemilescombined1:, Wikiquote is a Wikimedia project, so you should be able to use your Wikipedia account there.

@Penny Richards:, I have seen you mention Wikiquote, do you have any advice on whether Wikiquote has a relevant policy, whether the first quote for Nora Ephron is likely to be sufficiently offensive to be removed and where Allthemilescombined1 could go to start a discussion? TSventon (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not very very involved at Wikiquote, I just start pages there sometimes (and I should do it more). My understanding is that, if the quote is accurate, and the sourcing is correct, it might not get removed. The point of Wikiquote is not to provide inspiring or flattering quotes, but accurate quotes with sources. What the subject would want us to remember of her words is not really part of the equation. However, if the quote requires some context to be understood, or if she later disavowed the sentiments expressed, that's information the Wikiquote page might include. Penny Richards (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking about this @Allthemilescombined1 & one thing to do would be to find an earlier quote to go above that one, so there's something different chronologically. Further, if you can find a redaction of it, or as Penny says, further context I would add that too. e.g. "Later, in 19XX, Ephron responded to this quote by saying XXX ..." I guess you can also check how accurate that quote is? Lajmmoore (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes I was thinking mainly the issue is that it’s bolded and at the top—what we’d call over here undue weight. An earlier quote is a great idea. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree. We should also remove the statements that Washington and Jefferson and half of America's founders owned slaves, that Winston Churchill failed in the Gallipoli Campaign, and every other inconvenient fact that we suspect the article subjects regret, or no longer believe, or otherwise "would want removed in today's day and age". Our content should be nice and clean and present the subjects exactly how the subjects would want to be presented, without any "offensive" facts! Think of the children! --GRuban (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Please let’s try to disagree civilly. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Please remember good faith @GRuban - the editor who asked the question is pretty new, so please do bear the range of levels of experience people have when responding. We all learnt the ropes at one time or another - often by asking questions and being supported to understand guidelines by other editors. Lajmmoore (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you folks, point taken. --GRuban (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Huge reduction in women-related articles awaiting review

The number of "women" articles awaiting review stood at 329 on 31 August. Thanks to the efforts of new page patrollers, it has been reduced to only 24 today, 29 September. This is no doubt partly a result of the current backlog drive but there appears to have been special interest in articles about women. It also represents a considerable reduction in the time taken for new mainspace articles to be reviewed. Administrators and other editors entitled to review are encouraged to keep an eye on women articles awaiting review, whether or not in connection with an NPP drive. Speedy reviews help to encourage participation, particularly in connection with new or inexperienced contributors. In many cases, it is useful to provide feedback and assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh that’s great! Yes I don’t do a very large amount of reviewing but I read a few for the drive and that’s where I started. The sorting does make it very easy to find articles relevant to one’s skill set. Thanks to all who pitch in this way, I totally agree it can help smooth the onboarding of new folks. AfC as well. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy to see that by this morning it has been reduced to only eight. I've never seen it so low before.--Ipigott (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for my ignorance, but how can I get my draft added to this list? Draft:Rayne Rouce Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Not an ignorant question, as I don’t quite know the answer either! It’s not usually something you need to add, it should be detected automatically, but I do see it miscategorize pages from time to time. I’ve just added another women’s project tag to the talk page, as well as the biography project, in hopes that might trip the filter, but I don’t actually know what does. Perhaps someone who does will chime in. Innisfree987 (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Allthemilescombined1 and Innisfree987: The list does not contain drafts. It presents articles in mainspace which have not yet been reviewed under New pages patrol or which have been relisted as requiring a review. Experienced editors are welcome to apply to become reviewers -- see NPP reviewers. The "women" listing is just one of many available from NPP sorting. I have found it particularly useful to look through the "women" listing every day as it gives an overview of new articles, many of which have been created by new or inexperienced contributors requiring assistance. I frequently find more experienced editors who have written several articles about women. When I tell them about Women in Red, they often sign up as members.--Ipigott (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Women-related articles at AfC

Innisfree987: As you mentioned AfC above, I thought I would take a look and see if there had been any major reduction. I don't know how things normally run but I was surprised to see there are currently about 1,300 in Category:Pending AfC submissions, of which many seem to be biographies of women. (Women's names occur throughout the list with Draft:Nereida Garcia Ferraz (since 30 June) at the beginning and Draft:Mary Beth Goodman (since 24 June) at the end.) It's a pity there is no obvious means of preparing a list of the AfC "women" biographies awaiting attention. I suppose it could be done manually on the basis of the names in the list or perhaps automatically if anyone has an algorithm for picking out women's first or given names. Seems to me to be very discouraging for new contributors to have to wait three months or more but I suppose many of them are there because they have not been correctly resubmitted. Nevertheless. it looks to me we could do far more to help them along.--Ipigott (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Ipigott: Numbers at AfC tend to rise over time until there is a backlog drive. The last drive in November 2023 cleared the backlog. There is a chart here which shows that the backlog has been reduced from nearly 3500 since June. There is a much larger Category:Draft articles on biographies with 8,397 articles, mostly not in the queue for review. Looking at the examples you linked, the dates are misleading. Draft:Nereida Garcia Ferraz was declined on 30 June 2024, resubmitted on 8 July 2024‎ (the date is not shown on the Review waiting template) and given feedback on the same day. Draft:Mary Beth Goodman was declined on 24 June 2024 and resubmitted on 30 September 2024. TSventon (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon: Thanks for these details. I am aware of the periodic backlog drives which certainly help to speed things up, but I am not sure they solve all the problems. Many of the articles reviewed are resubmitted with improvements and once again have to wait for attention. The overall time taken for an article to be accepted can therefore be quite considerable. I think articles about women, particularly biographies, would receive more attention if they could be listed separately. In the early days of Wikipedia, experienced editors were frequently willing to work on the shortcomings of articles from newcomers but in my experience, AfC reviewers usually just state the problems and expect newbies to solve them by looking up background documentation. I think many contributors to Women in Red would be ready to provide assistance if they could have easy access to "women" AfC drafts, along the same lines they can access mainspace "women" articles awaiting NPP review. Any hope of progressing along these lines?--Ipigott (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I've just been looking through Category:Draft articles on women. It might be worthwhile making a start on this.--Ipigott (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I have added a subheader to help find the AfC discussion in the archive. I agree that AfC has its limitations, but it seems to be in catching up mode at the moment, which is better than falling behind mode. What do you make of Category:Draft articles on women? TSventon (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This is really low - we're usually up somewhere closer to 3000 pending submissions, with some submissions as old as three months. The backlog is unusually short in both size and duration right now. There are lists of women for AfC at Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography/Women. Actually, this is how I got involved in AfC in the first place! (via seeing sad unloved drafts at WiR) I really recommend that folks here who care about this backlog pitch in to help. Even if you only review one draft a month, that's still one article that wouldn't have been reviewed otherwise. Very happy to provide assistance to anyone from WiR who wants to dip their toe into AfC reviewing and is feeling a bit hesitant - just send me a talk page message. -- asilvering (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes—just catching up—sorry for my confusion above, @Ipigott, I mixed up the NPP and AFC queues because happily both do have a list of women’s entries. I try to look in on both. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Asilvering, Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography/Women is exactly the list we need. My past experiences with AfC have not always been too successful with their reviewers sometimes suggesting that the necessary improvements had not been made or tagging the articles on mainspace. If however we examine the pending articles from the usual criteria for notability, etc., I believe a significant number -- if not most -- could be promoted to mainspace. There seems to me to be something of a conflict between AfC's interest in encouraging new contributors to improve various quality aspects of their articles and Wikipedia's basic approach to notability which relies on significant coverage in independent sources whether or not these have been used in the draft. As the list currently contains only 97 drafts, it seems to me we could work together with other WiR contributors and see how many of the articles can be "retrieved" over the next month. I would suggest we also work on improvements to the articles and encourage their creators to stick with Wikipedia (if they are still active). As for the listing suggested by TSventon of over 1,500 draft women articles at Category:Draft articles on women, many of them also seem to represent a good start on a biography which could be further developed without too much effort. I see however that in some cases they are just old drafts of articles which are now in mainspace, sometimes as a result of a fresh start.

This has been a revealing discussion and has provided a basis for further efforts to move women articles to mainspace while trying to encourage more recent contributors to continue writing about women. I think with Asilvering's assistance, it might be useful to set up a list of those willing to participate in processing pending AfC drafts. It might be useful to go through the current list of 97 and select a subset of those meeting basic notability before undertaking further improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I like this idea. My recollection is there’s a template for promising drafts we could use? Innisfree987 (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That's mostly to request that admins don't delete the page via G13 if it goes unedited for six months, but if folks here want to use it as a flag for "help this draft out, it's probably notable", I don't see why not. -- asilvering (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you think about a new "never-ending" event page for #pendingAfCdrafts? This would be a methodical way of keeping track of our work. There will be various dispositions of the drafts (some will successfully move to mainspace and others won't). It would also be a way to methodically connect with newer editors, shift some conversations to the WiR talkpgae, encourage newbie mentoring, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I like it! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe just "#PendingDrafts"? Since I suspect most newer editors don't really know what "AfC" is by name, just by experience. -- asilvering (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I like your suggestion, Rosiestep. How about creating a page on "Assisting new editors" with links and explanations from our main page and from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members? We could mention both the NPP women pages for review and the Pending AfC list on women as well as essays such as our Primer and our Ten Simple Rules. I think the page should be directed first and foremost at more experienced participants who could then contribute more actively to encouraging newcomers and providing assistance with new articles. From time to time, we could organize "drives" on helping newcomers interested in writing about women. Wikipedia requirements are not easy to understand, especially for those who have never used anything but a smartphone. I really sympathize with those who receive cryptic messages from AfC reviewers telling them, for example, to look at Help:Referencing for beginners when their drafts are refused. We could certainly do far more to help them along.--Ipigott (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful. So this month (Oct), folks can flesh out a process and develop resources, etc. Beginning in November, we'll have an event page focused on pending drafts. Maybe by becoming methodical with this line, we can really make a difference not only with the draft article (getting it to mainspace faster), but also with providing warm support to newbies who think they're alone out there. --Rosiestep (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I've made a start on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Essays/Assisting new editors. I would appreciate help, corrections and expansion from other contributors.--Ipigott (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I have just done a trawl through Wikipedia:AfC_sorting/Culture/Biography and tagged thirty articles as women, which should increase the list of women by about a third when the bot runs. @Ipigott: would it be worth mentioning that list as well? Category:Draft articles on women may merit a mention as well. TSventon (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon, the bot uses ORES predictions so I'm not sure that tagging will change anything (many drafts that aren't tagged as women end up in the list). I'd be interested to know what your results were - once the bot runs again, can you check how many were added to the list that weren't there before? -- asilvering (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@asilvering, the bot ran at 18:00 and moved one article. It will be interesting to see if the next run picks up any more. Was it reasonable to correct the categories from biography to women, even if it does not affect the lists? TSventon (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the next run will make any changes if it hasn't already, but I suppose we'll find out. What your edits will have done is resorted the articles into Category:Draft articles on women. Whether that's a useful thing to do or not is up to your own opinion. It's certainly not doing any harm. -- asilvering (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that counting that a third of women AfC submissions are not on the women list was useful as it means that we can't ignore the main biography list. It may not be useful to do it regularly. TSventon (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I have edited the AfC section of your essay, please fine tune or revert as necessary. Some feedback from Asilvering or someone else with hands on AfC experience would be useful. TSventon (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, TSventon, for these useful improvements. I do nevertheless frequently come across articles prepared by newcomers in their sandboxes which are then moved by AfC contributors to become standard AfC drafts (draft:article title), often with a message or edit summary stating this is the correct format for articles which are not yet ready for mainspace. Is this encouraged at AfC or simply the result of what individual contributors feel is the way they should be named? The drawback is of course that drafts are deleted after six months whereas there is no limit on sandboxes or articles under development in user space. One way to avoid difficulties is for inexperienced contributors to create drafts for further development in their user space as user name/article title. This approach allows them to work on more than one draft at a time and also makes it easy to move the draft into article space. If others find this approach useful, it could be suggested in the essay. Many new contributors I have helped along continue to develop articles along these lines, sometimes asking me whether I think their developments are already suitable for mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

An advantage of starting a "Username/articlename" draft is that it starts with a clean edit history, while a sandbox may have a long and involved history. Some articles end up in mainspace with a long edit history showing previous work in the sandbox which is quite irrelevant to the current work. I've done it myself before changing my method. PamD 07:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The instructions about moving pages are here: drafts have to be moved to draftspace to use the AfC tool. I agree that "Username/articlename" drafts are a good place to start. If an editor doesn't have a COI and is supported by WIR, then they probably don't need to use AfC, which would explain why the number of women articles in AfC is so low compared to the number of Biography articles. TSventon (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no general requirement for articles from new contributors to be moved to AfC in the AfC draft format. I think it should be made clear that AfC is an option, not an obligation, and AfC contributors should be advised not to move articles under development to AfC unless there is a good reason for doing so, for example failure to meet requirements when created in mainspace. Many enthusiastic new users are dismayed by the negative feedback they receive from AfC and are seldom consoled by the follow-up message they receive from the Teahouse. The ratio of articles in Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography (495) to those in Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography/Women (93) corresponds more or less to the overall 20% of biographies which are about women. Most new contributors who write about women are not aware of Women in Red unless they are students under Wikiedu or have attended editathons where WiR has been mentioned. Most learn of its existence once they begin editing and come into contact with other editors who try to help them along.--Ipigott (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott, AfC is not an obligation. However, if you tag a draft in your userspace with the AfC submission template, you've clearly asked for AfC to review it, so AfC reviewers will move those drafts to draftspace. -- asilvering (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Category:Draft articles on women, is there any alternate way to view the list, to include additional information, e.g., like the info we can see at WP:NPP? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. -- asilvering (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: presumably AfC wouldn't mind if somebody from WiR posted a message on the talk pages of some of the editors with articles going through AfC? (I am not volunteering to do so.)

@Ipigott: The proportion of articles in Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography/Women (93) out of the total number of biographical articles in AfC sorting is about 16% (93 out of 495+93) as the bio list does not include the members of the women list. Adjusting for 30 women not on the women list gives around 20% (93+30 out of 495+93+30), which is still less than the proportion of new bios which are about women, which is around 30% based on the recent Humaniki statistics. Hopefully that is partly because WiR provides an alternative to AfC for some new editors. TSventon (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Possibility of editing/moving AfC drafts

By all means! The only thing that editors who are not AfC reviewers can't do is use the AFCH script to approve drafts. Interacting with any other part of the process is fine (and you can even remove the AfC tags and move something to mainspace, nothing's stopping you - but I wouldn't recommend doing that). To anyone interested in pitching in, though, I really would recommend applying for the AfC reviewer pseudoperm. There's no harm in applying for it and never using it, and even if you only ever approve a handful of articles, that's a handful of articles that got to leave the queue when they would have had to wait longer otherwise. -- asilvering (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering:: Your advice "I wouldn't recommend doing that" is a pretty stiff constraint. From your explanations, it looks as if anyone who wants to improve AfC drafts and move them to mainspace should first become an AfC reviewer and use the "AFCH script" (no doubt in connection with Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions). Over the years, I have frequently been approached by contributors who have asked me to help with the delays or feedback they have faced from AfC and I am nearly always able to help them or explain why their article is unsuitable. In cases where articles have been refused, I try to explain the reasons given and often make the required improvements myself. (Especially in cases where new contributors are using the visual editor, it frequently seems difficult for them to make the improvements required whereas I can handle them far better from my laptop.) I then feel entitled to move the articles to mainspace. Many of the AfC delays come to light when contributors become members of WiR, no doubt hoping to receive help from the project. I always thought AfC and the English Wikipedia in general would welcome such assistance but from what you say, as I am not a member of AfC my involvement will not have been appreciated by you and your AfC friends. As a result of these discussions, over the past couple of days I think I have moved three or four AfC drafts to mainspace, at least two of which required significant quality improvement. From what you say, I should not have interfered with them as they had been submitted to AfC. This is all rather unfortunate as I believe many keen WiR contributors have been or would be willing to help with AfC drafts without joining AfC. It seems strange to me that as a keen new page reviewer I am allowed (even encouraged) to improve new submissions (which often include articles promoted to mainspace by AfC reviewers) but I am not encouraged to help AfC drafts along until AfC reviewers have first approved them. In any case, until these problems have been resolved, as I am not a member of AfC, I will no longer try to help with any more official AfC drafts. But is there any logic in this?--Ipigott (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s often discussed that AfC and NPP should just be one process, I’m not sure why it’s not. Is there a reason you don’t just add your name to the AfC list tho @Ipigott? Like you say you’re beyond qualified. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Here’s the link for you or anyone else who might be amenable! Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants. It seems to me encouraging WiR members to sign up could be a good way to foster participation. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, Innisfree987, the reason I don't want to become a participant is that I have come across so many new contributors who have faced difficulties with the project that I am not happy about the way it operates. I know this feeling is shared by a number of the most active editors who participate in Women in Red. If the project could be adapted to make new contributors more welcome, I would certainly reconsider. I realize, however, that it is difficult to reach a compromise between the need to avoid unsuitable articles on mainspace with that of attracting new editors. I was hoping these discussions might pave the way for progress along these lines. I am of course grateful to editors like TSventon, asilvering and yourself who contribute so positively to the project.--Ipigott (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

One thing I will say is that like many projects, the participants tend to take more seriously the perspectives of people involved in doing its work (believing they have a better grasp of its challenges), so signing up might be a route to influence the culture. However I do understand that that’s not an enviable option if one doesn’t like the culture currently in place. Bit of a catch-22! Innisfree987 (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly believe that signing up and participating is the best way to change its culture. As for Ipigott, he doesn't need to add himself to the list because he's an NPP reviewer already - the AfC reviewer pseudoperm is only required if you don't have NPP or admin rights already. @Ipigott, I'm not sure why you're not just using the AFCH script yourself to accept these drafts? -- asilvering (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh right, thanks for the reminder. Yes the script is great! Innisfree987 (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I would have liked to draw the attention of key players in the AfC project to this discussion but found that the project's basic talk page is reserved for those working on project administration. None of the other AfC pages suggested appeares to be suitable for finding out whether key players agree with asilvering (see above)that experienced editors who are not members of AfC should be discouraged from editing/moving AfC drafts and liaising with their creators. As a non-member of AfC, I have participated fairly actively along these lines for a number of years and thought my assistance had positively contributed to the English Wikipedia and would be generally welcome by those from AfC. While I have never received any negative reactions or warnings, I have learnt today that such edits and moves by non-members are apparently not welcome. I would therefore like to see whether this is in fact the case by bringing the matter to the attention of key players such as Primefac, Robert McClenon, Timtrent, Anne Delong and KylieTastic from AfC as well as JTtheOG and Vanderwaalforces from New Page Patrol. I hope that together we can find approaches that will allow constructive editing of AfC drafts to ensure in particular that more of those interested in writing about women continue editing on Wikipedia. Please also let me know if there are other talk or discussion pages where these issues can be discussed. We are hoping to launch an initiative in November to provide more assistance to new and inexperienced contributors of articles about women.--Ipigott (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I’m not seeing where it says only project members can post? Am I overlooking? I see the notice at the top that it’s not for asking about drafts, but that makes me think questions about the nature of the project at what it’s meant for? Innisfree987 (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, anyone can post to the project's talk page. Ipigott, I'm not sure what you're reacting to by @TSventon - I don't see any comment here suggesting that experienced editors who aren't AfC reviewers should be discouraged from editing drafts or liaising with their creators? I would absolutely encourage experienced editors to do that whether they're AfC reviewers or not. But as I've said above, what I'd really like to encourage is joining AfC in the first place. There's no obligation to review any particular number of articles. I myself started just because I occasionally bumped into drafts that were obviously ready for mainspace, or had been declined in error, and I wanted to be able to help those drafts when I came across them. -- asilvering (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about my mistake in mentioning TSventon above. I¨ve now corrected it to you asilvering as you said you would not recommend moving draft AfC pages to mainspace unless editors were official AfC reviewers. To recap, the statement was "Interacting with any other part of the process is fine (and you can even remove the AfC tags and move something to mainspace, nothing's stopping you - but I wouldn't recommend doing that). To anyone interested in pitching in, though, I really would recommend applying for the AfC reviewer pseudoperm." Although you said it was "fine" you clearly did not recommend it. But in the light of your most recent remarks, it looks as if there will be no objection if I continue as before. We need to put something together in this connection for our essay. As for using to AFCH scripts, I simply do not know how to apply them and was certainly not aware that I was entitled to do so as an NPP reviewer. Could this not be explained more clearly in the documentation. And what exactly is the AfC reviewer pseudoperm?--Ipigott (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I don't recommend moving AfC drafts to mainspace without using the AFCH script. If you have access to the script (which you personally do), then by all means you should be accepting articles you think ought to be in mainspace. What I don't recommend is removing the AfC tags and then moving the page manually, via a page move. I don't recommend doing this because this is frequently done by people who are trying to evade AfC for disruptive reasons - sockpuppets "accepting" each other's drafts, COI editors attempting to get around the process, and so forth. If you do a manual page move to "accept" AfC drafts, you (rightly) set off a lot of people's alarm bells, and they may (wrongly) object to your move. Please use WP:AFCH!

The AfC pseudoperm is a not-exactly-perm that allows people who do not have the NPP perm to use the AFCH script. That's all it does, and it's not technically a perm (there's no change to your user rights). It simply means that an admin has listed you at WP:AFC/P, so that the script recognizes you as an AfC reviewer. -- asilvering (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I'm not going to apologize for continuing to move drafts to mainspace and for refusing to install yet another script-with-unknown-side-effects to do it for me. You should stop discouraging experienced editors from doing that. If you are having problems with new editors promoting their own unready drafts, find some other way of dealing with it. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying "don't do that" - I'm even the one who brought up that it is possible to do so! (Because I didn't want to give the impression that only AfC reviewers/NPP/admins can move drafts to mainspace. That's incorrect - they're just the only ones who can use the AFCH script. It won't function for anyone else.) I simply don't recommend doing it. I really recommend that anyone interested in moving AfC drafts to mainspace become AfC reviewers and use the AFCH script. It will automate doing all the cleanup, send a message to the draft creator telling them their draft is accepted, and save you (general you) from having to deal with some overzealous and confused NPPer who thinks you're trying to pull some kind of bs. If you don't want to take that recommendation for whatever reason, that's perfectly fine. -- asilvering (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I should add, also, in case it was your only concern, that specifically speaking AFCH is a "gadget" you enable in your preferences, rather than a solo-maintained userscript. -- asilvering (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have been looking at AfC and my impression is that they get 250 new or repeat submissions a day (based on September) and accept 60 a day i.e. around a quarter (based on AfC statistics page), which sounds like a lot of work and a good conversion rate. It would be nice to have some easily accessible automated statistics for AfC, of course I may have missed them. I hope we can discuss how to work with AfC and get any articles moved to mainspace counted as a success for both projects. TSventon (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

TSventon, If we create an event page; and if someone lists an AfC article that they improved and shifted to mainspace; and the editor also adds the WiR talkpage template to the article associated with the event page, then, I think, that should give us our metrics? BUT, maybe something else, or something additional, needs to happen? Noting, of course, that the article must also have a Wikidata item (human; woman). --Rosiestep (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not worried about whether WiR editors will contribute to WiR metrics, rather hoping that WiR involvement can improve AfC outcomes, however they are measured. TSventon (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon nothing that auto-updates as far as I'm aware. @KylieTastic is the one to ask for specifics. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

TSventon as Asilvering said there are no auto stats at the moment. One problem is that so many reviews are deleted only a bot with admin level would be able to see the full revision history to do accurate stats. A bot that monitored in near real time would be good enough though. A lot of the stats we have come via Quarry queries such as this 'recent' summary (aka last 31 days I think) with 6417 reviews and ~1329 deleted (a lot of spam, attack pages, copy-vios etc). Over the last few years I've been monitoring the AfC accept rate is ~20% (not including the speedy deleted junk). On a side note I have posted here before about Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography/Women - it would be great to get this project active on helping these more of these improved/accepted. KylieTastic (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Joan Murray (art historian)

Milestone for women scientists

Please help, Manisha Ganguly article heavily edited and nominated for deletion by new account (maybe sock)

Invitation

Women to Watch (National Museum of Women in the Arts)

Marion Reid (scientist)

I'd appreciate any feedback on this Draft:Marion Reid. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this started! Are there sources available to describe her work in more detail and fill out the entry a bit? I have become wary of publishing stub-length entries on living people because if any negative press arrives, it is very hard to maintain due weight and often comes to dominate the entry unfairly to the subject. The reviews of her books are likely a relatively accessible way to source more detail. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Reference 1 (AABB) with short bios of Pierce and Reid looks as though it is the author bios from their book, Bloody Brilliant, so it is not independent. The CNAA was a government body that awarded degrees to students at higher education colleges of various kinds so it does not tell us where she did her research, possibly Bristol Polytechnic. More reviews of her books seem like a good way to demonstrate notability. It would also be interesting to check newspapers.com, if someone has time and access. TSventon (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The California MSc needs a mention in Education, and the Hon DSc from Plymouth (see https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/about-us/honorary-doctorates , 2011, for a source which verifies) almost certainly has a presentation speech or university press release with more info.

The FIMLT/FIMBS needs a mention ... and I'm about to fall down the rabbit hole of improving the article at Institute of Biomedical Science to include its various previous names! (Looking at it, I think her biog in ref 1 has a typo and she's almost certainly FIBMS not FIMBS!) PamD 07:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

And the quote from ref 6 about being considered uneducatable needs to go in! PamD 07:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This bio https://ncim.org.uk/meet-the-board-bios confirms FIBMS. PamD 07:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

And https://justgiving.com/crowdfunding/marion-reid this is another interesting bit of personal life - various pointers show that it's the right "Marion Reid". PamD 07:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @PamD@Innisfree987@TSventon I will work on it. I also want to work on Irene Roberts: https://www.paediatrics.ox.ac.uk/news/irene-roberts-delivers-ham-wasserman-lecture Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@PamD@Innisfree987@TSventon It's the sequel! Draft:Irene Roberts if you could please have a look...thank you. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Does the article show she is notable? It seems to be short on independent sources. TSventon (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the h-index helps! Thanks @Innisfree987 Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Black women in American politics page

WDQS graph split project

Han Kang, first Asian women to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature

Draft:Ronnie Haran

Girls Who Code in upcoming NYC editathon

AfC drafts needing some love

I just went through the women in the 2 month+ bin at AfC, and there are two drafts here that could use some help from experienced WiR folks:

Draft:Nereida Garcia Ferraz - Cuban-American artist, lots of stuff in the page history to work from, needs independent sources
Draft:Morgana Cosmica - Italian drag queen, needs sigcov

asilvering (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering:: I've tried to flush out Garcia Ferraz a bit and think it might mow be suitable for mainspace - but I'll leave it up to you.--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering:: thank you for your curated suggestions. Also thank you for publishing the Nereida Garcia Ferraz article, should the article creator get a notification on their talk page, as so far I can't see one?

I have linked the article to an existing Wikidata object which links to database listings with variant spellings. I presume Cubans use Spanish surnames, but I could be wrong. TSventon (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon, the name is alternately spelled Garcia-Ferraz in the article, so the sort order I used is "Garcia Ferraz, Nereida", if that's what you're asking? It looks like they didn't get a notification because they were editing logged-out at one point (I just resubmitted the draft as the last person who submitted, which was an IPv6). -- asilvering (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering:, the article creator was following up the article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#15:08, 5 October 2024 review of submission by Bzbustamante so they are obviously still interested.

If the name uses the Spanish pattern, it probably needs the Template:Family name hatnote to explain, hopefully the article creator knows. TSventon (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I have informed the article creator that the article has been published. However that article was first submitted in March, I would have thought that if WiR offered help a lot earlier (after a month?) it would be more likely to persuade new editors to try writing another article. TSventon (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The earlier the better - why wait a month! -- asilvering (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Alice Elizabeth Louisa Melliss - British botanical illustrator, needs sigcov. Pinging Lajmmoore as Melliss reminds me of Adèle de Dombasle‎. TSventon (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you TSventon for adding this here! I'm the original creator of the draft and I have little/no experience with creating articles for people that are non-BLP. If someone finds sources but doesn't have time/space to incorporate them into the draft, I'm happy to take the sources and work them into the page! Cyanochic (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Cyanochic you've done a great job on getting the page started - I added a couple of reviews from 1875 that talk about how good the illustrations are, but @TSventon I'm not sure what else I can surface. Lajmmoore (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Marzieh Hamidi

Draft:Ellinor Peerschke

Article about Polish translator of Tolkien?

COI - Draft:Ribbons (sculpture) - through AfC

Hello folks, Just a note to state that I have put a draft of an article to Articles for Creation, because i have a conflict of interest with the topic. It is a new sculpture in Leeds, featuringing 384 women (of which I am one!). If anyone feels like reviewing it, I'd be keen to hear feedback Lajmmoore (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks neutral to me! I’ve accepted. There’s a small referencing error you may want to attend to? Also it led me to your bio which I hadn’t seen. If ever there’s additional secondary source coverage you’re aware of that’s not included, feel free to ping me with a link and I’ll look to see if it can be added, as I know you can’t do. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Support move to main space and I've added a couple WikiProjects to the talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both! Lajmmoore (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

& thank you @Innisfree987 - I put a few things on the talk page - even with this I suspect its very borderline, and tbh have no strong conviction about the article - although it was very kind for it to be started off Lajmmoore (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore Well done, Lucy, both for being listed and for the article. I had it in mind to start a stub later today, after hearing about it on the news this morning, googling a bit, and finding no article yet, but your proper article is much better than the solid little stub I'd probably have produced. I've done the gnomery of linking it in Pippa Hale and adding it to Ribbon (disambiguation) (falling down a few little rabbit holes en route, like creating surname access for two women surnamed "Ribbons"), and added Pippa to Hale (surname).

I found a full list of the women, which seemed useful to add. But it's a bit of a puzzle: are there 383, or 384? Sources vary! Was someone disgraced and omitted, like a Jimmy Savile, or what? Pippa's website says 384, the project website says 383. Any local knowledge? Which source do we believe? PamD 20:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm also puzzled that the list of women gives their location as a number (like your 6.09), where the prefix is 1-6 - so is there a base section as well as the five ribbons, or what? The project website doesn't clarify, just gives a number. Perhaps it's obvious when you're standing looking at it? PamD 20:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@PamD I've been puzzled by both these things too - I think the latter is do with the fabrication? but that is a guess. I'm going to email ask which is the right number! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Also there seem to be 382 names on the website (381 times "Ribbon Number" plus Rommi Smith). Unfortunately the internet archive is down. TSventon (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I got a very quick reply from Leeds Arts University who project managed it, who said there were 383 women TOTAL on the statue, @PamD & @TSventon Lajmmoore (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore Thanks. So Pippa got it wrong? Or is her name on there somewhere as the artist, perhaps, as an extra? She doesn't seem to be in the list. Fascinating! (And I wish I'd known about the project beforehand, to get Penny Ewens included: shame on the current Lib Dems for omitting to do so.) PamD 08:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there's hope that more ribbons will be added @PamD but I agree there are lots of women who got left off! & I think Pippa's website might have an error! Lajmmoore (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Call for volunteers for the research project “Measuring the Gender Gap: Attribute-based Class Completeness Estimation”

We are a group of researchers at The University of Queensland, Australia who are working on a research project titled “Measuring the Gender Gap: Attribute-based Class Completeness Estimation” (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Measuring_the_Gender_Gap:_Attribute-based_Class_Completeness_Estimation), supported and funded by the Wikimedia Foundation. Our goal is to understand how and to develop supporting tool for Wikipedia editors making decisions on how to address the gender gap in Wikipedia content.

We are looking for a passionate Community Engagement Manager who will play a pivotal volunteer role in this project to help us to engage with the Wikipedia editors’ communities.

About the Role: The volunteer will help us to:

· Develop a plan to engage relevant Wikipedia communities with our project.

· Identify individual editors willing to join an online research interview (this study was approved by the University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee, reference 2023/HE001795).

· To understand how gender balance has been taken into account in the editorial process and decisions, as well as to discuss how a tool could be best designed to support this process.

Who We Are Looking For:

· Someone with a strong commitment to promoting gender equality in Wikipedia.

· Excellent communication and interpersonal skills.

· Experience in community management (desirable).

Benefits:

· Opportunity to make a significant impact in reducing the gender gap in Wikipedia.

· Expand your network within the Wikipedia communities and professionals.

· Develop skills in community management, and project coordination.

For further information and expression of interests, please contact Gianluca Demartini (Special:EmailUser/Eglu81) and Tianwa Chen (Special:EmailUser/Tchen9). Eglu81 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Ipigott, for your note and ping on your talkpage regarding this research. Eglu81, though you've left a message on my talkpage, too, I'll reply here for greater visibility as others may have similar questions. Eglu81, I'm curious if you are you seeking 1 person or multiple? As your university is based in Australia, is there a preference for the volunteer(s) to be from Australia? That said, I'd be happy to hop on a Zoom call to discuss your project further as your research subject is a priority focus area of mine. -- Rosiestep (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Rosiestep for your interest and availability and thanks Ipigott for your support! Yes, we are based in Australia and we have been in contact with the Australian community already, interviewing a few editors with relevant interests. We would now like to expand the focus to editors worldwide as this is not a geographically-restricted issue. If we can find more people to help us, that would be great, but we believe having one advocate who is internal to the community would already make the difference. Please, get in touch with Tchen9 to arrange a time when she can provide a summary and status update of the project via Zoom. Eglu81 (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Eglu81: email sent. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Sarah Paxon Moore Cooper

I started recently on a sandbox draft for Sarah Paxon Moore Cooper. I've run into a wall with my digging skills without archive.org (or being in Santa Barbara) and would love help or general feedback. The sandbox draft has a lot of my notes on possible clues to references that I've found.

The more specific things I think would really improve the article:

In the article, under running notes of sources, I've been able to find two photos - one of her, one of her garden - but I cannot find the original sources that the linked websites/references used.
I've found lots of sources with passing mentions calling her a notable botanist, but no specifics as to why. Specializing in ferns is from more modern references, I think based on her samples in current collections.
Similarly, multiple sources saying her 4 acre Home Garden was a notable stop or must see for tourists/visitors to the Santa Barbara area, that it held 1000s of plants, and at least one reference suggesting her responsibility for introducing exotic plant species to Santa Barbara. But again, no details beyond that.

Thanks! Cyanochic (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, here are some suggestions to make it more readable and adopt a more expository style:

after the first line you should devide the text and make a biography section (use Heading).

Stop writing S. Cooper in the text, just Cooper.

I also uploaded an example of what it should like, based on your own text on article's talk page.

You can ask the admins to remove it after you have taken a look.

Cheers. Hounaam (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Hounaam, for your useful suggestions but section headings should not be over-captalized. I've slightly edited your talk page version.--Ipigott (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks dear @Ipigott; I will keep that in mind.

Cheers Hounaam (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the additions! I had been leaving adding more expository writing and cleaning up my notes until I felt like I had enough references for a "submittable" article, but after seeing your suggestions I see I had more than I thought. Cyanochic (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cyanochic, Ambrosia10 has obviously put a lot of work into the Wikidata item d:Q96475325, so they might be able to answer questions about the links they added.

Ellwood Cooper: In His Own Words says "All photographs are from the collection of the Santa Barbara Historical Museums, unless otherwise noted." There are notes on uploading photographs as public domain or fair use here. TSventon (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks TSventon. I've been using Wikidata a lot lately, but somehow never noticed the View History tab! Ambrosia10 if you have ideas/input, I'd love to hear them!

I saw that from the Ellwood Cooper article. I wasn't sure if that counted as public domain/fair use since the article was released less than 80 years ago. Same with the photograph of her garden in the Goleta History website. If you think they are one or both okay, I will definitely add them to Wikimedia commons and the article.

(Also I've just found a reference saying she's the first female botanist to have a plant named after her (!) It was already listed on the species page, which I hadn't stumbled on since I typically exclude Wikipedia from my searches. Myriopteris cooperae. Since I'm not ready to publish the article I had to share the cool news somewhere.) Cyanochic (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair use images are uploaded to Wikipedia rather than Commons and you need to give a fair use rationale when you upload, I linked some hints. Generally an image of a deceased biographical subject can be justified if there are no public domain alternatives available. Fair use images have to be used in articles rather than drafts so you would have to wait until the article is published. Whether an image is PD depends on when the image was first published. The rules are complex, hence I added a link rather than trying to explain everything myself.

Also note that the redirect is spelt Paxson, just to complicate searches. TSventon (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Got it, I've only uploaded things so far to Commons that are under CC BY copyrights before. I'll read about the other options.

I noticed that spelling variant/issue on findagrave which has a photo of her headstone. The headstone says Paxon and I'm using that as my final spelling since very few sources spell out the name and just use the initial. (And sources that do spell it vary between Paxson and Paxon.) Cyanochic (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Paxon is the usual spelling, but the alternative spelling should probably be noted in the article. Also I searched Google books using Paxson and found an article about Ellwood in the Pacific Rural Press, also available here. TSventon (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Cyanochic your article is great and thank you so much for creating it! I spend a lot of time researching early women botanists and it is fabulous to see articles being created about them. As for the claim she is the first female botanist to have a plant named after her, I'd be really interested to know whether there are other citations that support this. 1875 seems to me to be quite late date for this to first occur. Unfortunately because the Biodiversity Heritage Library is down at the moment (as a result of the Internet Archive issues) I can't check what Eaton actually said. He might have qualified it by saying first American female botanist? I've co-authored a publication about plant genera named after women with our dataset showing several women having genera named after them in the early to mid 1800s including Sarah Amherst and Lady Sarah Elizabeth Hay-Williams (née Amherst) with the genus Amherstia named in their honour in 1826 as well as the noblewoman and botanist Mary Elizabeth Catherine A’Court having the genus Acourtia named in her honour in 1830. It may be that the first naming of a plant species after women occurred later but I'd be very surprised if that was the case given the large number of plant species compared to plant genera. Ambrosia10 (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ambrosia10 and Cyanochic: Eaton 1875 says I take great pleasure in giving for the first time to an American Fern the name of a lady botanist. The page is available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/2476219 . I have corrected the article. TSventon (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm usually more skeptical but I think my excitement got away from me. Cyanochic (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all the improvements. Sarah Paxon Moore Cooper is now on mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I added a starter infobox and some other tidying, because, like Cooper, I lived in Goleta once upon a time.Penny Richards (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Anna Akbari

Referring to siblings with same last name in article?

I just started on Draft:Mary Kirby and she worked very closely with her sister Elizabeth Kirby. Both were unmarried for a long time and share the same last name. Currently I am referring to Mary Kirby as "Kirby" in the article, and her sister as Elizabeth. But this feels odd since I eventually refer to Mary's husband later in life by his last name as well. What's the general recommendation for this? Is Elizabeth okay or should I use something like "E. Kirby"?? I swear I've seen something about it in an essay before but I couldn't find it. Thanks! Cyanochic (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: Just found Elizabeth and Mary Kirby. I somehow didn't find this when doing an initial search for existing pages. So I will not be fully creating this article unless others think it's notable to make it separate. However, it's not linked in Mary Kirby's wikidata. I'm not sure if it should be though. Cyanochic (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cyanochic, the answer to your first question is that first names should be used where needed to avoid confusion. The place to look is in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography and the shortcut is MOS:SAMESURNAME. For some reason only the redirect Elizabeth Kirby was linked to its Wikidata item so I did the same for Mary Kirby (writer). TSventon (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

In many cases, it is useful to provide further clarifications to avoid confusion, such as her sister plus full name, her mother plus full name, etc. I personally find switching between a woman's maiden name (e.g. in the Early life section) to various married names later in the biography is pretty confusing. Indeed, in longer biographies I often have to re-read the article carefully to make sure the different names refer to the same person. I have noticed that less experienced editors use the name in the article title throughout. This certainly avoids confusion but is it acceptable? As far as I can see, there is no clear recommendation on this in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography.--Ipigott (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles - Backlog drive - November

Support "AllAfrica" as a suggested new resource for the Wikipedia Library Platform

Rebecca Burch

Di Jones

WiR now has a page on the Esperanto Wikipedia. How do I set up Listeriabot?

Female blacksmiths

Women in Red November 2024

Some missing National Academy of Sciences members

Cyanochic has been collecting redlinks of National Academy of Sciences members: see User:Cyanochic/NAS Scientists, as linked from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia § Work-in-progress list of National Academy of Sciences scientist red links. Most are men but there are some missing women including:

geneticists Kerry Bloom and Ulrike Heberlein
environmental scientist Kathleen Segerson
soil scientists Barbara Valent and Elizabeth Vierling
animal/nutritional/microbial scientists Diane O'Brien and Yasuko Rikihisa
sociologist Florencia Torche
psychologist Marianne Frankenhaeuser
anthropologists Patricia Crown and Linda Manzanilla
microbiologist Carol A. Carter

—David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Noting Linda Manzanilla has an es-wiki entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @David Eppstein! With @Innisfree987's comment, I'll add that I've been adding names to my list using the Ill template after already doing a few subfields and I haven't gone back to update the earlier names yet. In general, I'm trying to note if there are any existing Wiki sources in the list to help anyone that comes along. Cyanochic (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

For Draft:Carol A. Carter, I'm wondering if I can use images from this article? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That was the copyright statement. Here is the article Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I think at least it can be uploaded to Commons and used on a Wikipedia article based on this page of common copyright licenses and the statement you linked. Cyanochic (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will put this information on the Talk page. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I moved to mainspace and took a crack at categories. Please lmk if I didn't do the categories or sorting properly. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 10:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Tut, tut! The UK equivalent, at List of female fellows of the Royal Society has been complete and up to date since at least 2013. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I was going to add my PhD adviser to that list, but now I see Cyanochic has made her page, yay! JoelleJay (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to make Kerry Bloom a woman, but I don't think I can :) Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Need for focus on engineering

Women-related articles at AfC

Possibility of editing/moving AfC drafts

Related Articles