Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 32

Women in Red October editathon invitation
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging


 * I asked this over at Ideas, but how did "Women and Disability" become "Celebrating Women and Disability" on the event's page? There was no discussion of that option, and I would have objected to it had I seen it beforehand. Penny Richards (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Sorry I didn't see your note at Ideas page. The answer is that all WiR meetup pages (at least for the last year) have historically started with the word "Celebrating ..." (e.g. Celebrating Women in Technology). I will definitely remove it from the "Women and Disability" page. Also, anyone else can make changes to the meetup pages... the more hands, the more eyes, the better. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad Penny brought this up. While "celebrating" may be suitable in some contexts, I think that it often gives the wrong impression about what we are doing. If I remember correctly, you introduced it as a means of emphasising the important part played by women in a number of fields but it may now be a good time to drop it from our editathon page headings. It seems to me that "Healthcare" and "Nordic Women" would also be better without the "celebrating".--Ipigott (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me! --Rosiestep (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Article needs a TON of work
I was wondering if someone would like to help clean up the article on Women of color. It needs a LOT of work since it's full of original research and opinions that need to be rewritten or removed. The sourcing also needs work as well. I remember that last semester I noticed this issue after some of my students were editing it, as this caused them to edit in a similar manner and I also noted that students were editing it again this semester. I can do some work, but my time is limited and it definitely needs some TLC. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence at the University of Pittsburgh to address the historical content related to women
Your support is solicited for the Project Grant that can be seen here. Part of the grant-making process requires notification of those who would like to support this project. I am the potential grantee and believe that this position will make a significant contribution to many projects. In addition to addressing the gender gap related to notable Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania women, other projects will also benefit. Some of these are WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Women in Red, WikiProject Pennsylvania, WikiProject United States History, WikiProject Military history/American Revolutionary War task force, WikiProject Pittsburgh, and WikiProject African diaspora. Some of these WikiProjects are currently semi-active and would benefit from more contributions from those in the Western Pennsylvania region and the University of Pittsburgh. The University of Pittsburgh has significant archival and historical content related to gaps to these WikProjects. Thank you for your consideration.
 * Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  23:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great proposal. If our collaborative work Primer for creating women’s biographies can help, please feel free to use it. I have long had a dream of all universities collaborating with WP, but the problem inherent in it is that academic research is often about utilizing original records to produce new scholarship, rather than WP's drive to use secondary sources without original research. I wish you well and honestly believe that the program would be very beneficial. SusunW (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Feedback needed on project proposal: Investigating the Impact of Implicit Bias on Wikipedia
Hi Friends! Here is the current draft of my project proposal: Investigating the Impact of Implicit Bias on Wikipedia. I value your input and would greatly appreciate your feedback. Please share it on the project proposal discussion page. Thank you in advance! Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Jackie. You have certainly pinpointed an important shortcoming in Wikipedia but I wonder how much one person working for one year can be expected to achieve. One of your objectives might be to build up a team of participants who can actively help you to carry out a realistic, well-defined evolving programme of research in specific areas, especially those in which action could be effective. I also think you need to take more account of the published literature, both scholarly papers in general and more importantly articles addressing the problem on Wikipedia. The experience already gained by projects such as Women in Red could also be taken into account from the start.--Ipigott (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Let me reflect on this and see how I can incorporate this. For further feedback, I started the discussion page and edited my post above to include the link to the discussion page. Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Project Grant proposal, US Women Olympians and Paralympians
Hello! Here is the current draft of a Project Grant proposal of likely interest to WikiProject Women in Red: US Women Olympians & Paralympians. Your feedback would be most welcome. Penny Richards (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . While I welcome your proposal, I think it's a pity it is limited to further coverage of Americans with no mention of the importance of creating articles on Olympians and Paralympians from other parts of the world. One possibility here might be to develop video presentations (based on your existing introductory sessions) suitable not only for use in the United States but around the world. After all, one area of serious imbalance on Wikipedia is that between coverage of Americans and Brits in comparison with all the other nationalities, especially those from Asia and Africa. Given the international nature of the Olympics (with competitors from 204 countries), this would also be an ideal opportunity to devote a small part of your effort to encouraging worldwide participation and coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * $50,000 is a gigantic amount to ask for for a project which benefits 2100 articles. The Africa Destubathon was run on a budget of $2300 and produced a similar amount of articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, it's not my proposal, I'm just sharing the link. If I read it right, a lot of the money is for in-person events in Los Angeles, travel to a conference, and a Wikipedian in Residence. You know I love virtual events, and they're certainly a bargain by comparison. Your feedback on coverage and cost would be good to bring up on the discussion page at the proposal link. Penny Richards (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Penny, yeah I can see that's it not your proposal. I'll comment on my thoughts.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Please help
Hello. I'm a Polish woman who recently spend a lot of time writing articles on Rebecca Masisak and Daniel Ben-Horin. I researched them heavily and tried my hardest to make articles meet the Wikipedia's content guidelines here, neutral and sourced. Within 12 hours I faced this brute edit, basically blocking all I'd done and replacing it with poor quality short article with [citation needed] notability etc. Daniel's article was redirected to TechSoup, even though the article had over 20 reliable sources, was neutral. He's very notable, look how many entries in google books. These people are both notable in the nonprofit social enterprise movement. I feel discriminated against as a woman editor and that my efforts are discouraged. I was rudely accused by an editor of COI editing and him saying that all workers of the company would be blocked. I do not work for TechSoup, and contributed these articles on self. I am not paid to write these. Can somebody please take the time to read my articles, check for neutrality and that the content is OK, edit if needs and add back. I was going to contribute more articles on Polish women but after this brute treatment I am angry and will not now unless justice. Thankyou. Alicjapeas (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest that I can see both points of view. I looked at Rebecca's article and it seems to me that she doesnt need any helpers. She seems to do everything and everything she touches improves. I also see bits like "organization’s relatively small ‘product philanthropy’ program into both a programmatic hub of the organization" and it just sounds at bit ambiguous. On the other hand you do need an editor who can take your text and recreate them in a more neutral way. Maybe someone might care to disagree or paraphrase a paragraph to demonstrate. On the other hand I don;t see how deleting large sections helps you (or anyone) to improve your donations. Victuallers (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are accused of COI editing and you were not a member of the company or paid to edit, then I think the way to start is to post on the talk page of the editor accusing you of this. You can also post on the talk page of the article. If it can't be resolved in that way, then an administrator can get involved to resolve the conflict. I've never been involved in such disputes, but other members of this WikiProject may know more about the process. I understand your frustration about contributing. That's why I don't even watch my own articles. After I take them to mainspace, they aren't really mine anymore: they are part of the encyclopedia and are subject to all kinds of edits. I view it as a "catch and release." I catch the idea, then I release it to the world and hopefully it survives and thrives. I can fix some of the reference issues on the article, though. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * should certainly be interested in this discussion. It seems to me it would have been far more productive to offer specific guidance to rather than dismissing her contributions out of hand. She is after all a very recent contributor to the English Wikipedia and these are the first two articles on which she has carried out substantive work. DrFleischman is also aware of her edit to National Gallery of Denmark. If you look at this profile on Twitter, it is hardly surprising she made that edit. I've been looking into this quite carefully and I am convinced Alicjapeas' edits were made in good faith. Given her cultural interests, she is just the kind of editor we need on WiR. Now we should see how we can restore her work as a basis for further enhancement. Can  or  offer any assistance here?--Ipigott (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm responding here after receiving a notice from Ipigott. My edits were not intended to target Alicjapeas or women in general; I was merely enforcing consensus and our COI guidelines and related terms of use. Alicjapeas is not being honest with you. Her article edits may have been made in good faith, but her comment here does not disclose that she has a readily verifiable COI in connection with TalkSoup. The TalkSoup-related articles (including Rebecca Masisak and Daniel Ben-Horin) have seen consistent paid COI editing in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use for years, and Alicjapeas' edits on those articles are clearly part of that broader pattern. It is clear to me, and I believe to anyone who looks into any issue in depth, that the larger problem here isn't with Alicja but with whoever has been directing/asking her and her associates to buff up and fill these articles with original research. I have no issue at all with Alicja contributing to articles on other Polish women or to the project more broadly.
 * I'll also add that Daniel Ben-Horin was BLARred by as noted at Talk:Daniel Ben-Horin due to a lack of notability. Alicja did not respond to Lemongirl942's comment there or otherwise address Lemongirl's notability concerns.
 * If there is to be continued discussion on this subject, I'd prefer it take place in a more appropriate forum, such as my user talk or Alicja's user talk. I am not watching this page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you please just full read the articles I did, I've looked at some other articles here and they are much better sourced and written than many. You claim I have COI, but read the articles, they are both notable and fully reliable sourced and neutral, not adverts.213.238.75.147 (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not a decision for you to make. Once you start complying with our Terms of Use, we can start talking about how to your edits can conform to our No Original Research policy. But not here--better on the articles' talk pages. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I hate to disagree with you here but I just looked at the diffs and the briefly scanned the articles and they both actually seem to meet notability requirements and I can't see any OR issues, they're both fully sourced. I would need to read them both thoroughly to check for neutrality, but given that we're trying to build the most comprehensive encyclopedia with notable, sourced content as much as possible we should have articles on these but somebody who doesn't have a COI should do it. I agree it's concerning that there's been a COI issue with this but it's also concerning that this editor seems to have found WIR and mistaken it as a women's rights group and has taken this personally. Wherever there's a chance of getting women article writers here from places like Poland, that's potentially valuable for WIR, especially as the content seems well written. Is there any way this could be resolved?♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely this can be resolved! All that has to happen is Alicjapeas needs to disclose her COI and propose her edits at Talk:Rebecca Masisak and Talk:Daniel Ben-Horin. If there's consensus to add the content then the content will be added by me or another non-COI editor. And if Alicjapeas wants to edit other articles for which she doesn't have a COI, then she is more than welcome to do so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

There's a problem though. There's no proof of a direct COI and generally people do not have to ask permission to add sourced, notable content, that's not Wikipedia is about. If we're worried that there is a COI issue, both articles should be reassessed now for neutrality, notability and OR by several neutral long standing editors independently and we make the call on the content and reedit it to suit us not an outside party.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to look into your articles and I do think you write well but we do have strict policies here and the articles have a history of conflict so the articles had to be filtered down. If you're genuinely interested in writing about Polish women you're very welcome to contribute to WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest in November which has over $4000 to win for writing. People writing about Polish women would be a great asset.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

BBC 100 Women, 2017
60 announced, 40 to be decided - BBC 100 Women 2017: Who is on the list? Some won't meet our notability criteria, but there must be some in need of articles. Edwardx (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The years come around so fast!♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

WIR contest - Missing articles for the contest
I looked in the big nav box and didn't see Armenia. I think it would good to have a sub cat of Category:Women in Red redlink lists with Category:Women in Red redlink lists by nationality. It will be easier to see then which lists we have and make it easier to compile WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest/Missing articles. Can we also create a new Template:Women in Red missing articles by nationality template and reduce the size of the main one? Still a month to go, I'll be working steadily on the list over the next month, feel free to help!♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I've created Template:Women in Red missing articles by nationality but WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/footer is in place with categories, that needs to be replaced I think.. The new nav box can feed then into the new Category:Women in Red redlink lists by nationality sub category once created.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Female academics tapped as science programming presenters on TV
Comment I ran across on Tori Herridge's blog: "What I find most positive though is the number of female historians and related specialists now presenting television programmes. Lucy Worsley, Suzannah Lipscomb, Alice Roberts, Kate WIlliams, Bettany Hughes, Janina Ramirez, and yourself among them". Linking the names here suggests that a good job is being done. There's always the more general problem that important and influential academics (regardless of gender) who aren't TV people are hard to write about here because of lack of the usual secondary sourcing (they may be cited by 1000+ other researchers without every attracting a single newspaper article), but this is at least an indication that one particular sub-topical gap in coverage of women is being handled. So, thumbs up! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If they attract 1000+ citations they will be competitive (depending on field) to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC).

American medical dictionaries
Hello, i came across these full access dictionaries while looking for sources on Effie Taylor:
 * A cyclopedia of American medical biography (1912)
 * American medical biographies (1920) v1. and v2,

These two require a physical copy since Google Books doesn't have full access: Dictionary of American nursing biography (1988) 'American nursing : a biographical dictionary (1990) v1-3

I was wondering if we could add them to the dictionaries section since there are women in these dictionaries. Thanks --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely add them to the dictionaries section. Always good to have sources available. SusunW (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , : I'm not sure what you mean by the dictionaries section. Perhaps the best place for these would be in the List of biographical dictionaries as the WiR listing is primarily for lists of red links.--Ipigott (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I assumed, perhaps incorrectly that the books which were open access were going to be converted to red lists and added to WiR By Dictionary section. This is what myself and several others have done in the past with references we have found. The ones that cannot be accessed, certainly can go on the list of biographical dictionaries. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not familiar with "Dictionary section". Perhaps you can provide some background on how this works. There are no doubt many other accessible biographical dictionaries in our lists which could usefully be processed in the same way.--Ipigott (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am totally confused. You linked to what I was referring to: WiR By Dictionary so I assumed we were all on the same page. As I said, in the past, say for example on Black history month, we made this page WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/US Black Women in Dictionaries which listed each dictionary. Clicking on the link for any individual dictionary then produces a list of red links. SusunW (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This certainly does not happen automatically. As far as I can see, out friend has run Wikidata lists on some of the dictionaries which were already referenced in Wikidata. I don't know if anyone is prepared to make Wikidata listings for new works of the kind mentioned above. That is why I suggested they should be listed elsewhere.--Ipigott (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I know it doesn't happen automatically. LOL I personally typed several of the redlists manually as I have zero idea how to make a list from Wikidata or any other automated program. But in any case, if you go to WiR by Dictionary, it refers to the See also lists, which is why I was referring to By Dictionary as the "Dictionary Section". Apparently it was unclear and I apologize. SusunW (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No apologies necessary. We're all very appreciative of your work on the red lists, including those by dictionary. Nevertheless, several of the lists are based on dictionaries covered item by item on Wikidata. Many others can be accessed page by page through normal searches. In some cases the pages are digitized but in many cases they are not. That's why I added the "See also" yesterday, so that people could see there are other useful lists. Maybe some of these works deserve further processing, either in the form of red lists created manually or by adding all the names to Wikidata along the lines of the ODNB. I realize this is laborious work but it may be worthwhile in certain cases. Perhaps others reading this page have suggestions? The biographical dictionaries already on the WiR list might also be useful in connection with 's Women World Contest in November.--Ipigott (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of articles created by new WiR member
I've just been looking at the recent work of our new member. I was surprised to see that her Yulia_Petrovna_Vrevskaya (Google cached version here) has been deleted on the basis of a copyright violation. It was based on the Russian version of the biography which I thought already carried a commons license. Her one line Marina de Omura is also up for deletion but could easily be expanded on the basis of the other language versions. This seems to me to be rather rough treatment.--Ipigott (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like it could be a "reverse copyvio" - if the ru.WP article was copied by other websites now it shows up as a copyvio, but it isn't. I don't read Russian so we'll need someone who can to confirm or refute my suspicion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I recreated Yulia_Petrovna_Vrevskaya with the assertion it came from ru-wiki (it is on the ukraine wiki as well), however no-one could really figure out if the ru-wiki article was also a copyright violation (see Deletion review/Log/2017 September 29).
 * There appears to be some confusion as to whether Marina de Omura was important or not, I really think a catholic saint and martyr would be, other think she should be merged with a list 16 Martyrs of Japan, however several others on that list have their own articles. Dysklyver  19:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Holly Neher
There's something downright comical about today's deletion of Holly Neher, right? Holly Neher won a place in history, and her own Wikipedia page, with just one throw Google search for Holly Neher Hmlarson (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * More context: Articles for deletion/Holly Neher and the now-userfied article at User:Paulmcdonald/Holly Neher. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Interested editors may comment at Deletion review/Log/2017 September 26--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Second nomination AfD open for discussion: Articles_for_deletion/Holly_Neher_(2nd_nomination) Hmlarson (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Anna Spitzmuller
Hi all! I'm wondering if any of you might be able to find additional sources for this article: Draft:Anna Spitzmüller. I'd like to help move it into mainspace, but I think it needs a few more sources. Any help is appreciated as always! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I find sources, but nothing that I have access to so I have no way of judging if there is significant coverage about her or not. If Esauboeck has access to these sources, he will stand a better chance if there are more in-line citations. Sources don't have to be on-line, but that certainly makes it hard for reviewers to judge the extent of available information. SusunW (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is considerable coverage of Anna Spitzmüller in . I have added it to the lead but various pages could be referenced from it in the body of the article. That alone would seem to justify moving the article to the main page.--Ipigott (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Alicia Yoon
Alicia Yoon was nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Alicia Yoon. She is "a New York City-based South Korean businesswoman, best known for founding Peach & Lily". Peach & Lily was deleted by a proposed deletion. Can anyone find more sources about her? Cunard (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Other sources include Bloomberg, New York Times, etc. --Ipigott (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NSPORTS intro wording change proposal
There's currently a proposal to change the wording of the introduction of WP:NSPORTS which impacts articles related to women athletes and women in sports. Many women's leagues, for example, are not included in various sports notability guidelines and editors rely on WP:GNG while most male athletes articles are given a pass by sports notability guidelines without having to meet WP:GNG. Input is welcome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#NSPORTS_introduction Hmlarson (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Holly Neher
Holly Neher was nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Holly Neher (2nd nomination). She "is an American high school athlete who some credit as the first female in the state of Florida to throw a touchdown in a high school game" in 2017. She "became the first girl to start a high school varsity football game at quarterback" in Broward County, Florida, and "is also believed to be the first female to do so in the entire state of Florida and possibly in the United States". Can anyone find more sources about her? Cunard (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no shortage of sources, but it is a uphill struggle to argue that a high school sports player is notable. The Wikipedia page itself has been in the news, I believe there is a template for that, but I do not know how to use it. Links for the news articles are on the AfD, diff. Dysklyver  10:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Nellie A. Goodhue
An article that was just created Nellie A. Goodhue, was tagged for Speedy Deletion after less than one hour by this user User:Person who formerly started with "216"; reason "Nothing showed up on Google other than a few records on her..."; I remove the tag and put on the talk page the clear evidence that was wrong: Sorry if that wasn't the right action to do, considering I'm the author of the article, but it was a completely wrong tag. Additional info: this user created the account on September 6 and has already been warned not to tag pages with Speedy Deletion AND to provided consistent reasons: User talk:Person who formerly started with "216". The answer to the warning was: "Ops..." This is a question of mine: should be a new user like this be allowed to tag pages for Speedy Deletion? I can understand a tag for AfD, but Speedy deletion seems a little too strong to me... What is the right approach in this case? Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * About 6,080 results (0.77 seconds) on Google for a restricted research "Nellie Goodhue"
 * About 218 results (0.89 seconds) on Google Books
 * 226 matches on Newspaper.com
 * Included in Binheim, Max; Elvin, Charles A (1928). Women of the West; a series of biographical sketches of living eminent women in the eleven western states of the United States of America.
 * You can draw alot of complaints from removing speedy tags on articles you made, as you are not supposed too, I did it once, it is an issue :( In future note the  template can be used to contest a speedy tag, you place the tag on the page, and reason not to delete on the talk page. IMHO there is no way this article should be speedy deleted as there is a credible claim for significance you have shown above ^.  Dysklyver  19:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you, that is the answer I was searching, I did not know about that template I need to put a note to remember how to use it.Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You should not have to do anything other than contest the deletion citing your reasoning on the talk page or in an edit summary. There is no problem with the creator removing a PROD tag, i.e. policy states "anyone may object as long as the PROD tag is present." See WP:WPROD SusunW (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This was a CSD A7 tag . Although deleting admins are supposed to check the talk page when dealing with CSD's so technically you can just press the 'contest this speedy deletion' button and leave a message on the talk page that way, however the presence of a holdon tag will cause an admin to look mre closely. Dysklyver  20:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you SusunW, therefore since in my edit I wrote "remove speedy deletion that I suppose was made by mistake. on talk page explanation" and then I put the motivation above in the talk page, I did the right steps, am I right? "you may simply remove the  tag from your article. In the edit summary clearly state that you have addressed the issue that was raised and are now removing the PROD tag." Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Careful you don't confuse a WP:CSD tag with a WP:PROD tag, the policies are different! Dysklyver  20:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * you are correct, sorry, it didn't register that it was not a prod. "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag". My fault, for steering you wrong. Maybe  can advise what should be done. SusunW (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Multiple thoughts:
 * got it right regarding the CSD tag, so let's all take these comments in as a learning experience.
 * It would be good if someone would add how to handle WP:CSD to our essay.
 * I'd suggest augmenting the article talkpage with a link to this WiR section which documents the continuing conversation. Also, I'm a bit skittish re historylink.org as a RS because of the statement in top left of the page. If it is possible to access the Thompson & Marr source that historylink.org refers to, it would be good to use it instead. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I have added some basic CSD information to WikiProject Women in Red/Essays/Primer for AfD, AfC and PROD. Dysklyver  15:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yay! Thank you ! Collaboration always makes for a more complete article. SusunW (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Always learning something new here; I didn't know about the  template. Thanks, Dysklyver. Alafarge (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

How to setup editathons?
I'm going to ask this here, because I have no clue what I'm getting into.

I've volunteered to run/host/guide an edit-a-thons during 'Open Access Week' at Dalhousie University, on October 23. I was wondering if there are resources available to edit-a-thons hosters, such as information guides, or common problems encountered during such events and so on. I'd hate to host an even and run into silly issues like account creation being disabled because of an IP range block or something. My general plan is to have a 30 minute intro to Wikipedia basics (account creation, how to edit, where to get help, etc...), followed by 60 minutes of editing.

Since this project has tons of background running those events, I feel like this is a good place to ask for general advice. The event won't be women-specific, but Women in Red will certainly be mentioned somewhere in my little 'intro to Wikipedia'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You can read the helpful 'how-to' guide at How to run an edit-a-thon, also consider getting in touch with account creators to avoid getting your number of account creations capped, without permission you will be blocked from creating accounts on the 7th try. Try to get some idea of the guides and such at Category:Wikipedia basic information in advance, as a lot of new editors will need access to the help guides!
 * You will need to understand the Article wizard beforehand, as this is what you will be using to make new pages, the drafts will feed into WP:AFC, so reading about that is a good idea also.
 * If people are signing up to go to the editathon in advance, I highly recommend you get people to make accounts 4 days in advance and make 10 edits before coming (this makes them autoconfirmed). Autoconfirmed editors are less likely to encounter issues with protected pages. Dysklyver  15:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:EDITATHON is perfect! Also, why can't people just create their own accounts? The whole WP:ACCOUNTCREATOR thing is just weird to me. But I'll look into it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You can only create 6 accounts from your network per day without going to the account creators, its one of the safeguards to stop mass vandalism. Dysklyver  15:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You may find Wikipedia talk:ACTRIAL interesting where some (brave) people are suggesting avoiding WP:AFC. Thincat (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We've done the same thing on our creating biographies guide . Far better to have another editor, an editahon facilitator, or a Wikiproject have oversight than AfC. Editathons are about teaching and training. AfC is not about coaching at all, as I have been told numerous times. Its purpose is not to create articles or mentor new users, but rather to ensure that articles someone else creates will stand up against a challenge at AfD. With that in mind, it would be unfair to send new recruits' articles there for review, as they are likely to be discouraged if their articles are declined for publication. If in a teaching environment, one reviews and explains why sources are not acceptable and what constitutes notability, articles are far likely to meet our guidelines and hold up at AfD, but more importantly, we aren't likely to run off editors. SusunW (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur on this; at the editathons I've run, it's the rare person who comes in with the right mix of skills and experience to get a new page made successfully under Wikipedia's rules and through the AfC process. Having people work on new pages in sandbox and then consult with experienced editors works far better for retaining enthusiasm than running pages through AfC. Alternatively, it can work to have attendees edit existing pages, especially if it's a themed editathon, and especially if you can put together beforehand a selection of substandard or stub pages that would be easy to improve.Alafarge (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Now 150 members of WiR
Thanks in particular to the efforts of, but also to all those who have joined after participating in our editathons, we now have a total of 150 active WiR members (i.e. those who have still been editing over the past three months). A few others have added their names to our main mailing list bringing that up to 200, although some might no longer be active. (When I have time, I'll try to update it.) I'm pleased to hear that Bobo will continue to provide listings of new potential members month by month. Our exciting World Contest in November should also attract more participants.--Ipigott (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the mass mailing list. There are now 156 editors and eight WikiProjects.--Ipigott (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

That's great, I do think if we run contests long term we will attract more editors but a lot will depend on this bot and them being efficient to run.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Frick
they put an AfD on Grace Frick, that was the first dean of Hartford College for Women. She is notable in an independent way from her partner Marguerite Yourcenar, but was in any case the translator of her books in English. She taught also at Barnard College and was a Wellesley College's graduate. I improved the article (I did not write it), more help would be welcomed. Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Despite the Keeps that emerged after the canvassing in this thread, the AfD was closed as No consensus. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC).

WIR contest - Minimum prose requirement
Looking at Natalie Martindale and that's enough content and sourcing to be worth creating IMO, that's 810 bytes. For a lot of the database type athletes you'd be lucky to get that. I'm thinking of lowering the minimum requirement for the contest to 750 or 800 bytes. Enough to be useful but still a stub. Obviously at a later date Destubathons and core contests can be organised to take care of fleshing out stubs and quality improvement.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I would pretty much agree with you, a very basic stub I made recently; Dawn Seymour is much the same kind of short-stub. As long as the basic information and main sources are there I think it is perfectly acceptable. At a later date someone could probably bulk it out fairly easily, possibly as you suggest, at a 'destubathon'. Dysklyver  14:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That article is too short for the contest though, the stubs need to have a few paragraphs of sourced material at least.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, if sourcing and notability are good. I usually don't write very short stubs, but I like destubbing them (did one yesterday, in fact). Penny Richards (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, very short stubs should be avoided of course, but I think 750 bytes is just about fleshy enough to have minimum use. I know that during the Destubathon there were a lot of articles I wanted to create but found that I could only find 750-1000 bytes of prose max for a lot of them and the minimum was 1500 for that of course. So I don't want to it to deter people from creating on those bios which are just about notable but are unlikely to ever be long articles. A lot of developing world countries have notable women but often suffer from a lack of reliable coverage.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you on this. IMO the general systemic bias to people from minority/non-western country’s is similar to the bias against women, and the combined affect on articles on women in developing countries needs to be considered. It may be a good idea to take this into account with any event that focuses on developing countries and use a more forgiving size/sourcing limit for certain areas to try and deal with it. Dysklyver  15:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That said, the really notable women bios at least in the "western" world there should be no problems with finding 1.5 kb + of readable prose to write about them. Those should really be priority for the project but if we only went by that there would be severe bias towards US, British, Australian etc women who will generally have more sources than women from Central African Republic or Vanuatu etc. So relaxing the minimum requirement is more about equality here than wanting to encourage masses of stubs for women in the western world. Once we reach a certain percentage I think we ought have contests focusing on core and quality. 25% women bios would be great but if only 2% of core women bios are GA or more then there's something wrong I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Worldwide Guide to Women in Leadership
I was fiddling around online, looking for something-or-other, and came across this site - have any of y'all stumbled across it? It's basically a database, but it seems like it could be a useful resource for at least developing some lists. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've used it a few times. It's huge! If it's not already on our "resources" list, we could add it. It would probably be good to link on the redlist for women in leadership, too, now that I think about it. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A potential resource for the contest ?♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Might it be possible, do you suppose, to develop some lists of redlinks based on this site? The more I look at it the more potential I see it has as a jumping-off point. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History
Another potential source for a list of redlinks, if anyone wants to generate one. The full book is behind various paywalls and such, but I believe the entire table of contents, at least, is available through the Google Books preview here. Cursory inspection reveals at least a handful of entries that we don't have covered yet. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added it to List of biographical dictionaries where many other dictionaries addressing women are also listed. One of these days it may be useful to compile a List of biographical dictionaries of women. We already have List of biographical dictionaries of women writers in English.--Ipigott (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

African Women in Cinema
Another potential resource? I haven't had a chance to dig around it much, but it might have some things to offer. http://africanwomenincinema.blogspot.com/ -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Women in Guam History
Another potentially useful source I found: the Women in Guam History project from Guampedia. Lots of good starting material there. (Also, wow am I on a roll today. :-)) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 09:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Women in science at Grand Central Terminal
Turned up in my Facebook feed this morning: Here's Why They Put A Bunch Of Women On The Ceiling At Grand Central Terminal. There's quite a few of them there who don't have Wikipedia articles, I notice. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Some are of dubious notability (internal people at GE, the company that sponsored the exhibit, and one up-and-coming graduate student), and one (Haile) is misspelled. But Jessica Melbourne-Thomas looks like she could be notable to me. I was all set to write a new article on her until I discovered that, unfortunately, her article was deleted a year ago via an AfD (Articles for deletion/Jessica Melbourne-Thomas) which makes it harder to justify re-creating it than if we never had an article. I guess we have to go through a DRV and argue that new evidence since the past AfD is enough to change the outcome? But if the new evidence is only her inclusion in this exhibit, it might not be seen as large enough. Kira Radinsky is also missing, and looks like the likeliest target for a new article. There's a (declined) draft at Draft:Kira Radinsky but that's much easier to reverse than an AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

60 Iconic Women
An article with capsule biographies of 60 women involved in the Women's March in South Africa. Many have articles, but there are quite a few who don't. I've created a couple over the past few days, and will be able to create a couple more as I have time. The article is here. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Emerging From the Shadows'
Currently traveling - apologies for my inactivity of late.

I found this source - http://emergingfromtheshadows.com/#books, the site for a set of books on early women artists in California called Emerging From the Shadows -, and it looks fascinating, to the point that I would buy a copy if a.) I could afford it, and b.) (more importantly) I had somewhere at home to put it. At the very least, the website has a complete list of all the artists in the four books, and I think we can generate some redlink lists from those, if we so desire. Though I'd note that a handful of the women whose names I've checked have scant, if any, internet presence to speak of. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Invitation reaction
I've been aware of this cleverly named project for some time, but hadn't actually joined it until I recently received an invitation. For what it's worth, I had some other plans in mind but, given the invitation, I decided to search for red link and turn it blue: Kathy Delaney-Smith

It's only one article, but there will be more to come. Thanks for the invitation, I think it's a good idea. I suspect there are other editors like myself who know about the project but may become more involved if formally invited.

By the way, if you ever think the project needs a slogan I offer the following: -- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red yesterday, read today
 * Welcome! I like your slogan too. Penny Richards (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, welcome,, and I like the slogan idea. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * +1 on the great slogan! Funcrunch (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You've certainly made a good job of Kathy Delaney-Smith since you first mentioned it. Perhaps you (or someone else) would like to take it to DYK? In any case, thank you for your efforts.--Ipigott (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * DYK crossed my mind, but despite doing one last week, I'd rather work on content. If someone else wants to do it, there a natural hook, as the coach of the only team to ever win a 16 seed versus 1 seed matchup in an NCAA basketball tournament. (I did write to Harvard today to see if they would provide me with an image.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OMG! I love the slogan! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks (and good luck)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

SHI International Corp
SHI International Corp was nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/SHI International Corp (2nd nomination). According to page 64 of the ABDO Publishing Company book Women in Business, SHI International Corp is "the largest female-owned business and one of the largest minority-owned companies in the United States". Can anyone find more sources about the company? Concerns were also raised about the article's quality. Cunard (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Articles for deletion/List of female military historians
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/List of female military historians. Zazpot (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * At that discussion, editors are weighing up whether to move List of female military historians into the WP:WikiProject Women in Red namespace. If you have any constructive thoughts about this, please could you read that discussion and add to it? Many thanks, Zazpot (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Forbes article on the future of Wikipedia
I have just read with interest Katherine Maher's article "How Wikipedia Changed The Exchange Of Knowledge (And Where It's Going Next)". While the general objectives for the future are perfectly reasonable, I was disappointed to see that such little account had been taken of the progress we have made over the past year or so on Women in Red. Maher tells the world, "...right now only 16% of the 1.3 million biographies on English Wikipedia are about women." In fact, "right now", on 1 October 2017, exactly 254,892 (or 17.11%) of the 1,489,788 biographies on the English Wikipedia are about women. (See the latest Wikidata stats presented by WHGI here.) I wonder where the dated figures came from and why no one helped to keep our Executive Director informed of what we are doing. (Strangely Maher does not appear to be an EN Wikipedia user. Perhaps someone could keep her informed.)--Ipigott (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've copied this to Katherine Maher's Wikimedia talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We know that a sizable proportion of articles about people are paid for by the individual themselves or their representative. I just looked at the gender of all articles created by this sock involved in undisclosed paid editing User:Bri/COIbox61.
 * Of the 104 BLPs they wrote 87 (84%) were for males and 17 (16%) were for females. The current proportions may partly reflect that males are more interested / willing to buying articles about themselves than females. Limiting undisclosed paid editing will likely help improve maters. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - Regarding undisclosed paid editing of women's biogs, is there something we can do here at Women in Red to help with this matter? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My comment was more that part of the proportional imbalance between bios about men and women reflect who is buying articles. Support of efforts to limit undisclosed paid editing is appreciated. Currently their is discussion about one aspect on meta. But dealing with undisclosed paid editing (which is also linked to harassment in many ways) is going to require many individual efforts. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 16% may seem small, but in terms of sheer numbers that's already very solid and beyond other reference works. Britannica, for example, has only 14% of biographies, men and women combined. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History has only about 650 entries. Perhaps the real question is: how many core biographies on women we are missing? Brandmeistertalk  20:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, nice of you to drop in and offer some interesting comments. I agree that even 17% seems small, especially when compared to other languages versions of Wikipedia such as Norwegian and Swedish which already have more than 20%. Welsh already has over 50% but most of them were artificially created directly from Wikidata. As for the "core biographies", it all depends on what you mean. I dare say that most of the important women from the English-speaking world appear somewhere in the English Wikipedia but many of them are included in the biographies of their husbands or male companions. On the other hand, I constantly come across women in other language versions of Wikipedia who were extremely well known in their day as authors, actresses, musicians and women's right activists. In my opinion, they deserve to be covered in the English version of Wikipedia even if they were not prominent in the English-speaking countries during their lifetime. As for women who are still with us today, there are a huge number who have gained fame in the countries of Africa or Asia (including Azerbaijan) but whose biographies are usually not included on the EN Wikipedia as they are not documented in accessible secondary sources although intricate research often reveals wide coverage in national journals and newspapers (for those with the necessary subscriptions, tools and patience). So I think we still have a long way to go if we are to bring the coverage of "core women" up to that of "core men". Progress monitored on Women in Red indicates we are slowly improving coverage. Our current target is 20%. It might still take us two or three years to get there but we are trying very hard to encourage wider participation. Finally, to return to your hobby horse of paid editing, I have not found very much evidence of it in recent biographies of women, although we have detected a couple of isolated cases, one of which was surprisingly related to early 20th-century female artists. Most of the paid editing appears to be in support of companies and their top executives, with a strong slant towards biographies covering men rather than women. Please let us know if you detect any paid editing of women's biographies. It would be interesting to look into it more closely.--Ipigott (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * As a footnote, after turning up your link to core biographies, I found that only nine of the 200 were on women: that works out at 4.5%! Admittedly, the list was compiled in 2006 but it clearly shows Wikipedia's bias towards men. Unless anyone can point to a more recent listing, perhaps we should do something about preparing an updated selection of 200 core biographies with a better balance between men and women. and  might be interested.--Ipigott (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Women/Women in Green has a list of 100 "Core" women and it was more recently prepared. I guess in a way, my issue with selecting a list of core women based on "Must have had a large impact outside of their main discipline, across several generations, and in the majority of the world. For instance, Einstein, brilliant physicist, but his theories have affected people outside of physics and in many other countries besides his nation of origin and several generations. His ideas have changed the way people think. No member should give this rating to any biography without first getting Project approval from the other members." is that those end up on it will be those that a mainly white press and white academic world wrote about. In other words, by this criteria, Maymie de Mena would be a core person, but she would never appeared on any list, as there had been little scholarship written about her until very recently and many details are still unknown. (On the other hand Marcus Garvey with whom de Mena developed the Pan-African movement, and has had much scholarship written about him, isn't on the list of core biographies either and isn't a GA or FA).
 * Media bias is what it is and we are a reflection of it. People know Susan B. Anthony (who is not a GA or FA) who fought for suffrage in America, but not Doris Stevens (GA) and Alice Paul (who is not a GA or FA) who literally got the UN to evaluate women's legal status globally and pass international legislation about citizenship for women. I guess what I am saying is the criteria of creating the list by its very nature will reinforce biases. I get that we have to start somewhere and I am glad that the definition of "core" to some extent combats the problem of "recentism" that is very real on WP. (It also pretty much shoots paid editing in the foot, as it seems really unlikely that someone would be paid to create an article on someone who has been dead long enough to influence multiple generations.) SusunW (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Core Biographies list perpetuates systemic bias -the "He Who Appears in the Most History Books Wins" approach- which is Westernized and out-dated. Thankfully, the 2030 Movement Strategy Direction shifts that view, so let's wait on tackling the Core Biographies list until after the first Movement Strategy Plan (the first 3-5 year plan) is underway. In the meantime, as  links above, we do have the Women in Green list of 100 "Core" women, so we've made a start on thinking about this. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Women in Green has its own issues with systemic basic, though (even as it's better than the core biographies list), having a distinct US-bias: this is how we wound up with Cindy Crawford but one person from south Asia, south-east Asia and Oceania combined - so not Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto or Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the first woman head of government in the world. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly the Global South, especially South America, the Caribbean, and Africa are not really represented either. SusunW (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the Women in Green Hot 100 List is that it is comprised of Wikipedia's vital articles. I think it's more of a chance to highlight some of the important biographies on women for improvement towards GA status than it is a new assessment of the importance of various women. Knope7 (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we could well begin to discuss new criteria on which to base a list of 100 "core women", or perhaps even core women in various fields of endeavor. In addition to the Hot 100 on Women in Green, we have many highly prominent women categorized under FA women and GA women articles. We could perhaps open a page on Women in Green to discuss criteria and further development. In this connection, we probably need to revisit Vital articles. There's no time like the present for trying to put things in order. Any ideas, ?--Ipigott (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The criteria for Vital is non-existent other than community consensus that I can see, which again places the outcome for inclusion on whim or those that mostly male historians and WP editors choose. Not the criteria I'd like to see. I like the definition above for Core, but the issue is that most of the women who meet that criteria won't be found until we evaluate their articles. Women who were included in history books were often those who were seen as "acceptable", not those pesky radicals who changed the world's systems and whose contributions continue to have impact. SusunW (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why we need to start a discussion on the criteria we should use. We can then prepare a new list based on our criteria. I think it's worthwhile.--Ipigott (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm all for more interest and excitement over at Women in Green, although to me it sounds like the task of creating a list of core women is distinct from the central aim of Women in Green. Knope7 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have worked in Vital Articles before, and the criteria is actually very tough, put simply most of the limited places on historical figures are filled with particularly groundbreaking people, who for obvious reasons to do with historical bias were mostly men, often these are leaders, politicians and philosophers. To replace someone already in the vital list you must show the candidate is more relevant. However balance could be achieved with areas like science and literature, where there plenty of strong women who could be included. Its worth noting that the people at vital are unlikely to consider 'being the first woman to do x' is even vaguely relevant, and it would be an uphill struggle trying to replace many of the undoubtedly influential people they have picked.
 * Instead we should create our own vital womens list in a matching vein, categorised by levels, as they do, and by subject, as they do, and with leaders, scientists, politicians etc in all fields and time periods all represented. To create something like a "1000 vital women" list, and a "100 core women" list within that as suggested. I would be happy to assist in shamelessly copying the vital articles layout if anyone is interested. Dysklyver  20:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a "1000 vital women" list, and a "100 core women" list would fall under the scope of WP:WikiProject Women (of which Women in Green is a work group). If others agree, then these might make sense: WP:WikiProject Women/1000 vital women and WP:WikiProject Women/100 core women. But maybe the naming convention should be more like this: WikiProject Women/Women in Green? --Rosiestep (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Women don't readily fall into the categorizations on the "vital" page to my mind. It's the same problem with trying to use secondary notability criteria; it limits people to one dimension. Why can't we just start with 1 woman from each country, i.e. 247 not 1000, and get input from our WiR sister-projects on defining who the "core" women throughout history are? SusunW (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I like 's idea. It's manageable & can promote cooperation across the other languages on Wiki. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft list of the world's most prominent women
For what it's worth, I've started to put together a draft list of prominent women. I thought it would be useful to make a practical start rather than theorize about who should be included. I am aiming for a basic list of about 500 but would appreciate any comments on those I have included up to now. Have I included anyone who should not be there or have I forgotten anyone who is really important? Feel free to comment either here or on the article's talk page. I hope very soon to include a set of basic selection criteria and add a list of sources (dictionaries, journals, etc.). I'm starting with a "world list" but I think it would also be useful to develop lists by country and/or by continent.--Ipigott (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the scope to be women who impacted the world or women who impacted other women/women's history? As I believe that makes a difference. For example, no one would deny the impact of Cleopatra to world history, but Jehan Sadat's role in changing the legal rights of women had a much more direct effect on women. Likewise, I adore Frida Kahlo and she should certainly be a vital topic for the arts, but Juana Inés de la Cruz, as one of the first women to challenge the church on women's education had a more vital role in women's history. SusunW (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking an immediate interest in this. I have tried to take both of these into account as I think those who had an impact on women and women's rights contributed to world development too. After all, the evolving trend towards wider acceptance of women and their works is an important component of world history. I'll try to put together a set of selection criteria on the talk page to make things clearer. I think an important factor is general familiarity with each of the women on the list as well as their coverage in several dependable sources. That being the case, I would certainly go along with adding Nzinga of Ndongo and Matamba to the world list but I think Soraya Tarzi (and also Jehan Sadat) would be better included in a separate list of prominent African women (which we could also start to develop once the world list is sufficiently well developed to be moved to the mainspace). I'm afraid I'm not at all happy about including Mamia Chentouf. I had never even heard of her and even on the FR Wiki, her biography is rarely consulted. But she certainly looks as if she needs an EN wiki article.--Ipigott (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Although we are not using the same categories as Vital does, I believe we should use the same methods, what they do works, and has been used for several years now, it would make sense to borrow their way of deciding on things. I have left a more detailed message on the article talk. Dysklyver  19:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort, but w/o clear criteria on who is to be included and who isn't, the page conflicts with WP:NOR. We can't just make up our own list and let Wikipedia designate the N most prominent women. That's not what the project is about. We summarize available information, we don't create it. Kleuske (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To avoid Original research, but also to avoid question on who to include and who not, why instead we do not list, in cronological order, women who achieved a "first" therefore breaking a barrier?
 * 1678: Elena Cornaro Piscopia, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. degree;
 * 1849: Elizabeth Blackwell, the first woman to achieve a medical degree in the United States;
 * 1891: Irene Williams Coit, the first woman passing the Yale College entrance examination;
 * 1903: Marie Curie, the first woman to win a Nobel Prize
 * 1931: Jane Addams, the first American woman to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
 * 1939: Hattie McDaniel, the first Academy Award won by an African American entertainer
 * 1988: Benazir Bhutto, the first woman to head a democratic government in a Muslim majority nation
 * These are all info already available in wikipedia, and I'm sure that if we ask to WiR editor we can find worthy names to be included in the list for all countries... as I said, being a cronological list, you can overcome the issue of the 100 or 200 names. And it's not original research. Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you collect a list of names like this, based on your own knowledge, it is original research; see WP:SYN. If we base a list on reliable sources that have collected similar names themselves (such as ), it is not original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL apparently mine is not an original idea ;-) I didn't know, I have just made a search to see if a similar list exsisted and I have found out that Time launched the project in September: So not original research and hopefully the list will be bigger than 46 names? Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh? what about this list List of American women's firsts? it's quite old and the concept is the same... it's not originated by a unique source, but it collects different sources... Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If the firsts are properly sourced, I don't have a problem with it. Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interesting and constructive comments. I thought it would be useful to move the article to mainspace in the hope that there would be some constructive contributions but, as I might have expected, it's already been tagged AfD. Highlighting the women firsts looks like an interesting approach on the world scale (and not just for American women). Perhaps we should move in that direction. See also the article's talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I really don't think I can be accused of original research when I have quoted my sources. There was wide consensus in the literature on most of the names. Unfortunately, I did not include all the duplicates I found and I did not tag each name with one or more of those references. What I thought was needed now was more attention to the criteria for inclusion and also to the length of the list. However, Elisa's suggestion of listing firsts may be just as reasonable and less risky.--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't accuse anyone of anything. I'm raising a concern, since I did not find any "wide consensus in the literature" as you have. Hence my call for clear criteria for inclusion. I am glad you share this concern. Kleuske (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I said "accused". I've just been reading Articles for deletion/List of the world's most prominent women where I think I was being accused of original research. I'm just waiting to see if there are any more useful suggestions before I start working on the article again.--Ipigott (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no accusation there either. Again, that the article is being criticized, does not mean any editor is accused. I still maintain the concern is a legitimate one, but I'm sure we can come to some conclusion that a) satisfy WiR call for such an article and b) Wikipedia's policies. This can be either a first-article (as suggested earlier) or a prominent women-article if we can agree on some clear set of criteria (winners of some award or prize (Nobel, Fields-medal, Pulitzer, etc.), firsts, heads of state/government... Kleuske (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)