Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 36

Erica Garner
Any chance someone could throw something together on civil rights activist Erica Garner? She has 102,000 Google News hits and no article. It's something that plenty of people are likely to be looking for considering the huge media coverage of her heart attack this week.. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * To get something done, then it's good to make a start, even if it's incomplete — see the Zeigarnik effect. So, in that spirit, I have created a brief stub. Andrew D. (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well aware of that, but short on time and energy to take on the subject today, so raised it with some people who could. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Improved it to 1,000 characters, if people can get to 1.5k then it'll be DYK eligible. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've expanded it further, in part by adding an Early life section. I think the section on her activism still needs work too. It is now long enoug to be considered a Start Class article. Knope7 (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The page has had about 85,000 readers so far and that's quite heavy traffic. It has had to be protected though and so it's a good one to put on your watchlist. Andrew D. (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Template WIR-00 for 2018
The current template  addresses 2017 activities. Thoughts on how we should amend it for 2018? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Two options I see...either make it WIR-000 or WIR-2018. The first follows the "no number" routine of the previous scheme and the second makes it quite clear that it is an annual event. SusunW (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions, . I really like WIR-2018. But looking forward to other thoughts on this. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * in the hope it will continue for many more years, I think WIR-2018 is the best option. Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That'd work to prevent typos of 00 instead of 000 and it also easy to remember. Does that mean the 2017 one will remain at WIR-00 and the 2018 one will have a new template? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe there should be a redirect from WIR-2017 to WIR-00? Also, should we create a new "meetup page" instead of continuing to use this one: []? --Rosiestep (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I kind of think we should do a new sign up sheet for each year. But that's just me. And yes, I think a redirect to WIR-2017 for WIR-00, would be appropriate. SusunW (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems we already have WIR-2017 template which is being used in a generic fashion. What about WIR-00-2017 (as a redirect) and WIR-00-2018? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * from my experience, I copy and paste the template so it's no issue if it's longer. Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm with Elisa. I just copy and paste, so WIR-00-year works fine. SusunW (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I created the new meetup page for 00-2018, the redirect for WIR-00-2017, and the new template for WIR-00-2018. Also, changed the color of the January meetup pages to orange... new year/new look. Hope they are all ok. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sorting this out, . I've updated the main WiR template for 2018 but I'm not too sure how you want to handle #1day1woman for 2017. Perhaps you would like to insert it with the appropriate link. I'm not sure if you want to maintain WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00 or change it to WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2017. Sooner or later we should also try to complete the page on Template:WIR 2017. It hasn't been updated since July. As I made such a mess of these templates in the past, I think it would be better if someone else could follow 's approach and add all the missing months. I suppose we should also start a new template page for WIR 2018. Perhaps could help with some of this too.--Ipigott (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * it never occurred to me about the templates being only for 2018. I can definitely help do updates. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk)


 * As I mentioned above, there's also the Template:WIR 2017 which together with Template:WIR 2017/doc is intended to document all the editathons on the basis of their templates. To some extent, it duplicates what is in the general Template:Women in Red but it is designed to display the full list of editathon templates.  seemed to think it was important. I note, however, that Template:WIR 2017/doc has zero page views. It therefore looks as if it is not worth maintaining. Maybe  and  would like to let us know whether it should be maintained or simply dropped. They could also let us know whether the approach should be continued by creating Template:WIR 2018 and Template:WIR 2018/doc or whether it will be sufficient just to create the basic editathon templates.--Ipigott (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No strong views ... My vote is just for simple. I'm presuming that Wikidata is where our main stats come from. The templates are (I guess) useful for "marking territory" and for other editors to see that we are a project worth joining. So I can see that saying "2018" has the benefit of making sure no-one thinks we are "last years project". I use WIR-00 when I cannot get our work to fit with the monthly editathons... and its the one I remember. So my vote is for rationalisation (lets merge if poss) and making sure I don't need to look up the template name.  Victuallers (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support what just said. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I take that to mean that that no further action is required. That will make it much easier for all of us!--Ipigott (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

a discussion that may be of interest
hi, WIR editors may be interested in this discussion about gendered categories. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, for drawing our attention to this. The discussion reappears periodically and until now we have managed to maintain most of the categories for women. Although it is very useful to have categories for women in support of the development of their biographies, one of the problems is that editors often fail to ensure that entries in the non-diffusing categories for women are complemented by an entry the corresponding normal category. For example a name in Category:American women painters must also have an entry in Category:American painters (or one of its sub-categories) -- otherwise it would look as if all the American painters were men. The same applies to all the other non-diffusing categories for women's occupations. From time to time, it may be useful to check whether these non-diffusing categories are supported by entries in the corresponding normal categories. If we fail to do this, there may be further complaints and calls for the women's categories to be deleted.--Ipigott (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * hi, thanks for this, i am probably guilty of this ie. the person is in American women painters cat so doesn't need to be in American painters cat, i will ensure i don't do this in the future, cheers:)Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting and ironic that all the people involved in the discussion on that page do not appear to be women. Could it be that rather than "it requires us to determine whether practically every activity and occupation has some form of bias against women or not" it is simply that wading through the clearly lopsided coverage of male-oriented articles is tedious and unproductive when one is searching for an article on women? As long as women are included in the main category and the non-diffusing category, why on earth would it matter? SusunW (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record since you quoted me, I'm a woman. And I agree with your point, it just didn't strike me as the most obvious problem with the proposal. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a !voting proposal or RfC, but a discussion draft, and has already had some constructive feedback (e.g. leading with "ghettoization" of articles was a distraction, as were suggesting statistical differences and reasons for them without providing sources). Seeking input on the overall idea.  Sounds likle there is some to provide!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * In the discussion, has specifically asked whether these non-diffusing women categories are useful for WiR. I have given the reasons why I think they are. Perhaps others would like to contribute their own ideas.--Ipigott (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for weighing in. As you indicated, equal footing does not exist, not POV but fact which can be confirmed by the UN reviews on the status of women. And the proposal is definitely opening a can of worms.
 * Discussions on WP often end up being endorsements for whatever the loudest speakers want to begin with. I didn’t take your request for discussion as anything more than a rallying point for the majority to begin collecting votes and honing their arguments. I’m not saying that was your intent, I am saying instead that it is what I see come out of WP “discussions”.
 * Were the projects which might be most affected by such a change asked for input before bringing the community at large to the table? If not, why not?
 * Did it seem that having a group of largely male editors determine what, how and if women should be categorized separately was the best way to decide “the woman question”? Lack of consultation in general has not had positive outcome throughout history. Just look at the devastating effects of colonization policies. The same holds true on WP. For example, when we wrote the article on Women Aviators, the 99s actually responded with data and requested that we refer to their members as aviatrix/aviatrice. I had to explain to them that regardless of their preference, WP editors had decided by consensus that their preferred term for the members of their profession was not acceptable, which became a frustration point for both of us. I was powerless to make the change they wanted and they then were unhappy with our result.
 * Are you actually proposing that an article be written for every topic to confirm that women (or other minorities) have been excluded before a category can exist? Surely it *can* be proven that “marked differences between the male and female role (insert "roles in the dominant culture and minority cultures"), experience, public reaction” has been the case, but it would be far more productive to write that material into existing articles that reflect an imbalanced POV or omit women/minorities and their contributions entirely. Just two recent examples of where women were written entirely out of history were the direction of the History of Brewing to point to the History of Beer, rather than Women in brewing and the article on the League of Nations. Were it not for editathons focused specifically on women involved in food and drink or the peace movement, these gaps in history would have remained unexposed.
 * WP is indeed a reflection of the greater society. It is biased and its history is written by those who have power. What you see as ghettoization, may in fact be self-identifying and empowering to the excluded. When by default the majority of articles on WP include males from the dominant cultures, it is not necessary to add "balance" by giving them their own categories, they are already represented. On the other hand, categories which point out differences, do give those who are omitted from the larger history a presence and help those who are interested in representing the diversity of our world develop ideas for additions to improve articles and coverage. SusunW (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't gotten into the discussion over there just yet, largely because it will require more time and energy than I've had to devote to it over the past couple of days. I would just point out, however, that the field of "women's studies" is a recognized academic field, and has been for some time. Furthermore, the concept of women-only reference works shouldn't be that foreign to anyone of academic bent who has been to college in the past couple of decades. Hell, at home I have dictionaries of women musicians, women artists...these exist. They are a known quantity. Who are we as an organization to disagree? That has always been my rationale for supporting any women-only categories. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Strongest keep in favor of gendered, non-diffusing, categories. As the founder of WikiProject Women Writers in 2014, I received emails in the first few months from academics who were watching our category creation work regarding women writers and basically, they said in unison: "These are helpful to my academic work. Don't stop." Regarding Women in Red,, and  echo my sentiments. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Strongest keep in favor of gendered, non-diffusing, categories same here. It is most critical not to confine women only to a subcategory when men are kept in the main one.  Where there is a "woman" or "female" category, there should also be a corresponding "men" or "male" category. Otherwise, just have the main cat and don't bother with either gendered category.  Montanabw (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not the discussion, this is a pointer to the discussion. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Categorization.   Please do not WP:TALKFORK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Komm rein, mach mit!
Ever so proud that my 100th woman bio since I followed that call is on the Main page, DYK? - Happy 2018 (pictured)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I had the chance to hear her sing Wagner a few years ago when she did it here in DC. Pity I don't like the Ring. :-) (Not entirely true, but still...) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, . May you produce many more articles in 2018, which add to our collective knowledge. SusunW (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You have been one of our most consistent and informative contributers. I look forward to the next 100 biographies which you can of course begin now.--Ipigott (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I will write #103 next week ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Vlada Borovko
Vlada Borovko, a Russian soprano, had been nominated for deletion today. I think the sources ought to be enough to establish notability, especially the Royal Opera House interview, but perhaps more can be found in Russian. Edwardx (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I found and added several Russian sources. SusunW (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Since we're sharing...
My initial goal of 500 new articles on women having been met, I set a stretch goal of 600, which I also exceeded...just barely. #604, my last of the year: Susan Brown Chase. (A pupil of #596, Bertha E. Perrie, among others.) I posted it on Facebook and got quite the reaction, I must say. :-) I kind of wish my milestone had been someone a tad more interesting... -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bravo ! My goal was to reach the 1000 mark by the end of the year over my time on Wikipedia. Since I don't write stubs, that was a high bench, but I ended 2017 with 1,015 articles written since my first edit with a user name in November 2014. I edited for about a month as an IP, but never created an article until I created a sign in. SusunW (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to you both. You've both been helping to make WiR a really rewarding project. Some time ago I gave up counting the articles I create but from this listing it looks as if I may also have clocked up over 1000 biographies of women over the years, including almost 500 over the past couple of years. I also usually try for Start Class or better but occasionally fall short.--Ipigott (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have any idea how you could possibly measure the contributions you make. All the gnoming in addition to writing articles. I couldn't possibly do what I do without help from you both. It takes a village :) SusunW (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're too kind. :-) Gnoming is fun - fair warning that I intend to do a lot more of it this year, again. There are some categories that really need filling out. Congratulations on making your goal, by the way - mind if I ask what your last article for the year was?


 * I don't often keep tabs on what I do, but I thought setting a goal for myself last year would be interesting; I find some kind of somewhat nebulous goal helps me focus on the task at hand. This year I intend to be a lot more all-over-the-map with my editing. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I did not have a specific goal, but I reached the 400th article few days ago (starting more or less in July 2017 I think): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elisa.rolle#Articles_created_on_Women. At first it was not easy, but joining WiR made a change on my experience in Wikipedia... I also learned there are polite and unpolite people everywhere, and it's just easier to ignore those who are not and focus and those who want to help. Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anne Ector Pleasant from the go local editathon, Shreveport, Louisiana lady from whence I emerged. that's awesome! And yes, it is definitely not easy to start working on WP. I totally agree that it's so much better when you find people who want to help you succeed. SusunW (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice work - didn't realize you were a Southerner like me. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * as near as I can tell, every single family line I have hit the southern shores between the late 1600s and 1700s, except that one Luxembourger line that settled briefly in Wisconsin in the 1860s before heading south. Most of them have been in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas since the 1840s. I'd lived all over the southern US before I moved to Central America and then finally back up to Mexico. SusunW (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a little farther north, and less eclectic - my father's a Richmond, Virginia native, as was his mother. Beyond that, her line was in the greater Richmond area for the better part of 300 years - the first of my ancestors, the Andersons, were near what is Mechanicsville, Virginia as early as 1634 or thereabouts. And there are traces of us in Cumberland County, which is about an hour west of greater Richmond; James Anderson Highway is the name of US Route 60, and he was my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother's brother, if I understand correctly. So I may live in the DC suburbs, but I'm more Virginian than just about anyone else I know. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Women in archaeology task force update
Just over a year ago I started a women in archaeology task force of WikiProject Archaeology to improve our coverage of female archaeologists and women-related topics in archaeology. Since then, WIR's red list of women archaeologists has been halved, and members of the task force have created 32 new biographies. Two of those were featured at DYK and one (Margaret Ursula Jones) was brought up to good article status. We've also tagged and assessed all of the existing articles on women archaeologists (373 total), which helps the task force keep track of the level and quality of coverage. I therefore wanted to thank, , and, especially, , for all their hard work over the past year.

At this rate, I think we can aim to turn all the remaining links on the WIR archaeology red list blue in 2018. I'd also like to focus on improving existing articles. Currently only 12% of women in archaeology articles are classed as B or above, and only three are GAs or FAs.

If anybody would like to help, please do add your name to the participant list at WP:ARCHAEO/WOMEN. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a high goal, and I wish you the best of luck. I love working on women archaeologists. Not my area of expertise, but I always learn so much when creating articles on them. SusunW (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * To help you along, we could perhaps devote another WiR virtual editathon to women in archaeology. It would be best if we could combine it with some other important initiative. Do you have any suggestions?--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I notice that the ICA 2018 : 20th International Conference on Archaeology will be held March 15-16 in Paris (its link is on the Wikipedia blacklist so I couldn't include it here). Perhaps we could add Women Archaeologists to our March offerings, coinciding with Women's History Month? Looks like there are hundreds of crowd-sourced and Wikidata-generated articles we could work on. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure, an editathon would be great. I've never heard of that conference though, sounds a bit dubious. What kind of event/initiative would fit the bill? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I see for example that the SAA awards are to be presented at their annual meeting in mid-April (although we don't yet know if there will be any women). There is special concern for women archaeologists at the current SHA meeting in New Orleans, see here. Perhaps we should see if they develop any new plans. Otherwise we could tentatively arrange a WiR editathon for May, if that suits you.--Ipigott (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The link to the "20th International Conference on Archaeology" is blacklisted for a good reason: It's run by the World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * which is alleged to be associated with predatory publishing. Wikipedians beware of involvement. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC).
 * Very well done so far. I am especially pleased to see Jones's article created and reach GA. I encountered her work while improving Sleaford's article and thought then that she ought to have her own. Cheers,—Noswall59 (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC).


 * It looks to me as if we could schedule a WiR editathon on Women in archaeology for April. I've tentatively listed it on our ideas page for that month.--Ipigott (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm in for sure. SusunW (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing Paediatricians
Articles are needing for the folllowing:
 * Anne Greenough:
 * Sheila Shribman:

Both are James Spence Medal winners, and eminently notable. I don't have time to do them at the moment, as there is another 10 or so, on the list for articles. I was wondering if anybody can step up to the plate. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Since one of the contests next month is on Great Britain/Ireland, I'll look into these two women. Thanks for the suggestion!. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi MrLinkinPark333, excellent. I hope they are good articles, as these two folk, were at the very top of their field. The James Spence Medal details why they were notable. Thanks scope_creep (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sheila Shribman done by me today. One left. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD Joy McSweeney
They put an AfD on Joy McSweeney. I wasn't able to find much info on Joy McSweeney, but she was a journalist in a time when women did have little or no independence. If someone can help improve the article (before putting the AfD, the nominator deleted some details) that would be welcomed. Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've looked in vain for records of McSweeney's contributions to journalism. Perhaps u|SusunW can help.--Ipigott (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've looked everywhere I can think, archive.org, hathitrust, newspapers.com, newspaperarchive, Old Fulton newspaper records, ebsco, jstor, and muse. I read Iron's bio in the ODNB, and it has virtually no new info on McSweeney, other than "She was holidaying in Hungary with Joy McSweeney in 1956 when the revolution began, and had to cut short a house party to attend the wedding of Marilyn Monroe and Arthur Miller." I did find this, which states Joy died in 1988, not 1978. (ONDB repeates 1978) I find virtually nothing in public records, which leads me to believe Joy was not her first name. No Joy/Joyce McSweeney, McSweeny or MacSweeney. It also indicates that there is a letter archive between Irons and McSweeney and a diary of McSweeney, which details their life. You can request access to the archive, which might help. I'm thinking that McSweeney's information should be merged with Irons until more information can be found. SusunW (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Copied from Village Pump
The following is a thread I opened on Village Pump regarding New Jersey Women's Hall of Fame. Because I don't know what to do about this, I'm letting WP:WIR know. I've also copied this on the list talk page. I'm a little leery about usurped web pages and malware etc. At least you are forewarned about this, if there is anything to be concerned about. — Maile (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone safely run a links check on New Jersey Women's Hall of Fame? I ran the "Fix dead links", but I'm still concerned. I found under "External links" section that the New Jersey Women's Hall of Fame website link was a redirect to an Asian language site. I removed it. I randomly tried another link on the page, and it also redirected to an Asian language site. Can anyone safely check the links on this article and remove anything redirecting to Asian websites? — Maile (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * FROM VILLAGE PUMP
 * This looks like a case of usurped website. You can set usurped in the CS1/2 citations to remove the offending links. --Izno (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * set it where? I don't fully understand. — Maile  (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In each citation template that you think needs to be fixed. --Izno (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't actually know unless I open every page link to see which ones are redirecting. I was hoping there would be something more automatic. — Maile (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, there's nothing automatic. I think it's fairly safe to say, having opened one or two links, that the entire website has been usurped. --Izno (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, for bringing this topic here. I created two articles from the New Jersey Women's Hall of Fame list back in 2016. From what I recall, many of the links were broken back then, but archived versions could be found through archive.org. It looks to me like the entire NJWHoF is no longer active and that's why the website has been replaced entirely. I looked last year to see if there were any inductees from 2016 and found nothing. I think keeping the broken links until they can be archived would be helpful as I think the website had decent short bios for each inductee. As for sourcing the NJWHoF's Wikipedia page, it might be better to include secondary sources such as NJ.com or Northjersey.com for inductees as the NJWHoF's website would be a primary source. Knope7 (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I like the idea of secondary sources. As for what currently exists, I have no intention of clicking the existing links, because usurped websites have the possibility of viruses and malware, and I don't want that on my personal computer.  So, there it is.  This particular list is out there for anyone with more daring than I have about such things. — Maile  (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Understandable. For anyone interested in accessing the archives without clicking a bad link, I have an archived version linked on Edith Savage-Jennings, and here it is. That link goes to web.archive.org and shows the page as it appeared on January 7, 2016. From there, you can navigate a historic version of the webpage and access other biographies of other inductees. When I have time, I may add the information posted here to the talk page for NJWHoF. Knope7 (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I should have checked the article page before posting. I see you already archived the problematic links, so no they archive link is good but the "original" link is still bad. I think just removing all of the "original" links would solve the problem. The archive works fine. Knope7 (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

#MeToo
A nomination over at ITNC may interest this project's members. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Marie Grice Young
I have already explained my reasons (300 hits on Google Books with a restricted search of her name I think it proves her notability) and moreover some of the reason presented are untrue (she took charge of a lifeboat, therefore saving lives) but they put an AfD on her: Articles for deletion/Marie Grice Young. Help in improving the article would be appreciated. Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Closed as keep.--Ipigott (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Inside the Fight to Change Wikipedia's Gender Problem"
More press coverage re Women in Red.. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Interesting article. I was not aware that our events were being supported by a grant. How much is it and what exactly is it being used for?--Ipigott (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It was the grant for the contest, though none of what I said about it made it into the article. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * OK. Now I understand. The main thing is that Women in Red keeps getting positive coverage in the press.--Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Help! Kaji Yajima/Yajima Kajiko
Well, it had to happen eventually. I just created an article on temperance activist Kaji Yajima, then almost immediately after hitting "save" noticed that she already had an article, created in 2009, as Yajima Kajiko. I think I know how to make the newer article into a redirect; and I can certainly add the new images (I uploaded three) to the older article. But how much merging of the written content should I do? Don't want to step on toes, don't want to just vanish everything I wrote either. Advice is most welcome. Penny Richards (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, looking at it more closely, I don't think the content/sources overlap much, I can probably just carry most of my content over to the older article without too much disruption or loss. I'll do that. Penny Richards (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . I couldn't quite tell how you merged them so checking to see if you followed WP:MERGE process which retains the required attribution. If not, no worries as it can be sorted out; just let me know? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoops, no, didn't use anything official to merge them, just cut and paste. Guess it needs to be sorted out then. Penny Richards (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like I'm covered by WP:MERGEINIT: "If the need for a merge is obvious, individual editors can be bold and simply do it." It was really obvious! And the duplication was live for less than an hour, I think. Penny Richards (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just checked--two hours and one minute. :) Penny Richards (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

New Bot
Has anyone else noticed a new bot posting about global blacklists? For example Joan Kerr's trigger indicates that the Journal of Art Historiography from the University of Birmingham is barred; Nelly Beltrán's hit indicates that a paper from the University of Buenos Aires is banned; and Tillie Hardwick's resulted from an article from the Indigenous Law and Policy Center of Michigan State University's College of Law. Each of these "banned" titles have nothing in them in the string that says triggered it except the word wordpress. But looking at the barred list always gives me a headache, as it is incomprehensible to me. Each of these, while the delivery method is from wordpress, appear to be from RS. Anyone have a clue how to fix this? SusunW (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. See meta:Talk:Spam blacklist where there is a discussion of this issue, and contribute there with these issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am not remotely technical, but I posted there the three above. Have since I posted that been notified of four other similar situations. Does not appear that this is a helpful link block, but is far too broad in its scope. SusunW (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears to have been un-blacklisted, according to that discussion, so the tags should be removed. (I'm not sure whether the bot will eventually do this or whether we should just go ahead and do it ourselves.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed today that the bot seems to have been removing these tags. Thanks again for your help pointing me to the post. SusunW (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Marie-Lucie Tarpent
Marie-Lucie Tarpent, Canadian linguist and specialist in the Nisga'a language, is up for deletion here. 104.163.153.162 (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:Canvassing states It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC).
 * I've looked at this quite carefully. It seems to me that Tarpent has made a highly significant contribution to the analysis and understanding of the indigenous languages of British Columbia. Her works are widely quoted and she is obviously considered to be an expert in her field. Despite the fact that the article has been considerably expanded, the effort to have it deleted continues. I'm amazed to see that there are those who base the case for deletion on the difference between the number of her citations and those of Chomsky! --Ipigott (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I found two sources that indicate she was chair of the language department at Mount Saint Vincent University. Thus, she does meet prof. I also found a couple of discussions of her work in archive.org. Added links, but maybe you want to add the info to her article? SusunW (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Chair of department is certainly not a WP:PROF criterion. The only administrative position discussed in WP:PROF is head of an entire university. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I read the guideline differently. #6 states "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution". A chair, defined by Oxford dictionary is the most senior post, with duties which include administration., ,. It does not state over the entire university, it states simply highest-level post, which could equally apply to a department. SusunW (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the specific criterion notes, lower on the page. "Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc. Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6" —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I get it, however it also says "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis", which in my opinion fits here, especially in light of the problematic nature with the prof guidelines in dealing with women and fields which are not hard sciences. In any case, the article has been kept with no-consensus. SusunW (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When we have to resort to special pleading to keep articles, there's a problem. It creates the appearance of tokenism — that we're keeping this article only because the subject was female, not because of her accomplishments. It also creates the false appearance that women are so much less good at these subjects that we have to keep the borderline ones to have any representation at all. There are so many other academic women without articles who clearly and easily pass multiple WP:PROF criteria, without having to argue that the criteria are somehow biased or that we should make exceptions for them. Our efforts would be better spent on them. Your point about hard sciences is well taken, but a bit off-target; what WP:PROF really favors is subjects where most publications are in journals and where citation counts tend to be high. That's true for many hard sciences, but not all (citations are low in mathematics, for instance), and also true for some other "soft" disciplines like in this case linguistics. Where the criterion really falls down is in book-based disciplines like the humanities, where keep arguments tend to be made according to WP:AUTHOR instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In actuality, I read numerous articles on her work and IMO they support that she is a notable expert, with many crediting her work, regardless of her gender. Despite the lack of in-depth analysis of her contributions, almost every citation I found on the Tsimshianic language family cites her work., ,, etc. In addition to that, she was chair of her department and published most of her materials in the pre-internet age. There was no special pleading involved in my !vote, other than pointing out that the guidelines are flawed, nor does her case appear to be borderline. I concur with Ian's assessment and my own analysis. SusunW (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Special pleading and WP:Reference bombing articles with trivial sources harms the standing of women on Wikipedia in two ways. The first is that by retaining sub-notable articles, the deplorable stereotype that the achievements of women are less than those of men is reinforced. The second is that it harms individual women. If a woman is found to have an academic record that does not satisfy the average professor test of WP:Prof I would prefer to pass that over in silence, rather than, because of the insistent pleading of over-zealous editors, have to point it out in public, to the possible hurt to the reputation of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC).
 * "The average "Professor test" is, as a guideline, seriously flawed and heavily weighted not only toward hard sciences, but also toward men in the global north. In the global south, it would be hard for most to meet its requirements, especially in developing countries where until recently, the only education required to teach was graduation from grade school, where publishing budgets are limited and print runs are extremely small and where most sourcing is not readily available on the internet. It also, like all SNG, limits notability to one aspect of a life, which may or may not represent the entirety of someone's achievement and impact during their era in time. The science easily shows media biases towards women and minorities, making the reliance on multiple sources inevitable. Trivial does not mean when reputable sources discuss accomplishments or contributions briefly, but rather when sources discuss unimportant or minor things, like how the subject dresses, who she is affiliated with, etc. The weight of what is being said is the test for triviality, not its length. It isn't special pleading to point out the deficiencies in the guideline, it is making people aware of its issues and why it should be changed. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to change Policy you should do that on Policy pages. Attempts to impose non-consensus views on individual articles are not appropriate. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC).
 * Policy change discussions on WP tend to become long-winded time-sinks with entrenched ideas prevailing. The guideline, which is not policy, is flawed. Ask yourself if it is geared toward finding the most notable academics from across the world, or instead is geared toward limiting access to, say an exclusive gentlemen's club. If it does not provide a means to evaluate all academics from throughout the world with criteria which analyzes academics based on real-world circumstances and inequalities, then it does not provide equal access and is biased. The only possible way to eventually achieve change is to make people aware of its flaws in broader forums before bringing it to a limited discussion on the policy pages. SusunW (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

There is clearly a bias toward the hard sciences in WP:PROF, and this becomes an issue not only for women and for people in underrepresented ethnic groups, but also even for white males in the arts and literature generally. It is not "special pleading" to argue for rules that fair and more accurate. In many cases, the leading expert in a somewhat obscure field (call it Foo) might fail WP:PROF, while the chancellor of Foobar University, who may have never actually done much independent research at all, little teaching, and basically played the bureaucracy to the top of the administrative heap, passes WP:PROF. That is an example of an absurd result and why we need common-sense exceptions to the guidelines. Montanabw (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Proposals to modify Wikipedia consensus as community opinion evolves are always welcome. It would be helpful if you could compile the evidence to support your claims and take it to a policy page with a specific proposal for change. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC).
 * I've always thought that our notability standards for academics are ridiculously high. Someone recently pointed out Chitty (cricketer) as an example of the extremely inclusionary cricket SNG. At the same time, fellows of Oxbridge colleges (for instance) are not considered routinely notable, and I've had notability tags added to articles I've created about UK professors with multiple book publications. I'd also say that senior administrators below Vice-Chancellor ought to be notable, as should academics who receive selective state honours (like the CBE) or who reach professor level. Having said all of this, I am not sure whether Tarpent is notable in herself. She was an associate professor with a sparse publication record; working papers and conference papers are not peer-reviewed – I've heard it said by academics that 5 of them are worth one good journal article. She's clearly an expert on a couple of languages, so I reckon a better place for her would be in those languages' articles under a "Scholarship" section. For instance: "The Nisga'a language was studied extensively by Marie-Lucie Tarpent (born 1941), an associate professor of linguistics at Mount Saint Vincent University. She compiled a grammar of the language for her doctoral thesis (awarded by the University of Victoria in 1989) and authored a 5,000-item phrase book with English translations in 1986. Her work on Nisga'a has also focused on ..." That to me seems much more appropriate. —Noswall59 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * your proposal is one I would possibly have supported, though I would not be so bold as to say she has a sparse publication record because her involvement was in the pre-internet age and thus it is fairly difficult to ascertain. As an "expert on several languages", she clearly demonstrates, IMO that she had unique skills, which are relevant, and demonstrate why she would be worth noting in an encyclopedia, which pretty much meets notability per GNG. I hope that as more materials from the period are digitized, additional information may be brought to light. I also thank you for your input on the guideline for PROF. There are many who hold it as a "gold standard", which in light of its deficiencies, it should not be. SusunW (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD Mary Farhill
They put an AfD on Mary Farhill, an English woman who was a philanthropist in Italy in the XIX century. She lent farm grounds for free to poor people and financed with her own money the building of roads. If someone can help improve the article, it would be appreciated. The info I have cannot be merged with other articles therefore they would be lost if deleted. Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * An article about the villa might be easier to pass as notable perhaps? Seems to have gone through various interesting ownerships over time. Pam  D  14:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The AfD nomination is weak but to be honest I'm not seeing notability either. The references cited in the article are trivial passing mentions and when the most substantial thing you can say about a person is what's written on their tombstone, there's a problem. Are there any more sources? If not, I agree with Pam that you'd probably be better off writing about the history of the house she lived in. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:Canvassing states It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC).

Fashion designers - offer of help.
Trust my perfect subject to come up at a point where I have almost none of my reference books to hand (all packed up), no time to work on it (as I'm working on meeting a book deadline), and have very limited time to be editing Wikipedia in the first place! However, I just wanted to make sure that people know that I would be VERY happy to look over any fashion designer contributions, particularly historic and/or European/American designers, and help/contribute in a support capacity. I've added a bunch of names of notable and fashion-award-winning women to the list and if I think of any others I'll add them. I can actually think of LOTS of candidates for the list (such as 70s knitwear designer Rosalind Yehuda, 1980s avant-garde designer Georgina Godley, or 60s-70s Boutique Movement designer Georgina Linhart), but many don't have sufficient reliable sourcing readily available for them. Just wanted to give the fashion designer article creators snaps and an offer of assistance should they wish for my input. :) Mabalu (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * input is welcome on our collaborative effort this month to be found here: User:SusunW/Native American fashion. Beaucoup redlinks need to be added to our fashion designer list and Native American pages, would that there is time available and interest. SusunW (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do - unfortunately, as a British subject, I really know next to nothing about Native American fashion designers, other than that I've read a few articles here and there which I'm sure you have already come across! As you may have seen I've been adding to the fashion designer list with names from various lists I'm aware of on the project. Mabalu (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As a non-fashion expert, I know next to nothing about fashion, but from the sources I am finding, this is a very significant segment of the high-end designer market. SusunW (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Depending on what you want to link, AWB can also be helpful in creating red/bluelinks sometimes. Usually not in very high numbers, though. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * haven't even gotten started on categories yet. But, I am positive there is no category, Native American fashion designers. ;) SusunW (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You know where to find me. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There are already 14 names in Category:Native American fashion designers. At this stage, I don't know whether we need Category:Native American women fashion designers or if we should add categories for the various tribes, etc. I see there are many more who are red-linked in your evolving Native American fashion. Some of them certainly deserve biographies. I don't usually work very much on biographies from the English-speaking world but I'll try to make a start.--Ipigott (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That'd be great, . The one's I have redlinked are ones that either have a bio in Metcalfe's thesis or elsewhere on the internet with what I believe are sufficient sources to create bios. At some point, the linked ones need to get posted on the indigenous women's list for our annual August editathon, but I think it makes sense to do that after we finish. With categories, it seems that though it is helpful for readers and academics to have more defined categories to facilitate specialization, WP seems to frown on diversifying. I would think both men and women should have categories, as well as by tribes, but that is based from a ease of access POV. SusunW (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see Category:Native American fashion designers has already led to a proposal for renaming. I must say I thought 's wording was perfectly adequate but Native American may not generally be understood by North Americans to cover both North and South America as it does in the other English-speaking countries.--Ipigott (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have commented on why I chose the naming, i.e. it follows the multitudes of sources on the topic, but far be it from me to know what to do to keep the topic. SusunW (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Notable subjects identified on Twitter
Hello! I've been following the Women in Red project for a while and have been gnoming around to help improve new articles about women. I am a frequent user of Twitter and really enjoy seeing the art of women posted by @womensart1. I frequently notice that some of the subjects of the tweets are notable but do not have articles on Wikipedia, so I started creating them recently but became overwhelmed. I sent a message to the @WikiWomenInRed Twitter account and made a list (with evidence of notability) of four notable women mentioned only in the last twelve hours:


 * Serena de la Hey
 * Jessie Groeschen
 * Jackie Morris
 * Janet Nkubana

I think that there are a lot of notable women mentioned there who deserve articles! Matt Heard (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these, . I've added them to our Artists red-link list with a few references. I'm not too sure where Serena was born (somewhere in Africa) but she seems to be British. Jessie is American and Janet is from Rwanda. If you come across more interesting artists needing articles, you could add them to the list, preferably with pertinent sources.--Ipigott (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The Lumineers Neyla Pekarek missing page
Hi,

Thought this might be a good place to bring up something I noticed. Neyla Pekarek has been a member of the popular band The Lumineers since 2010, according to their page, which predates the release of any of their albums or EPs. Yet her page is a redirect to The Lumineers while her two (male) bandmates each have their own page. I would think that their notabilities are equivalent. While I'm wary of doing it myself (I normally write biology articles on bats), I'd be willing to collab on an article for her. Let me know. Enwebb (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * if you start it, I'll be happy to dig up references. BTW, bats rule and I was excited to hear about this bit of news about whitenose syndrome. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was heartened to read that we're another step closer to a treatment! As for Neyla, I deleted the redirect template and gave her an infobox and a couple of references, and those are the changes to date. Now for the section on taxonomy and etymology.... :) Enwebb (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Excellent! I'll hop over and see what I can add. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

PowHERful Foundation and Summit
PowHERful Foundation is a redlink, but a quick perusal suggests to me that it's notable. The event PowHERful Summit should probably redirect to a section in it. Mentioned at Powtawche Valerino, probably elsewhere. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll add it to the redlist. I like working on organizations, so maybe I'll take a stab at it. :) thank you, ! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Coolio. I've opened a thread at Talk:Powtawche Valerino, because that article (based on a weak source) is characterizing the event if not the entire organization as focused on Black and Latina women, when nothing at the organization's site suggests this; their mission scope is young women and STEM education in general.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  19:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can scare up some more sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Their own site links to four articles of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, under "PowHERful in the News". It was formerly known as the Soledad O'Brien Starfish Foundation, often simply called the Starfish Foundation (but there are various unrelated groups by that name). Based in New York City. Recently renamed the Powherful Foundation (http://Powherful.org) to match their conference branding. Founders: Soledad O'Brien and Brad Raymond. The stylization "PowHERful" is not universally used, even "officially" . The original logo read "Powherful", before changing to a 3D "her" cube, with the entire logo in all-caps). The trademark registration is case-insensitive, and recorded as "POWEHERFUL"  (though there's actually prior art in other jurisdictions, e.g. Powherful Daughter LLC, Powherful Media, Powherful!, Powherful Vision, Powherful Fitness, etc. I doubt any are notable, so not a disambiguation concern.)  If it's not eventually at Powherful Foundation I would expect a WP:RM to ensue, based on MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM. Better to just do it now, with a lead of "The Powerherful Foundation (stylized PowHERful or Powherful) is ...".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

18 in 18?
This seems so obvious, my guess is that I'm not reading the right places, but I noticed that we reached 17% biographies about the time of the 17th birthday of Wikipedia. Perhaps the goal should be to reach 18% by the time of the 18th anniversary?

While one per cent doesn't sound like a lot, we are adding bios of male sand females continuously, so uping the percentage is not a tiny accomplisment. Who is keeping track of these numbers? How many bios of wome would be need to get to 18% is things were static? How many needed based on projected growth of overall bios?

It will either be viewed as confusing, or, pleasant serendipity that 18 in 18 can either be viewed at the 18th anniversary or 2018. I'll go for serendipity.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Can someone help me with the math: will it require the same/more/less effort to go from 15% in 2015, to 16% in 2016, to 17% in 2017, to 18% in 2018? If there is a mathematical difference, can some explain it so that we understand what it will require of us (vs. our efforts in previous years)? (cc:  whom I know to be a maths guru.) --Rosiestep (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The quick answer is that it will take about 12,500 new articles to achieve an extra 1%. This assumes that we do it at about the rate we are. Will it get harder. Well in a years time there will be more articles, so 1% then is more than 1% now. So Yes. However we keep getting more powerful tools and better editors. So No. (I like to think that we have changed the attitude of existing editors). If we could create about 1.25 million articles about women overnight then we would have c. 50%. Realising how enormous this figure is then any sensible person wouldn't have started on this project, but that did'nt stop the heroes of the 1800s. (It could be argued that the women sorted out slavery first... and racial equality is still a problem 200 years later.) We are not in control of this. If in the next ten years Women's Soccer gets to be 10 times more popular then every other sport then the football enthusiasts will solve "our" problem. Society has to change. I'm hoping that today's children are looking at Wikipedia and deciding to build a "world of 50%" that the next Wiki will merely have to mirror. (I'll stop now. I'll save it for the TED talk :-) )Victuallers (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect us to reach 18% this year. Now that we have so many active members (190 on our membership list and 228 on our main mailing list) we can progress faster than in the past. Under normal circumstances, we add about 0.01% each week. We are currently at 17.39. We would therefore reach 18% in about 60 weeks or in March or April 2019. But if, with 's help, we can arrange more contests like the World Contest last November, we can expect to reach 18% about 16 weeks earlier, i.e. in November or December 2018. I might add that contributions from the sports community, especially should help us along. The Olympic games should help too.--Ipigott (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I need to finish the toolkit sometime soon, I don't like the word "toolkit". I'll provide something in which WIR can replicate the contest for other parts of the world.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Important Women of color article needs an overhaul
The dispute tags on this page look like a billboard: — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The neutrality of this article is disputed. (June 2017)
 * This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic. (June 2017)
 * This article possibly contains original research. (June 2017)
 * This article needs additional citations for verification. (January 2017)


 * It looks to me as if the article has positively evolved quite a bit since last June when the same editor added three of the four tags. As several different editors have added content, it can hardly be considered a personal reflection or contain original research. I am not sure either why the article has been tagged for lack of neutrality. I do agree, however, that much of the text lacks inline citations. In the meantime, I'll delete a couple of the tags and make it less of a billboard. Perhaps you could take a closer look too.--Ipigott (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've now looked carefully at the article and have copy-edited the whole thing. On neutrality, I must say I have my doubts too as there is nothing very positive in connection with achievements of women in color. Perhaps adding a few other important African Americans (e.g. Oprah Winfrey and the Williams sisters) would show that they are not all in such an unfortunate position.--Ipigott (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

An interview with User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao at the SP
Check out this interview with User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the top contributor to English Wikipedia by edit count: Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2018-01-16. Did you know that he created 604 articles on notable women last year? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Woot! Awesome work, ! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * A very interesting account with lots of good ideas for improving Wikipedia. I was however rather surprised to see that he did not mention the tremendous amount of useful work he has done on categories. We all benefit from his insights.--Ipigott (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd considered saying something about it, honestly. But there's so much more that I've done over the years, honestly. I actually had a handful of other things to add, which I didn't even think about until Monday night...by which time it was, of course, too late to make the emendations.
 * To everyone else: aw, shucks, t'warn't nuthin'. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Ditto on the category stuff. When I was first really getting into full-time editing, especially on articles about Hawaii musicians, I didn't know much of anything about categories. Your addition of categories to those articles really taught me the necessity of them. And then I just came to take it for granted, for years, that if I created an article, you'd come along and check out the categories, adding where necessary.  Thanks for being an important part of my editor education.  — Maile  (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just passing it along - that's how I learned categories, too, lo these many years ago. Nice to hear from the next generation. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I still do that . I stick on main categories and know will peruse it for me and add what needs to be added and fix what needs to be fixed. Often find myself going back to a similar type bio and copying the categories he edited for me. SusunW (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD
I have to wonder if Articles for deletion/Lynette Horsburgh is typical (I spend little time at AfD, for reasons similar to not wanting to wander around in the burn ward). While I AfD'ed Jeannette H. Lee myself not that long ago, finding material on Lee was actual work (and much more to interpret it for indications of actual notability, and to weed-out copy-pasting from her own press releases and CV – I did most of the work myself, I guess you could call it "WP:DURING" rather than WP:BEFORE). I also AfDed Chipo Chung and would do it again (closed as "no consensus" and the article is actually worse now than it was then); an actor who's landed a few minor TV roles isn't notable, just competent.

But non-trivial coverage of Horsburgh was not only like a river, the article sufficient sources cited to prove notability as a sport world champion before the AfD was even opened. I've massively overhauled the Horsburgh article, but the AfD will close soon and is 4–1 for delete by people who did not pay any attention to the content or sources, but just seem to want to delete articles like this. It's not about a singer, actress, or a model, so it must of course be trash. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Have fixed a redlink in the article.  Pam  D  09:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

New student editors
For those interested in recruiting new members in general, and university recruiting in particular, this thread might interest you: User talk:Shalor (Wiki Ed). Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I was the one who started the thread on Shalor's talk page as I am convinced we need to do more to attract new members of WiR if we are to keep pace with the evolving success of women in all fields of academic endeavour. These educational programmes address hundreds of women students each year, training them to become Wikipedia editors. Until now, there is no specific mention of the gender gap or the importance of writing women's biographies. I wondered whether a first step might to be to contact the educational institutions involved in hosting the courses. We could also have a major editathon on "student participation".--Ipigott (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the idea and I also think that it is important that courses discuss the special problems associated with creating women's biographies: name change, media-biases, not-inherited, etc. SusunW (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article below on mathematicians gives possibly the most important difference in writing for WP vs. writing for academia. In academia, secondary sources, because they involve someone else's interpretation are always suspect. One is required to follow the evidence, starting with the primary sources to confirm that the conclusions drawn in any secondary source are accurate. I had numerous courses in my studies on documentation and evidenciary sourcing, all of which frowned on using secondary or tertiary sourcing. (It actually makes sense in the broader view if one considers how unreliable eyewitness testimony is.) WP on the other hand, is the exact opposite, frowning on primary sourcing and specifically utilizing secondary sourcing. I tend to still confirm information in secondary sources and if I cannot find a primary source which backs up the data claimed in my secondary source, often do not put it in a bio. In an academic setting, training people to become editors, this would have to be made prominent. SusunW (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Deneva Cagigas
If anyone has time right now (I don't unfortunately), there are more secondary references available for this article via a quick and easy Google News search, in addition to the secondary sources already included in the article. The AFD could use more eyes and input. WP:FOOTY includes only 1 top-division women's league in the world last I checked. WP:GNG is a more appropriate guideline for women's footballers/soccer players. This player plays in the top league in Mexico, which has had a lot of news coverage + record-breaking attendances. Hmlarson (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Marina Amaral
Marina Amaral is up for deletion. The page has good refs but the depth of coverage is shallow.198.58.168.40 (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Felicity Meakins
Felicity Meakins, linguist is up for deletion.198.58.168.40 (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

and
FYI - both have been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion here. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I suppose these categories are preliminaries to more specific categories by country, state, province, ethnic origins, etc. I also think that sooner or later it would be useful to break them down into shorter time periods depending on national historical developments. If this is the intention, these very general categories by century may represent a good start.--Ipigott (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This needs more eyes. The proposal would essentially delete key access points for anyone looking for information about women politicians in various centuries. I agree that in it could be broken down into shorter time periods - but the proposal is to delete and salt. Hmlarson (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it would not delete key access points for anyone looking for information about women politicians in various centuries. Please read the nomination.
 * It keeps the 19th-century and earlier by-century categs, and simply removes a crude WP:OVERLAPCAT binary division of 95% of the articles on women in politics. Breaking into shorter time periods would only make the overlaps even worse.
 * The key access points for anyone looking for information about women politicians are Category:Women in politics by nationality and Category:Women political office-holders, with an increasing number of intersections between the two, such as Category:Women government ministers by nationality. I urge @Hmlarson and @Ipigott to spend some time studying them.
 * The ministers are a good example of why the by-century cats are superfluous: it's only 101 years since Alexandra Kollontai became the world's first woman government minister. So the era is inherent in the set: "woman government minister" means "woman government minister since 1917".
 * Similarly, Category:Women legislators means ~100 years, because it's only 100 years since Constance Markievicz became one of the first women elected to any legislature. And many Category: women in politics means an even shorter period, because before the 20th century, many countries did not exist or had no electoral politics. How does chopping this <100yo set at the year 2000 help?
 * I have been writing en.wp articles on women in politics for 12 years. Many thousands of the categories for women in politics all around the world were created by me and/or populated by me. I defended those categories against deletion in the days when en.wp's male majority used to systematically set out to delete any gendered category of politician (e.g. Nov 2006: Female life peers, Nov 2006: British female MPs). I even had to wage a 6-month multi-venue battle to get actors categorised by gender, against apparently serious arguments that acting is not a gendered occupation, e.g. here and there.
 * Note by the way that I also developed the system of Category:Legislators by term, and defended it against a dozen or more deletion proposals. As a result, anyone can now use tools such as Petscan to find Women Members of the European Parliament 2004–09 or Women Members of the Swedish Riksdag 2002–06 or Women Members of the 11th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly or many many other permutations.
 * Having put many thousands of hours in my life into categorising en.wp's biogs of women politicians, I would not have proposed these deletions unless i was satisfied that deletion would improve navigation between women politicians by removing useless categs and reducing clutter. I spotted them a year ago, when I had my doubts, and over the last 12 months I have repeatedly looked at whether there was anything salvageable out of them. I don't see it.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * In response to an invitation from, I have added comments to the categories discussion here. Some of my ideas (if they are not considered to be too "personal") may be worth discussing in connection with the WiR essay on categorization which has proposed.--Ipigott (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Snap! When I posted my reply to 's thoughtful CfD comments, it notified me of this post.
 * My closing sentences there are relevant to this suggestion. I am not aware of the purpose of 's proposed essay, and of course any editor is free to write whatever essay they like ... but please may I urge WiR's editors to work within broad en.wp consensuses on categorisation –— and of course seek to change them where appropriate — rather than to develop some separate set of principles or create swathes of exceptions?
 * WiR does wonderful, important work, but unlike say WP:MILHIST or WP:CHILE, its scope is vast: nearly every broad category of human biography, by nationality, occupation and era.
 * That means that whatever approaches WiR members take to categorisation involves almost every other project whose scope includes human biography, and of course the community's overall work on categories.
 * So a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here which diverges from broader consensus will inevitably create conflicts, which benefit nobody. Some of the discussions elsewhere on this page have left me with a sense that some WiR members take a view of categorisation which diverges significantly from wider en.wp norms. That gap needs to be bridged.
 * And no, I am not suggesting that existing norms are either perfect or immutable. Some bad ideas, such as the failure to categorise actors by gender, have persisted for a v loong time. But en.wp works by consensus; for all its flaws of theory and practise, that's how it is. Sometimes consensus changes rapidly, sometimes slowly, and sometimes we just have to live with a consensus we dislike ... but in a vast collaborative project we need broad collaboration. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Correction: I did not propose an essay on categories. I merely indicated that I would be interested in working on the topic which was proposed by others, after numerous discussions this month targeted gendered categories. I find policy discussion on WP tiresome and too fraught with entrenched ideas to be a productive use of my time. I participate in discussions only because I have been urged to do so and at this juncture once again am withdrawing to write articles. SusunW (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, I should have said "mentioned by you" rather than "proposed". I can understand you want to return to article writing. Most of my edits over the past few days have been on talk pages or other non-article spaces. I too would like to spend more time on creating articles but the back-office overhead seems to increase from month to month. I also find myself spending more and more time on trying to encourage newbies to join WiR.--Ipigott (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Writing Women in Mathematics into Wikipedia
New scholarly article by Marie A. Vitulli, University of Oregon, "Writing Women in Mathematics into Wikipedia" which mentions the work of, WiR, and me. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * An excellent article by describing many of the problems faced by new editors and the ridiculously stringent rules which have been drafted on the inclusion of academics. I see that since August 2017 (when the article seems to have been written) some 60 biographies have been added to the List of women in mathematics mainly by David Eppstein. We should perhaps shedule a follow-up editathon on women mathematicians and statisticians later this year. Perhaps Mvitulli and her friends can help us to add even more pertinent names to our red list. I see that  has recently added quite a few. It might also be useful to work on the hundreds of mathematicians listed on WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Scientists. Perhaps one of our mathematics experts could look through the list and establish priorities, maybe adding the most important names to our crowd-sourced list with one or two sources.--Ipigott (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We need to save this article somewhere that it is readily available as it is another that challenges the sanctity of PROF and the difficulty of writing academics into WP. I'd be in on an editathon on mathematicians. SusunW (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For the time being, I'll list it on our research page. Perhaps you could also include it in one of your essays for newbies. It may also be useful to start collecting examples of the problems experienced by new editors as a basis for an essay or a report for discussion somewhere on Wikipedia or Meta. See also my comments below on the need for more effective ways of dealing with press coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks I like to have documentation ready when discussing PROF and its failings. SusunW (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)