Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 52

A Space of Their Own, a New Online Database, Will Feature Works by 600+ Overlooked Female Artists from the 15th-19th Centuries
Check it out: A Space of Their Own, a New Online Database, Will Feature Works by 600+ Overlooked Female Artists from the 15th-19th Centuries. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the interesting link! Reposted on my social media accounts. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Two questions about newly created article
I created Lila Gene George and I have two questions - How do I add an entry on Wikidata and how do I cite Newspapers.com correctly? SL93 (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I see the wikidata link has been made. But the (easiest) answer to Q1 is, install this gadget, 'cos it's ace. If not, go to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page and search to see if there is already an entry for Lila George and if there is not, create a new item, and maybe wade through the introduction section here ... and when you have created the wikidata item, add a sitelink back to the en.wiki article. (TBH, you need to check whether an item corresponding to an article subject exists, whether you take the gadget route or the manual route.) Wikidata is very very far from intuitive, but great fun once it all clicks into place. Newspapers.com ... not sure. Probably use cite news, but with a newspapers.com URL. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)
 * Hi there,, and thanks for all your biographies of women. I noticed that you have not been using  in your biographies. (You can include it by clicking on it in the Wiki markup at the foot of the page you are editing.) It's important as it gives the correct alphabetical order in category listings, etc. It's also useful to add   to biographies. I've been back over your recent articles and added both. On Wikidata, I must say I found it pretty difficult to edit the standard Wikidata at http://wikidata.org/. I found it much easier when I installed the Wikidata gadget. You can find out all about it here. As for citing newspapers, I use the following parameters:  . It could, for example, look like this:  . I would also encourage you to use the article talk pages, adding the appropriate WIR tags whenever possible. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed you are not yet a member of Women in Red. You can join by registering in the box at the top of the main Women in Red page. In connection with women's biographies, you might also find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules and our Primer for creating women's biographies.--Ipigott (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There's a sample citation at the WP:Newspapers.com page. Penny Richards (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oooh, thanks for pointing that out. I've noticed some people linking to clippings on newspapers.com but I didn't realize it was actually recommended policy to link this way. Makes total sense now that I read that page. Also good to know the clippings won't disappear if my account were to go away - that was part of my concern. Learn something new every day. --Krelnik (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I must not be clipping it correctly because when I click on the clipping link, it only shows a small portion of what I need. SL93 (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I found out what I did wrong. SL93 (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I looked at the list of members and I see my username there. It looks like I just forgot the userbox. SL93 (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have checked more carefully. I checked the mailing list and found you were not there. I've now added your name. If you don't want to receive our monthly notices, please feel free to remove it and add your name to our Opt-out list.--Ipigott (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Lady Angela Forbes
There is a new article on an Edwardian woman being referred to on the Main Page as "an elderly gorilla afflicted with sex appeal". That comes from the pen of Edith Sitwell, it seems. There is a discussion at WP:ERRORS. Additional comments there are welcome as always. 213.205.240.161 (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be appreciated if editors from Women in Red would comment there (in the section "DYK current"). Otherwise we'll never get it across that women shouldn't be represented that way on the main page. SarahSV (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It beggars belief that this is still on the Main Page, particularly when there are such good alternatives. (Shall we mention her wartime service?  No, let's lead with a sexualised insult made about her appearance, 15 years after her death.) This is shameful. 213.205.240.161 (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Might I suggest that those who are concerned about how women are portrayed on the main page of Wikipedia, bookmark the pages that populate the daily main page: Template:Did you know/Queue, Today's featured article, In the news/Candidates and Selected anniversaries. It would seem to be human nature to not necessarily be aware of what offends another group until you have walked in their shoes, and each generation measure those offenses on a different scale. So please bookmark those pages and monitor them.  You may not want to monitor them, but it's like voting  - look what happens when you don't do it.— Maile  (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good recommendation. I sometimes participate in DYK review in order to get my own DYK noms pushed along, and I've occasionally noticed other DYK hooks that show very poor judgment - bad grammar, slightly off-color comments, gross or shocking photos, and other stuff that just doesn't belong on the front page. Like anything else in Wikipedia, just dive in there and be bold. Its quite common for hooks to be rejected by the reviewer and marked with strikeout . Be sure to compose and recommend an alternate hook if one was not already provided. BTW the place to do this work for DYK is this page for DYK, by the time stuff shows up in the "queue" it has already been approved and will be harder to fix. --Krelnik (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * the problem is that it's too time-consuming. Looking at the page Krelnik linked to, there aren't even any descriptive headings, so you literally have to scroll through each one. No one should have to do that to keep racist and sexist hooks off the main page. There should be a policy, but any attempt to create one will devolve into whataboutism. SarahSV (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've got no argument with you there. I kind of dread even nominating one of my own articles because the process is so arcane. But the time-consuming nature of DYK stuff means very few people participate in it, and that's how stuff like this slips through. Perhaps we could figure out a way to automate something to flag DYKs of interest to WiR and call them to everyone's attention, like the article alert system? --Krelnik (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: According to Article_alerts the authors are aware that the front page workflows like DYK would be useful to have in the alert system. But since DYK was proposed over 8 years ago it hasn't been prioritized. I'll start a another thread in that feature requests page and maybe we can all pile on to try to get it prioritized? --Krelnik (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please leave a note here and/or ping people if you need support. I can't help with technical issues, but I support anything that will help to stop this. SarahSV (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My request to the Article Alerts maintainers is here. Feel free to pile on with positive comments, FWIW. --Krelnik (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I've never noticed before, but it doesn't appear that transcluding the DYK nomination on the article's talk page adds the page to any DYK related tracking categories. If this was the case, we could at least generate half way decent manual reports using PetScan.  G M G  talk  16:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion has been removed from that page, because the hook is no longer on the main page. See DYK talk here for a link. Anyone wanting to comment further on that particular hook can do so there. SarahSV (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ewin Tang
I noticed Draft:Ewin Tang because it had been posted at the WikiProject Physics talk page, but it may be of interest over here too. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I've expressed the view on Draft talk:Ewin Tang that the article is ready to be promoted, and would be likely to survive AfD should someone be misguided enough to send it there - the tl:dr concern being raised right now is that if promoted it would be AfD'd. I'd encourage others from this group to express their opinions on the talk page, having checked the article & its sources. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Naming conventions - Carrie Kent
Pursuant to the above discussion of women not even in red, I was fixing up wikilinks to Alice Harrell Strickland (the first woman elected mayor in Georgia) and stumbled upon Carrie Kent, the first African-American woman elected mayor in Georgia. (The story gets even better from there - the town was incorporated by a committee entirely of women, who also composed the entirety of the first city government. Apparently this got national TV coverage at the time, but of course the Walthourville, Georgia article makes NO mention of it. I will fix that ASAP).

But here's my question. In newspaper articles of the time she was elected, she was called Carrie Kent. But that's her married name and she was born Carrie Brown. So normally I would start her article as Carrie Brown Kent. However...

Articles from the time of her death all refer to her as "Carrie (Kent) Brown" or "Carrie Kent-Brown" - see this news story and this paid obit and even. Is this a naming convention in certain communities that I've just never encountered?

So I've got Carrie Kent, Carrie Kent Brown and Carrie Brown Kent. Clearly I can call attention to the alternate names in the lede and infobox. But which one should be the article name, which should be the redirects? --Krelnik (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , what a great find! I usually go with what the majority of sources say at the time she was living, to avoid any "new age" naming conventions. I searched newspapers.com for Carrie Kent Brown and find 0 hits. Carrie Kent-Brown results in 0 as well. What I do find is Mother Carrie Brown :), but mostly Carrie Kent. I'd go with Carrie Kent and do redirects for the name-sames. SusunW (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Finding women who aren't even in red
I just went through the website of my (small midwestern city) hometown's most important cemetery -- the place where prominent people were buried -- and found over twenty women's names to research. valereee (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , exactly! There are notable women all over the world. We just have to find them. I've been working for several months on a notable Belarusian scientist whose male professor warned her 160 years ago that her work would continue to be known long after she was forgotten. So true, I find tantalizing traces of her, but no complete information. Her work is *still* cited, but no one seems to know much about her. Typical story for so many women. Finding them, and then documenting their lives is critical to balancing the historic record. Thank you so much for your work! SusunW (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * one of the problems I'm seeming to see is that some of these small-city women were so very prominent in that town during their lives that no one thought they'd ever be forgotten, lol. The woman I'm researchng now was called the town's 'most prominent historian' in her 1940 obit, and her name isn't even redlinked on the city's article. Her entire presence in Wikipedia is in references for other articles, as the author of various books. valereee (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My experience is that it can be particularly easy to justify inclusion of articles on people who are authors of multiple books: as long as you can find in-depth published reviews of the books, you can use them to make the case for WP:AUTHOR. In comparison, someone who died in 1940 and was the most prominent person in her town could well only have local newspaper records documenting her life, and although WP:GNG doesn't actually say anything about locality, you can be sure some deletionists will seize on the local nature of the coverage as an excuse for deletion. But maybe that's because I'm working in an area (academic biography) where book reviews are common and nonlocal; finding reviews for someone who published books only on local history could be more challenging. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So true, Lots of women, who were not in academia were widely read.  and I have worked on several together, (Rosie way more than me). Often in newspapers there is coverage of their work picked up in the Associated Press and outside of their local area in various newspapers., If you don't have access to newspapers.com or newspaperarchives.com, give me a shout and I'll see what I can find. You might also search in Hathitrust. SusunW (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I sprang for a newspapers.com membership, lol. Too many of the citations I was looking for are only available there. Hadn't heard of hathitrust, I'll have to check that out. Any reason to pay for newspaperarchives.com in addition to newspapers.com? valereee (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the pickle. There are so many notable women who aren't part of a list somewhere. When I find one, I feel like I'm a miner, and I've uncovered a gem. Finding additional sources after the first one can be problematic. Like many of you, I use all sorts of search methods to find them. I recognize that I'm privileged by being a WVS at Northeastern Univ, which gives me access to additional resources. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , you can get access to newspapers.com and other archives via the Wikipedia Library. You don't have to pay for them. SarahSV (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely a reason to have both. They carry different newspapers. I just found newspapers for Kazakhstan in newspaperarchive.com; newspapers.com only has US, Australia, Britain and Canada. :) look at our primer, there are lots of ideas for sourcing there. SusunW (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I second that recommendation of Hathitrust - it has lots of weird old stuff digitized. I found a family genealogical history written by the father of someone I was writing about. Not a great source by itself, but fine for filling some ancillary details like names of relatives and so on, and it led me to an interesting detail about the subject's family that I never would have found otherwise. Also good for directly linking to out-of-copyright works by the subject, on the occasion that they are not in Google Books or Internet Archive. --Krelnik (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I had a similar encounter earlier this evening. I was at Lisner Auditorium for a performance by Washington Concert Opera (Sapho by Charles Gounod, for those who might be keeping snore score), and had a chance to actually look at the artwork in the basement for once. (All of the pieces on display used to be numbered, but happily they have since been labeled instead.) Found a few women artists I'd never heard of before, including Louise Lyons Heustis. She ticks my boxes of interest as both a Southerner (from Mobile, Alabama originally) and a woman artist. There is an article in her biography, which I will develop at some point, but it's proving damn difficult to find much material. A few things on Google Books, but almost nothing on the modern web - it's amazing how thoroughly she has fallen out of sight; she doesn't appear to have been especially prominent during her career, but was nevertheless a well-regarded society portraitist. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Psychology's Feminist Voices
Yet another site I've found in my travels around the internet: Psychology's Feminist Voices. It contains lists of biographies, both historical and contemporary. Some have articles...quite a few do not. Another list for me to try and generate in a day or two, or three...or whenever I have a chance. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW I had a very positive experience working with one of the authors there. A hunk of the material at Amy Tanner had been derived from her bio at that website, and when I was doing some additions to the our article I discovered that the PFV site had gotten her birth and death date wrong, confusing her with a different Amy Tanner. Once I documented the correct ones, using sources that weren't available when she wrote her bio, the author at the website fixed up her version to match. --Krelnik (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Central Asia Encyclopedias
For Asia month, I have been focusing on Central Asia, as our coverage there is dismal. In that regard, I have found two Encyclopedias (I can never remember where these are kept), that have full access:

It would be lovely if someone could figure out how to archive this link, but I could not and don't have the technical skill to figure out why not. The other one, I was able to archive. If someone can help by putting these links with our other resources that have full access, that would be marvelous. It would of course, also be helpful if someone could index them, in their "spare time". SusunW (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

And another from Tajikistan: SusunW (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * That last one I'm pretty sure I wrung dry for the contest last year. I checked it over, and I think I wrote articles about all the women there. I agree with your first point, too: I was stunned at the lack of coverage of Central Asian topics I discovered last year. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That last one I'm pretty sure I wrung dry for the contest last year. I checked it over, and I think I wrote articles about all the women there. I agree with your first point, too: I was stunned at the lack of coverage of Central Asian topics I discovered last year. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There are two more which exist as well: the Uzbek Soviet Encyclopedia and the National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan. I believe there used to be a digital version of the second one, but I can't find it at the moment. I do know that it was used as the source of a lot of articles over on the Uzbek Wikipedia. The big problem I had with both of them was transliteration; I'm not sure how to transliterate Uzbek-language names into English, and I didn't want to plunge blindly in. If anyone knows how, or could develop a list in transliterated English, I think it would be very useful. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * well, then I shan't tell you of the woman I found who was one of the "key features of the 60, 70, and 80s" and whose mom was the first woman to run the Tajik Department of Women ;) You'll just have to wait until I publish it. But, yes, we need redlists prepared by someone who can properly transliterate the names. SusunW (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sure I may have missed one, or two...or three...or four... :-)


 * Another site, too, which may be of interest to those who are working on film-related subjects: https://www.kino-teatr.ru. It is in Russian, but it's a great database of Soviet-era actors, from all over the Soviet Union. I've found a number of Central Asians on there. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * One more. Pretty much if the surname ends in "a", it's a woman. In the first part of the book, names are alphabetical with brief bios. In the back they are listed by country. And, it's in English!:


 * SusunW (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Two more:


 * SusunW (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Sakina Aliyeva
I love this quote..."Ömrünün çoxunu dövlət yolunda sərf etmiş, dəfələrlə respublika Parlamentinin deputatı, sədr müavini olmuş, yüksək dərəcəli orden və medallarla, Fəxri Fərmanlarla təltif olunmuş, uzun illər Naxçıvanın siyasi və ictimai həyatında həlledici bir rol oynamış bir şəxs haqqında bu qədərmi məlumatsızlıq olmalıdır? Bu gün 'google'a gir, ən istedadsız müğənninin adını yaz, qarşına yüzlərlə qovluq çıxacaqdır. Amma ömrünü dövlətə həsr etmiş adam haqqında heç nə! Budurmu bizim qədirşünaslığımız?" (Should there be such a lack of knowledge about a person who has spent most of her life in service to the state, who was a deputy of the Republican Parliament, Deputy Chairman of the Parliament, honored with awards and medals, Honorary Decrees, who has played a crucial role in Nakchivan's political and public life for many years? Go to "google" today, write the name of the most talented singer, and you'll get hundreds of articles. But nothing about the woman who devoted her life to the state! Is this our titillation?) SusunW (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Milliners
hi all, i have recently created articles on a couple of ozzie milliners, Felicity Brown, and Ann Shoebridge, as there are only 81 pages at the Category:Milliners (that includes both women and men!), theres probably a lot more women milliners that are missing out on a wikiarticle Coolabahapple (talk) 08:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up, . I noticed that the occupation of "millner" redirects to hatmaking (Q663375). However, "hatter" (Q1639239) exists on Wikidata and several language Wikipedias have articles about it, but not English. I guess, someone could create a Wikidata-generated redlist for "millner" but would need to include Q663375 and Q1639239. do you know who has been creating our recent Wikidata lists, and can we ask them to work on this one? --Rosiestep (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Remembering that has helped me with some redlists so adding here. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I already tried out "hatter" and "milliner" on Wikidata but there were no results. The nearest we have is Fashion designers.--Ipigott (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , "hatter" (Q1639239) does exist. What we don't currently have is an English-language Wikipedia article about it, while other language Wikipedias do. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the terms on Wikidata where both "hatter" and "milliner" exist. I therefore ran each Q item but there were no results from either of them. You can see here: WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Milliners.--Ipigott (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , Ok, I see what you mean: there are no items to populate the Wikidata redlist as all the articles about women millners/hatmakers from other language Wikipedias already have an English-language article. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just looked on WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/ADB and found two Australian women described as milliners. On Wikidata, the occupation was listed as Q21550776. Surely this is the Q no. a list could be generated from? Oronsay (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look at the revision history of WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Milliners, you'll see I tried that too but no items from other language versions of Wikidata were found. I then tried "hatter" but the result was no better. Other language versions seem to be happier using items related to fashion designers under Q3501317.--Ipigott (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I found an old milliner's magazine, The Illustrated Milliner, and added a lot of hat images to Commons. Will add them to our #1day1woman outcomes section, too. Lots of men milliner's in the magazine; but unfortunately, only 1 woman pictured, a manager of a millinery company. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks, they are wonderful! ive added some of the pictures to 1910s in Western fashion, it was very difficult to choose which ones, but i though if i added too many some grumpy editor would undo my edits:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I recently got some help from d:Wikidata:Request a query for the WIR librarians list, and applied the same workaround here, and it seems to have fixed whatever wasn't working with the original version of the query. Gamaliel ( talk ) 00:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * So you have. Good work, Gamaliel. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Source help


Just got this article past GA, headed to DYK, but I have a sneaking suspicion this could wind up at FA, if I could only incorporate the material from these three dedicated biographies. Unfortunately, none of them are available anywhere online, and it looks like they can cost upward of $50 in at least one instance. Anybody have access to a university library wanna see what they can see? G M G talk  14:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

4 recurring hashtag trends that will make your Tweets more impactful
For those of you involved in Women in Red's social media outreach, this article might interest you. Simple things like adding #MotivationMonday, #TravelTuesday, #WCW, and #TBT may provide broader reach with our tweets. Let's try it? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Virginia Women's Monument Wall of Honor
A little poking around related to a thread earlier on this page revealed this list: Names from the Wall of Honor on the Virginia Women’s Monument. (We also have Draft:Virginia Women's Monument, which I will take a look at at some point.) Many women here have articles, but many more do not. Criteria for inclusion state: "The nominee must have demonstrated notable achievement, made a significant contribution, or set an important example, within her chosen field of endeavor, her region or at the state or national level. Significance will be assessed within the context of what was customary for a woman to have achieved or contributed in the context of the particular time, place and circumstances in which she lived and worked." This suggests that subjects will absolutely meet the notability guideline. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * These may be the same people I spoke with at a recent local event about this topic. If I can find their card I can reach out if there's any problems or assistance needed.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll let you know...I probably won't be ready to do anything on the subject until sometime next year. (Probably won't be ready to do a lot of things until sometime next year...) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Women in music timeline
This might be of interest: http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/page/Women-in-Music-timeline  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good find.--Ipigott (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Months on African cinema : Wikidata Women occupations
Hello. I just realized it might interest you to check out the Wiki Loves Women occupation drive. This is an attempt to improve the occupation labels in WikiData with non gender-biased description and description in more languages (than just English and French...). I am not sure any of you active people can help, because we do not have so many speakers around able to translate "actor" in say... Amharic. But still thought worth mentioning here in case you can point African language local speakers to it in the future. Cheers. Anthere (talk)
 * Actually, this is really important. Thanks for mentioning, . I wonder if there's something meaningful we could do about it using AI? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. I would tend to think that this is best left by human. The initial idea was given to me by Harmonia and she insisted that this would typically be something helping the Wikidata community because they considered that had to be done by humans. Practically speaking, it turns out to be quite complicated (or confusing ?) because in some (or many) cases, the term does not exist in the local language and is replaced by the English one. Anthere (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a mirror of the world’s gender biases
Thank you, for your insightful article, "Wikipedia is a mirror of the world’s gender biases", 18 October 2018, Wikimedia Blog. We appreciate that you've spotlighted the complex issues surrounding gender bias. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * People probably wonder why I'm writing all these articles about women, which seems out of character for me, but it really is simply identifying pieces like the one above as valid criticism and trying to do something about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that is the perfect reason, . If you see a problem, you can be part of the solution. Anyone can write about women or other groups that have been marginalized, if they can find sources. Not always easy to do, but every article helps make our world more reflective of the actual diversity that exists. I for one am grateful for all the allies in this work. SusunW (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , for what it's worth, I suspect there are people who know me in real life who might find my work at WiR at odds with other aspects of my personality. They shouldn't - I've been fascinated by women artists for as long as I can remember. Just a natural outgrowth in my curiosity about the world and its more obscure corners, I suppose. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

List of city governments entirely run by women
In working on the aforementioned Carrie Kent and Walthourville, Georgia all-women government story from 1974 (see above), I was trying to verify the claim made in one article that they were the first in the U.S. It quickly turned out to be bunk - first in Georgia sure, but not in the U.S. But researching this led to a rabbit hole as these things do. The interesting thing is press coverage of the phenomenon of all-woman city governments is all over the place. Lots of different towns claiming to be the first, or articles on recent ones citing "the last time this happened was..." and they always cite a different town. Got me thinking that we're in a good position to help fix this going forward.

Among the towns that have done this are five different towns in Kansas (possibly more) between 1887 and 1896; Kanab, Utah in 1911; Umatilla, Oregon in 1916 which has a whole article about it: Petticoat Revolution; Jackson, Wyoming and Yoncalla, Oregon in 1920; Winslow, Arkansas in 1925; Duvall, Washington in 1932 and Washington, Virginia in 1950. (Of course the pace picks up rapidly in the late 20th century). I'm sure there are others that I'll find once I start digging into sources deeper, I've just been using easily googled web sources for now.

So naturally I'm going to try to put material on these events into the pages for each town, but I'm wondering if there's a good place to get references to this phenomenon all in one place so a writer researching this in the future would be able find it. Among the places that seem likely:


 * List of first women mayors
 * List of first female mayors in the United States
 * List of the first women holders of political offices
 * Women in government
 * List of women%27s firsts - currently empty, refers to the above two

One problem with the mayor articles is in some cases the election where the all-women council came in wasn't necessarily the first woman mayor for that town. I was thinking maybe a new article or list about the phenomenon of all-women governments, but I'm always wary to start things like that for fear of original research claims. Any thoughts? --Krelnik (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have this same problem. Note above my collection on women in central Asia. Where do we put this kind of stuff so we can easily find it? We need a library. *sigh* I think a list would be less likely to be considered OR. For an article, you'd have to have sources which address the phenomena as a whole. Just my opinion, which is worth nothing. SusunW (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's a great idea. Another for your list: Clintwood, Virginia elected an all-female town council in 1948.


 * What I'd like to know, since we're on the subject: who was the first female mayor in Virginia? Google is surprisingly tight-lipped on that subject, last I checked. I'd love to write an article about her...if I knew who she was. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Richmond Times-Dispatch claims it was Dorothy Davis of Washington, who was elected in 1950 along with the aforementioned all-woman city council. I'd find another source to back that up if I were you, though, since this is occasionally a disputed topic. When I was writing Susan Wissler, I found multiple sources that said she was either the first woman mayor in America or elected within days of the first woman mayor, when the actual first woman mayor predated her by two decades. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Interesting. I know it's not right, because Clintwood elected its all-female council, including mayor, two years earlier. I really ought to shoot the Library of Virginia an e-mail and see what they have to say. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess this Virginia issue certainly underscores the problem I pointed out. I found a newspaper source on the 1948 Clintwood election and added it to the Clintwood article - the 1950 claim is clearly wrong. I'm working on some other stuff right now, but I will create this list of all-women governments sometime soon as I've collected a ton of them into an offline note. --Krelnik (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As of now, it appears Clintwood is the best candidate for town with first woman mayor in Virginia. This pleases me greatly - I always enjoy the chance to write about Southwestern Virginia, and I find the political history of that part of the Commonwealth to be particularly interesting. Clintwood is the county seat of Dickenson County; one of the first two women returned to the Virginia House of Delegates was Helen Timmons Henderson, of neighboring Buchanan County. Her daughter, Helen Ruth Henderson, also served in the House. Furthermore, at least two more of the early women members of the House were from western Virginia. (I sometimes think that a fascinating study could be made out of the history of women's participation in local politics across the rural South...I'm equally certain that I'm not the person to write it.)


 * Incidentally, this conversation has also gotten me wondering about the first woman to serve as mayor in the state of Maryland. Thus far the leading candidate appears to be Elizabeth Harrington, who was elected mayor of Greenbelt in 1949, and I think I'm safe in writing an article about her. Again, if anyone can turn up someone earlier I'd be gratified to run with it. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and shot an e-mail over to the Library of Virginia. Let's see what they come up with by way of response. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Pursuant to this discussion I did some cleanup work today on List of first women mayors in the United States, including moving it from "...female mayors..." Threw in some mayors I knew of from my all-woman-government research that were missing. Removed a duplicate Utah that somehow had been invented, and added some missing states (SD and WVa) so all 50 are represented. In doing that last bit, I discovered the first woman mayor in South Dakota has the terrific name Hattie Pickles, she's now a WiR for someone to notice. --Krelnik (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

DYKs now appear in Article Alerts!
Per the Lady Angela Forbes discussion above, we requested DYK be added to Article Alerts and I just noticed this was done on November 18. Thank you so much to and anyone else who is involved in implementing this. Check out the current results here. (CC: who also participated in the discussion over at the article alert feature request page). --Krelnik (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It's a good feeling when the process works. 16:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a very useful feature.--Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Dang, that's a long list. I sort of expected there to be a couple to few items in busy projects like TFAs. But I guess a few projects sure have many DYKs, with MILHIST taking the cake. Having the blurb in report effectively doubles the list size. I will likely wrap it in hover title. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's useful! Nice to see all in one place what's been nominated and needs DYK review! valereee (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

BBC 100 Women 2018
I guess it's that time of year again - see here. Jane (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I've updated WikiProject Women in Red/BBC 100 Women redlinks, listing the 62 out of 100 women for whom we did not already have an article, at the top of the page. I guess in time they can be pushed down into their respective countries, but it might be useful to consider them as a cohort for the time being. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jane (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

And now, thanks to a fb live video on "rebel editting Wikipedia", we now have an article about human rights activist Uma Devi Badi, courtesy of User:RebelEdit (video is here). Jane (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They all should now have Wikidata entries at least, see User:Mike Peel/100 Women. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice work, thanks. How do I connect your d:Q58914439 to my newly-created Svetlana Alekseeva (model)? I'm a bit vague about Wikidata, though I've add Authority control. Pam  D  16:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * like this. The list should automatically update at some point. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I got to the Wikidata entry for her but couldn't work out how to link to the disambiguated en.wiki title. Pam  D  16:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You can add the sitelink by clicking 'Edit' next to 'Wikipedia', then 'en' in the wiki box, then the page title in the next box, then click 'publish' (again next to 'Wikipedia'). It's a bit of a different interface from here, but straightforward once you've done it once or twice. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good work on adding the awards to Wikidata, Mike. That was to be my evening task, but you're way ahead of me. Thank you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the awards to Wikidata. And thanks  for the new redlist. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Tables scrolling (so far, works only in Firefox and Safari browsers)
FYI (and ignore if you already knew this). You know those long tables we scroll through on women? Or short tables. See VP: Sticky table headers. The thread is about scrolling features on tables format. The short of it is: "Testing and development" at the bottom of Special:Preferences has "Make sure that headers of tables remain in view as long as the table is in view". So, check that feature on that page, and you should be able to scroll down tables, while the row you're looking at appears immediately under the header. Lord, what a time saver. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. List_of_mountains_of_the_British_Isles_by_height and so on will never be the same again! Brilliant. Pam  D  17:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Women who are redirects
Through clicking through the DYK section I found Małka Zdrojewicz and to me she seems notable enough to have her own article rather than being a redirect to a famous photograph of her; the photo isn't the only thing that makes her notable. She does get more than just a mention in the photograph article, but still. I made an article a few days ago when I discovered a prominent local philanthropist was a redirect to her father in law, where she was barely mentioned. It's making me wonder if there are a lot of women who aren't redlinks but instead are redirects, sometimes to articles in which they're only mentioned in passing, which dismisses them almost more clearly than a redlink does. It made me wonder if this project has anything in place to try to detect women who aren't in red, but who are redirects when they could have their own article? I see the "Redirects for Discussion" section on the main page, but I'm not suggesting that Zdrojewicz -shouldn't- redirect there for now, just that for the purposes of this project she ought to be treated as a redlink. valereee (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I do those sometimes. In case you're looking for another example, I recently started an article for Marian Irwin Osterhout, a plant biologist whose name previously only redirected to the page for the surname Osterhout, not even to her husband's or father's pages (they both already had articles). - Penny Richards (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ugh, that sucks valereee (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we've all noticed the trend, but I'm not sure how we convince people to insert the names as redlinks rather than redirects. There are a whole lot of people who don't even like redlinks, but fortunately consensus at this time is against their POV. Not sure how a list could be made of women redirects without an article. Far too technical an issue for me to deal with. I write them as I discover them. SusunW (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more of keeping a list, separate from the redlinks lists because they'd of course show up there in blue. And, yes, I know some people prefer to make a redirect to some related article instead of a redlink; I get the reason, but it does make it harder to detect missing women...do you think anyone would object to a category for 'Redirects' ? Or would that somehow break wikipedia? valereee (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * . I have no idea. Wikipedia technology is not intuitive nor is policy on obscure areas easy to find. Hopefully some page watcher can answer your question. SusunW (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The subcats of Category:Redirects with possibilities would be a good place, Category:Redirects from spouses in particular mostly contains women and some may well be sufficiently notable for articles. Warofdreams talk 16:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think creating redlinks instead of redirects is not a good idea. If there is any information on a woman it's more useful to the reader to be directed to it (even if it's a passing mention in husband's or alma mater's article), as it gives a bit of chronological and geographical context and may have information sources to lead to much more. Yes, we should be on the lookout for women who haven't got an article of their own but don't have a red link because they are a redirect - is there scope for our WikiData lists to include them, I wonder? But we mustn't forget that the purpose of the encyclopedia is to help readers find information. Short-term they are better served by a redirect, even if long-term the presence of redlinks might lead to creation of proper articles which will help the reader more. Pam  D  14:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * the problem with redirects is that they don't show up, so you might not realize a women is a redirect unless you click on every bluelink woman's name. valereee (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * cough* Read my reply, below, which you kinda pushed out of the way :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand pushed out of the way? I indented further in than you did under PamD so it would be obvious I was replying to her after you'd replied? I guess I'm doing that wrong? Guess I need to go read some guideline lol valereee (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC) ETA: lol, I see that I didn't in fact indent bigger! fixing valereee (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But for the reader, as opposed to the editor, a redirect pointing to a little bit of information is more helpful than a redlink which just tells them "someone thinks there ought to be an article about her but there isn't one yet". The readers are the priority. Pam  D  17:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikidata does not, as a rule, have sitelinks to redirects, so wikidata redlists will list women even if their prospective article title has been made into a redirect. By-hand redlists should continue to list redirect article titles. Fwiw, I use User:Anomie/linkclassifier, which usefully colour-codes links by type; so redirects are green, DAB pages have yellow highlighting, etc - see User:Anomie/linkclassifier. Highly recommended. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, now I have zero idea what I'm screwing up valereee (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , what I frequently see is a redirect from a woman to an article that doesn't even mention her. How is that helpful? The poor reader has no idea why they ended up on John Doe's page if Jane's name isn't anywhere in the text and is left to ponder— so was she his partner, sister, mother, or his murderer?, THAT is cool. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Transformational, SusunW. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, this link classifier helps you spot redirects- it shows them as green. But I agree there's too many redirects for women to articles with not much/nothing about them, so it'd be a good idea to get a proper article about them. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If there's a redirect to a page which doesn't mention the woman, then please send it to WP:RfD - or dig around for some relevant info to add to the article if you can work out what the person who created the redirect had in mind, perhaps from the page history. Pam  D  16:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

(can't work out the appropriate level of indentation!), I think the idea is if you're replying to me (as at 2:48) you indent one level further than my 2:21 post, but you put it below anyone else (like Tagishsimon's 2:36) which was also a one-level-in reply to my 2:21 post. It does get confusing. Pam D  16:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That colour-coding sounds very useful, especially for this project - I already have all links to dab pages coloured orange (using a Gadget under Preferences). It looks a bit complicated so I'll need to take a bit of time to look carefully and work out how to use it. But thanks for telling us about it, it looks great. Pam D  16:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, I think I've now added it to my .js and it's looking good. Thanks! Pam  D  17:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you, that is awesome! valereee (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Link problem
On the #1Day1Woman project page, WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018 the links to earlier months in 2018 don't work because all the months from January to October are hidden. Can someone please figure out how to fix this? Many thanks. Oronsay (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I think it's OK now.--Ipigott (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks . It does work OK now. Oronsay (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A Space of Their Own - database of women artists
From the blog of the National Museum of Women in the Arts: "Researchers at Indiana University Bloomington are creating a comprehensive online database of female artists active in the U.S. and Europe from the 15th to 19th centuries." More here from Hyperallergic.

The article also mentions the CLARA database from NMWA, no longer being updated, and the Canadian Women Artists History Initiative, of which I have heard as well. There is also the database kept by AWARE, an index of women visual artists born between 1860 and 1920. That one I'd never encountered before.

The Indiana University database has yet to come online, and it looks like it's going to be in the very early stages soon. Even so, this is a.) an exciting development, and b.) a potentially great new source, it seems. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fabulous . You should put the links on the Ideas page for Art + Feminism in March. SusunW (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I created the item Q59205772 for this database/catalog of 15th-19th century female artists, which I assume can already be used to add to the items for the works listed in that article. If anyone finds published summaries elsewhere we can use those too. The article also mentions Clara database as inspiration and I suppose we need an item/article for the French AWARE (20th-century) and also for Jane Fortune's The Florence Committee of the National Museum for Women in the Arts as well (if it is not already out there as the former name of Advancing Women Artists Foundation). Any other similar societies that are out there need items. It would probably be good to list a project page for each country covered in their scope to help get the works into Wikidata and the artists onto Wikipedia during A&F 2019. Jane (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

December WIR topics
Just wondering, has it been decided what the three December WIR topics are going to be? Usually the events pages has them up a few weeks in advance. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is still under discussion on our Ideas page. As soon as the focus has been clarified, I'll add the details to the Events page.--Ipigott (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The priorities for December have now been decided: they are Photography, Laureates and Countries beginning with 'I'. Invitations will be sent out soon.--Ipigott (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

assistance with previously deleted article
Dara Quigley shows as previously deleted a bit over ten months agao as 'clearly not news' and 'no lasting coverage' here: Articles_for_deletion/Dara_Quigley. It's continued to receive coverage, including some in the past couple of months, so I'm crossing my fingers, but response to my draft would be appreciated: User:Valereee/Dara Quigley valereee (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * having given a quick glace at your draft, I would say that the article has a good chance of surviving in the mainspace. If you feel comfortable enough to submit the draft to WP:AFC, I would be willing to conduct an in-depth review and then (assuming it meets criteria, which it almost certainly does) move the article to the mainspace.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just an observation. What is notable is the controversy surrounding this person's death, sadly not the person themselves.  I rather doubt it would survive as an article in its own right, an article on the controversy probably would.  IMHO that is the article you should be writing. WCM email 08:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The earlier AfD was very poorly attended - just one editor in addition to the one who proposed deletion. I wonder whether she was tagged for attention of any WikiProjects - Ireland, Women, possibly some project concerned with data protection? We must make sure that if the new article goes into mainspace it is tagged for appropriate projects, so that interested parties are alerted to any discussions. Pam  D  08:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- I'll ping you when I'm ready; I've got one more article that I just got access to (thanks to who helped with a paywall).  thanks, I had actually wondered about that, I'll give it some thought. Are you thinking an article named Dara Quigly controversy?  I saw that -- only one commenter beyond the nomination for deletion. It was tagged for multiple projects, but only that one commenter came in, and I was wondering whether that was a factor of the article having been created at a point when it was expected to perhaps be no longer in the news, just another sad tale with little staying power. The fact it's being written about fairly regularly while the investigation drags maybe would be enough. valereee (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

New journal article published
Hello folks. Just wanted to let you know that an article I wrote about the history of women in engineering on wiki has been published (open access, hurrah!) here. If you have any thoughts or comments then I'd be very glad to learn from them. Zeromonk (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , Great article. I was very interested to read your analysis of the "History of women in engineering" page. It points to a specific conundrum often encountered — how does one incorporate women (and minorities) into the encyclopedia. The problem is, to my mind, that most people are never taught about anything other than mainstream culture. Studying minority history only typically occurs at the university level, thus broad knowledge of marginalized people's history is unknown in general, and is taught as separate fields (Gender Studies, Latino Studies, Caribbean Studies, African Studies, Asian Studies, etc). In a way, as always, WP then mirrors academia. Women/marginalized groups' history in any given field was different. From a historical perspective, they were treated separately: Their citizenship was questionable, their participation in the job market was often curtailed, as was their participation in general society. Trying to relate these different experiences becomes lost in an article about the entire field; while simultaneously reinforcing the obscurity of their experiences. It is often challenged as violating NPOV, as well. So how do you fix it? The only way I know is to fix/write each article when you notice a gap in coverage. Simply slapping on a tag for someone else to fix the problem, to my mind, just exacerbates the problem, as it points out that there is an issue but no will to actually "do" something about it. SusunW (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks so much for that really thoughtful response, I appreciate you taking the time and I agree with you on the idea of being active! Zeromonk (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Afd Rachel Parent
There is currently an Afd for Rachel Parent, comments welcome WP:Articles for deletion/Rachel Parent (2nd nomination). --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Irish revolutionary women
The Irish war of independence formed the same day as the first Irish parliament, 21 January 1919 (though in fact the events were independent of each other) and the war ran until 10 May 1921. I spent some time creating pages for the women of 1916 and many were obviously also involved in this war. I intend to try to complete the list of Irish revolutionary women (as many as I can anyway) and I hope to kick off on the appropriate date.

Obviously Constance Markievicz was there as was the brother of Louise Gavan Duffy. Another was the husband of Mabel McConnell Fitzgerald and many other brothers and husbands of prominent women were in the ensuing parliaments -As well some of those women in subsequent elections...I would have loved to get some of these articles to GA before then but I wasn't able to especially when I went and broke my arm. Typing is a royal pain. I have never done the Photo of the day idea - if anyone could suggest anything or would like to help or anything, I would be thrilled. For me, 1919-21 was about the war so I hope for 2019-21 to focus (at least some of the time) on the women who have been left out of the histories.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 00:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You probably want the National Library of Ireland for this, and they do put some pretty high resolutioon copies up which I can... probably figure out how to get. Let's go through how I evaluate, it might help.
 * Let's start by evaluating what we need to know. commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory is a useful start, and clicking on to Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_I-L we see that we have fairly standard European copyright laws. That's slightly annoying, but nothing too bad.
 * So, let's check the library. First of all, it gives you the option to only search for digitized images with a check box. We may as well check it; anything undigitised isn't much use to us. There's a lot of things under Markievicz].
 * We need to evaluate two things: Copyright, and usability. For example, if we look at, we can zoom in on her face by clicking the "+" button on the digitised section, and see it's... not very usable. Plus, the library claims rights on the image: "Reproduction rights owned by the National Library of Ireland." - No good!
 * is excellent quality, and if we couldn't find anything free-licensed, we might be able to fair use it. But we have free-licenced images, so that "Reproduction rights owned by the National Library of Ireland." means we move on.
 * is interesting, but... "Reproduction rights owned by the National Library of Ireland." WAIT, though. This is in our article, and  - their own upload - says that there's no known copyright restrictions.


 * So at this point, we flip the National Library of Ireland off and go off grumbling for a bit, wondering what the hell's going on here.


 * Once we've calmed down, we go to http://catalogue.nli.ie/Ask_a_Librarian/Home and write them an e-mail. I wrote (in part) "...What does this mean for reuse? On the one hand, they're being uploaded to a place saying to use it freely, and on the other, it's saying you own the rights, and presumably need negotiated with."


 * Next, we wait for a response. Tune in next time when we get to deal with all this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Copytheft is going on., for instance, is an A. H. Poole Studio Photographer image, and publication+70 would seem to apply. AHP went out of business in 1954 and on the face of it any of their photos for which the photographer cannot be identified are public domain. It's a terrible shame to see museums and libraries try to enclose the commons like this; shocking and contemptible behaviour. Per National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute I think the best thing to do is act as the law, rather than the misguided library's fantasy, dictates; assess the copyright status from first principles and act accordingly. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Copyright principles are often confusing to me and I typically cave and go for the fair use option loading the image to the local rather than commons site even when I'm pretty sure that it should be public domain. Unless the site I find it on openly states the image is usable or I took it myself, I tend to play for the 'safe' option... Your greater understanding of these issues is enlightening and welcome.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 02:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have become somewhat militant over the years; probably some sort of autistic black & white viewpoint; and not necessarily very productive nor persuasive. As I note in the link, NLI have watermarked the images, as many copythieves do, as an additional fuck-you to the society that feeds and funds them. I find their myopic sense of entitlement triggering & genuinely distressing. But as a practical way forwards, the fair-use route is pragmatic. Now if you'll forgive me, I need to go & howl at the moon. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

An odd question....
Is it worth seeking out some high-resolution anti-suffragette material? Generally speaking, it's all SO bad that it shouldn't risk people using it to attack women nowadays - for example:

https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/RQP8klVJytfwDfLugoQ2pql9Kh8=/fit-in/1072x0/filters:focal(1100x1230:1101x1231)/https://public-media.smithsonianmag.com/filer/c3/d6/c3d6580b-b45b-4cd5-b35c-b47e38c8b900/holding_his_own.jpg

https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/QTZrB1sJgg3d0bSjFzyY7JHRtP4=/fit-in/1072x0/https://public-media.smithsonianmag.com/filer/c8/fd/c8fd1760-2448-4f79-9d34-83bc7d24e751/if_you_love_your_life_1.jpg

https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/oFSe1omHRut_20b4_CAjzL4hC-k=/fit-in/1072x0/https://public-media.smithsonianmag.com/filer/5e/19/5e193833-6bdd-4528-9946-baaa939c8287/when_women_vote_washing_day.jpg

...But is it useful? I can probably find some and get it featured if it's worthwhile having. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. Anti-suffragism was (perhaps is, idk) a thing, as is propaganda and we should document these as fully as we can, including having well-developed and comprehensively populated commons directories of media. I guess that does not answer the implicit question: how obnoxious must material be before we refuse to deal with it; tbh the three you feature look like snapshots from my household - they're rather sweet & far from whatever the cut-off should be. They remind me of nothing so much as this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Aye. Those are ones where any malice is long gone. One could also make a case for something like, on the other extreme, where the crudity of the malice leave only a bad taste.
 * But we don't want to produce something only for it to be grabbed by the so-called "Men's Rights Activists", and used to attack women, so there's somewhere in between the mostly harmless and the so-horrible-noone-would-dare-connect-themselves-with-it that we should avoid over-promoting. The front page of Wikipedia is not a place to hurt women's rights. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We're rather hoping to reenact the bar shown here sometime next year..<em style="font-family: Kristen ITC; color:red">  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 02:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ooh, now, that would be a fun one to do. There a good article for it? Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Wholehearted support for Edwardian dress, cigarette holders and a generally superior bearing being the uniform of WiR from this quarter.
 * Yes, Adam; we'd want considerable circumspection and context for an image which we sought to promote to the front page; and ideally we'd want good metadata and context for images on commons. I'm less convinced that we want our freedom of movement affected by MRAs or by concern about the use they might make of material we handle. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All these scandalous women smoking and gambling in public, yet granny in the back with a pint in her pocket was the only one to think they could do it without wearing a corset.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  11:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * OMG scroll down to the bottom of the page of the link posted for an 1895 cartoon showing a predicted society wedding announcement for 2001. Carton is of a tall, strong woman marrying a cringing, small man. Details include his hand over her arm rather than the traditional opposite. The caption reads "In The Year 2001: A brilliant society wedding took place last night at Grace Church, the contracting parties being Miss Helen Strongmind, the well-known young stock broker of Wall Street, and Mr. Percy Lightweight, the beautiful and fascinating brunette whose come-out ball was such a society event of the early season. The bridesmen were the most beautiful that have been seen at any wedding this year. They were Clarence Tulip, Chauncey Maybud, and Willie Highfly, all of whom were chums of the groom at Madame Devere’s Seminary for Young Men. The bridegroom was attired in a handsome close-fitting silk dress, which showed to advantage the lines of his svelte form, and he held in his hands a magnificent bunch of lilies. The officiating minister was the Rev. Mary Walker." I think this one is practically perfect -- neither ugly nor simply silly, just expresses all the fear that if women get the vote, they'll treat men the way men have always treated women, horrors! Can someone put that cartoon into Commons? I can't figure out how to get to the high-res version. valereee (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And verily it came to pass...https://www.google.com/search?q=Cara+Delevingne+-+Princess+Eugenie+wedding --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * hahahahaha valereee (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Imagine though if Robbie Williams had shown up in Liv Tyler's outfit what talk there would have been!! We still have a ways to go!<em style="font-family: Kristen ITC; color:red">  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 22:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Geeeeeeezus. There's a lot of these. Working on transferring everything with a verifiable date to Commons. But this may take a while.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I got that one: valereee (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm working on this archive. So, not trying to discourage anybody from helping, but if anyone wants to, please start at the bottom of the page and work up, and I'll continue from the top. Don't want to put a bunch of effort into queueing up a bunch of uploads only to have them fail as duplicates (or have them succeed only to need deletion). See also c:Category:Palczewski Suffrage Postcard Archive.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha! That's a dapper look. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Good news everyone. c:Category:Palczewski Suffrage Postcard Archive now has >100 postcards for all your suffrage needs. Also we have the above with regard to the bar scene. Third option probably better for thumbnails. Second probably better if anyone is looking to repair the dividing line distortions and go for an FA on it for the main page day.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  21:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, the 2nd is not good. No 1 best for FP, imo. Great image anyway. Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've repaired a few of these before. Trust me on this one:


 * This one is much less egregious, so should be pretty easy. Just note down any articles you use it in, so I can find them when the restoration's done, since it's split over three. Also, I call the one next to the fudge and almonds if we re-enact this. Because yum. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As someone who has stumbled into my FPs mostly....how the shit? That's impressive.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  02:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been doing it for years, in large amounts. The secret, by the way, is perspective fixes on individual parts of the folded image, adding the space needed to stretch it out while doing so, then going through and fixing the joins. (And, actually, this seems like a good comment for the new signature I was working on earlier...) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 05:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Amazingly good work.--Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Another source of redirects that could be articles
See Category:VIAF not on Wikidata. A fair number of these are redirects (because Wikidata does not allow redirects to have their own entries) and a fair number of the redirects are for potentially-notable women associated with someone or something else. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)