Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 72

Draft:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
My name is Elizabeth Rowe. I had some notability as the principal flutist of the Boston Symphony Orchestra before making mainstream headlines for a gender discrimination lawsuit (see Boston_Symphony_Orchestra). I followed the instructions at WP:YOURSELF by disclosing my conflict of interest and submitting a draft page about myself to Articles for Creation. The reviewer said I was “almost certainly [] notable” but rejected the page and encouraged deletion because it “must be reviewed by a neutral editor.”

I thought review from a neutral editor was precisely what Articles for Creation was designed for. However, if I am not allowed to submit, I would be grateful if an independent editor here can help out. Thank you so much in advance for your help. Roweflute (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for creating your draft and for following procedure in so doing. On a first reading, it looks fine. (I made some light edits and added a small amount of material.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, I think the subject is notable and the article will not be deleted at WP:AfD. I would be willing to accept the draft, provided that the CoI is properly disclosed on the talk page of the article. You could use the Connected_contributor template to do that. Vexations (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I’ve added the connected contributor tag. Roweflute (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks; duly moved to mainspace - Elizabeth Rowe (flutist). --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hatnote added to the target of redirect Elizabeth Rowe, to make this findable. Pam  D  06:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And a redirect made from the more common (but only in ratio 5:3 in en.wiki) spelling Elizabeth Rowe (flautist). Pam  D  06:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And added both Elizabeths to Rowe (surname). Pam  D  06:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I would like to congratulate you,, for putting together an informative neutral biography which bears no signs of a desire for self promotion. If others wishing to write about themselves were to follow your example, there would be less concern about discouraging "autobiographies". You also seem to have been able to master the essential editing techniques. Well done!--Ipigott (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Really lovely job to everyone., you point out only one of the pitfalls of sending articles to AfC (Articles for Creation). Our usual advice is to never send new articles there. If you are unable to move your drafts to mainspace, just post here, like you have done this time, and someone will come along directly and help. Welcome aboard. SusunW (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, all, for taking the time to look at this, and for welcoming me to the Wikipedia community! Roweflute (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I second the comments of Ipigott above. Job well done and a model as to how to do it. Fortunately you have plenty of reliable secondary sources as testament to your notability. Again welcome. Please stay involved, especially in Women in Red.Oldperson (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above. The more eyes on the field of classical music, the better. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It might not be a terrible idea to try and get a photo of you up at WP:FPC as well. We're quite low on pictures of non-singer classical musicians there. I'll happily review them. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 18:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this suggestion. I'll work on it! Much appreciated. Roweflute (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

help?
I just finished an article on Women's suffrage in India and could use some help if anyone is so inclined. I haven't updated the information on Timeline of women's suffrage, or added the redlinks to any of the lists. It also has no links to other articles and is presently an orphan. It needs photos and if anyone can help in that department that would be great. I would love to know if this photograph can be used. There is also one of 11 of the 15 delegates to the constituent assembly. I think they are eligible for commons, as the copyright tag says "Photographs created before 1958 are in the public domain 50 years after creation". Having never loaded photographs from India I am unsure, but if it can be proven when they were taken, they seem eligible. Also, as the names are spelled differently in various sources, if anyone is familiar with the names there might be existing articles that I failed to link. Any help in integrating, illustrating or copyediting the article would be appreciated. SusunW (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ de-orphaned WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No luck on the photos from me. There seems to be dearth of photos of Indian suffragists at meetings or demonstrating.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your help ! Lack of photos, I know, very frustrating. Lots of photos of English women of Indian descent in British protests, but ones of actual Indian suffragettes in India is hard. I have a friend in Mumbai looking into the two I found above to try to determine if they were published. I was able to find a photo yesterday of Margaret Cousins, but that took forever not only find, but prove it could be used. SusunW (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I also was able to add the dates of the various provinces in the timeline. SusunW (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Incoming batch of biographies from Wiki Education
Hi all, there are some incoming biographies from a psychology course.
 * Hermine Hug-Hellmuth (expanding Hermine Hug-Hellmuth)
 * Miriam Polster (new article, she currently redirects to Gestalt therapy)
 * Jennifer Lynn Eberhardt (expanding Jennifer Eberhardt)
 * Helen Woolley (expanding Helen Thompson Woolley)
 * Naomi Weisstein (expanding Naomi Weisstein)
 * Edna Frances Heidbreder (new article)
 * Joyce Diane Brothers (expanding Joyce Brothers)
 * Nalini Ambady (expanding Nalini Ambady)
 * Eleanor Jack Gibson (expanding Eleanor J. Gibson)

For context, this is part of a larger batch of biographies (more here). Improvements are welcome. Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Excellent; many thanks, Elysia --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * But why are most of these students creating replacement articles, instead of collaboratively expanding the existing ones? Unless the existing article is complete rubbish the students should be working by expanding and improving the existing article, rather than throwing away the work of previous editors. Normal Wikipedia ways of working should not be cast aside just because it makes a better academic project that way. It is really dispiriting for an existing editor, probably with a longer investment in editing, to find their work cast aside, and is not in the interests of the encyclopedia.  Pam  D  23:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For example: Naomi Weisstein: an article started in June 2006, to which many editors have contributed over the years. Why is a student creating a replacement article? Are they and their teacher really confident that they will create something more valuable to the encyclopedia than the article created by many editors over 13 years? Why is the student not expanding the existing article? The students' efforts would be so much more appropriately directed to improving existing articles or creating new articles on topics not yet covered. Pam  D  23:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with on this but I'm not too sure what the students are now expected to do. As far as I can see, they've all been working in their user space. Should they be incorporating some of their improvements into the existing biographies or is the intention to replace the existing articles or sections. I am nevertheless impressed by the progress these students have made. It certainly looks to me as if Miriam Polster and perhaps Edna Frances Heidbreder could usefully be moved to mainspace but perhaps this is planned.--Ipigott (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It looks to me as if the students have branched the articles; so they are working forward from the base of a copied version of the existing articles, but all of their edits are in their drafts, sandboxen, &c. Their work now needs to be merged back into the existing articles; either as a single edit (losing the history of their changes in their sandbox) (and watching out that intervening edits to the base article since it was forked are not lost); or else an admin needs to merge the histories of two articles (if that's a thing. IAN a janitor). I think we're good so long as someone has a plan for the eventual unification of the articles. Opinions will vary as to the pros & cons of a branching approach. But right now the key question is whether a plan exists to get the students' work into mainspace -, do you know? --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The editing histories of these sandboxes make no or little acknowledgment of the existing articles and it really looks as if these students and their teachers expect to overwrite the entire existing article, which is not how Wikipedia articles should develope, and is insulting to the editors who have worked on the articles in the past: we should not throw aside our normal way of creating articles just because it makes for a better academic project. Somewhere along the line it looks as if a poor decision has been made as to how these student editors are expected to contribute to the encyclopedia. Pam  D  10:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you're making an assumption here - that the intent is to remove the existing article and add a new article. It might equally be that the intent is to take a fork of an existing article, work on it in a private space, and then integrate changes back into the source article. We can agree is that the edit history of the existing articles must be respected - which is to say preserved; and so the presumption is that the new work must be added to the existing articles. If so, the risk, such as it is, is that the multiple edits done in the private space do not make it to the history of the main article, because the article is updated in a single edit from the private draft. The approach being taken is questionable, for sure, but it is not axiomatically a poor decision if consideration has been given to the implications of the approach (loss of private space edits and need to check for intervening edits before updating the mainspace article). It is not uncommon, in my experience, to take the text of an article away somewhere (draft, sandbox, client-side editor), work on it for some protracted period, and later return to update the mainspace article - taking care to deal with the problem of edits made to the article after the fork was made. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone asked students to work on drafts outside main namespace, what else could happen? I, for one, am always in favour of tight cooperation in the main namespace. That's what wikis are for, we're not Nupedia. However I must accept that in some courses people will need to go for the (seemingly) easier path, for various reasons. Nemo 12:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Students on Wiki courses tend to work like this - unfortunately their instructors rarely have any real experience of Wikipedia, & the WikiEd "experts" rarely seem to influence matters in any real way. There is most unlikely to be any plan to do the merge/move properly.  Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * AGF anyone? No? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately they are working in good faith. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. In my experience, students on Wiki courses do not tend to work like this (they either improve an article directly or they create an article that was missing) and instructors I have dealt with do have & make use of wikipedia skills. And where we've encouraged WikiEd to share work such as this with us, getting bitey and neglecting AGF is not constructive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well in my experience, which I rather expect is greater than yours as art historical subjects are great favourites with students on courses, "improving an article directly" very often involves just replacing all or great chunks of the existing article, with little attempt to preserve anything worthwhile from before. Of course there may not be much, but sometimes there is. Intervention from instructors or WikiEd is very rarely seen in article space, and the instructors always use virgin accounts. Frankly, you are a fine one to talk about getting bitey. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything at all constructive to add? Are you here for any reason other than to polish your grievance? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Go on, prove my point. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The students seem to be working in groups, which is fine but means that it would be very difficult to merge their work into the existing article while preserving attribution ("who added that sentence?") - judging from the history of the student work I've looked at. It will be interesting to hear from is this WikiEd's recommended, or approved, way for student editors to work? Pam D  16:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi all, thanks for the pings. I'm a halftime employee, so forgive the delay in getting back to you. I think a broader context would be necessary here. We knew from the beginning that this course would consist of group work to work on biographies of psychologists. Our typical trainings are for students to work in sandboxes, but this was especially important given that 1) there were 100 students in this course; 2) this instructor has run into issues with the Wikipedia assignment in the past. We are not encouraging students to write "replacement articles". The same trainings we've had apply to these students: "Never copy and paste your draft over the entire article. Instead, edit small sections at a time, replacing only content that you've changed. Make many small edits, saving each time and leaving an edit summary. Never replace more than one to two sentences without saving...Add an edit summary that says it was copied from your sandbox, and click 'Publish changes'. (Include a link to your sandbox, like, in the edit summary.)..."


 * Moving work out of the sandbox via these small copy-paste moves is fine. It's exactly the same as how text can be copied from one article to another as long as attribution is provided in the edit summary. The plan is for students to do the moves themselves once they've been given a green light from me or another community member (more here).


 * On a more general note based off some of the sentiment expressed here, I realize that new editors can be difficult to work with, but I'd like to encourage any of you to reach out to me, Shalor, or Ian if you are having issues with one of our students. We are happy to address any concerns. Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, that's some fascinating background reading. I can now see why these students are being asked to work in sandboxes, but am still worried how the addition of their work to existing articles will pan out. If student ABC adds content to the mainspace article, it has to be their responsibility, regardless of whether student XYZ added it to the sandbox draft. I don't see the point of linking to a sandbox as any sort of attribution, as sandboxes are ephemeral and likely to be overwritten by future work if the editor continues to edit. OK, it would be traceable in the page history of the sandbox, but "so what?". The editor who adds the content to mainspace must believe that they are making a useful contribution to the encyclopedia and that it is supported by the sources they are citing, and that's that - though of course they also need to remember to be consistent with any decisions made by previous editors about citation styles, English variant/date formats, etc, and to take care that their contribution integrates well with the work of previous editors. It will be interesting to see how it all goes. Good luck to all involved, especially the student editors - and I hope they enjoy the experience and get hooked on editing. Pam  D  18:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I was pretty sure,, that you would have a convincing explanation for us. Now it just remains to be seen how many of your students actually become interested in creating new biographies. Keep up the good work and let us know if there's anything we can help with.--Ipigott (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I've been following this class project since it was announced on the Talk page of WikiProject Medicine. said that the course leaders had chosen figures from the History of Psychology that we considered both notable in the Wikipedia sense, and for which there is either no existing page or just a stub. and that he would share the names of those chosen topics. . It is unfortunate that some of those chosen pages, such as Naomi Weisstein, were definitely not stubs. How many of these non-stub articles are there? That sounds like the biggest issue. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 21:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey all, sorry for seeing this discussion so late! I am the professor of the class in question ... and yes I know that the preferred approach would have been to simply continue to develop the article on mainspace, given my checkered past with Wikipedia we were asked to only work in Sandboxes until an editor OKd the article for mainspace. In cases where a stub existed I DID instruct students to ensure any information in that original stub was also in the more fullsome articles they were creating. And yes they did work in groups (with one member focused on each attribute of the "good article criteria", and groups peer-assessed the work of 6 other groups as part of the article creation process. But yes, these leaves us now is this awkward situation of how to "overwrite" the existing stubs.  Any guidance here would be very much appreciated as my students are eager to get their articles into mainspace, assuming they look good of course! SteveJoordens (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Naomi Weisstein contains over 1600 words. Do you call that a stub? And where was the community notified that your students would be working on this article? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Helen Thompson Woolley is also substantial, graded as C-class on 3 projects - but in this case the student has added an "Educational assignment" banner to the talk page, so perhaps they were all instructed to do so but in some cases ignored the instruction. Pam  D  17:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I've seen course using the Wiki Education Foundation's dashboard have notices applied to article talk pages by a bot to notify contributors to an article (typing on a phone so not easy to check). If so, this isn't yet active for the outreach dashboard and I've not fully explored this function yet, but in principle is a good idea. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , There is an outreach dashboard for the course at Wiki Ed/University of Toronto Scarborough/History of Psychology (Fall), but some of the articles that the students worked on are missing from it. SteeveJoordens told us specifically that he would share the names of the biographies his students would be working on, and it appears he has not fully done so. I'd like to hear his response to this. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 19:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to us. By all means grade your students on the artificial stand-alone articles in their sandboxes, but you and they should not then be thinking in terms of "overwriting" existing stubs, let alone existing more substantial articles. Each of them should be using the research they have done, and their thoughts about how to word the content, to augment and improve the existing article, in standard Wikipedia process. They might need to  take due note of the existing consensus in the article on referencing style, and possibly the variant of English used (eg if the subject has no particulr ties to US or UK but a UK editor did the initial creation using British English). Apart from anything else, if they copy-and-pasted their whole work into/onto an existing article, they would be losing the attribution of "who did what" amongst themselves: the person doing the pasting would be claiming credit, and accepting responsibility, for the whole of the work: not good. It's really not enough just to say "any information in that original stub was also in the more fullsome articles they were creating": any information in that original stub has been written by one or many volunteer editor(s) whose work should not be swept aside.   Pam  D  17:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment- Thinking about the future, because this seems to be something that will probably happen again - Would it be useful for the instructor(s) and (Wiki Ed)s to ask/require students to use the tag  and/or   on these article assignments and then get the students to work in the main space? All changes would be recorded, and interested parties would be put on notice that there is some major work being done, possibly by students. I think one of the UK meet-up coordinators is using this this technique successfully. While it is not a perfect solution, it would keep us true to the idea that Wikipedia is a people's encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but still remove the back-breaking task of trying to figure out WTF happened to an article that has been copied over by a newbie. (My casual observation, completely unsubstantiated by data, is that student editors work on one article and then are gone, gone, gone.) Best WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "It is really dispiriting for an existing editor, probably with a longer investment in editing, to find their work cast aside, and is not in the interests of the encyclopedia." I certainly agree with the above editor, and I am beginning to feel as though there are too many college professors who prefer to use Wikipedia as a teaching tool than to teach the students themselves." Oh, well. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

O tempora o mores! - Dr. Jess Wade gamergate redux
Dr. W. had lots of her articles tagged for notability again this week; you'll remember much the same happened in May. Tags have gone & the IP blocked. No words. Stay strong. https://twitter.com/jesswade/status/1200708477842284544 --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of things.--Ipigott (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For the records, this is about these 47 reverted edits. Nemo 08:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Guardian / Katherine Maher article
Making the edit: why we need more women in Wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "liberal, Silicon Valley-funded foundation", argh. :( Nemo 19:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not even a mention of Women in Red! Perhaps once again she needs to be updated. I took care of it not too long ago. Now I think someone else should take it on. Perhaps it would be more effective coming from a woman.--Ipigott (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's more likely to have to do with the interviewer than the interviewee. Journalists are like that, it's extremely hard in an interview to make sure they write the important things and avoid entirely made up ones. Nevertheless the article is a net positive, I think. I was relieved to see the "15-20 %" figure rather than the ultra-outdated and discredited 10 % that some still use. Nemo 07:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're right but in this recent article based on her speech in Lisbon, the WiR percentage of women's biographies is given as 17.67% whereas it's now over 18%. Does anyone happen to have a transcript of her Lisbon speech? The video I found was painful to listen to. Anyway, it's good to know "women" are now a priority for Maher.--Ipigott (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , do you happen to know where the "15-20%" figure comes from? The 10% or even 9% figure is from a 2011 WMF editor survey, right? I understand it's old, but other than being old in what way has it been discredited? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 03:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See m:Research:Gender gap. The 2011 survey is useless because it didn't ask certain necessary questions, while the 2008 survey was properly conducted but improperly reported on. The article 10.1371/journal.pone.0065782 re-analysed the UNU-MERIT survey of 2008 and concluded that the number of female editors in USA is more like 23 %, while elsewhere it may be lower.
 * There is no need to use bad science in our efforts to reduce the gender gap. In public presentations I usually say "less than 25 %" and I think that's bad enough to demonstrate the need for action, without being alarmistic. Nemo 08:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these details. So if I understand correctly, that the lower and upper ends of the estimate range are actually estimating different things. At the lower end, the 15% figure is for editors worldwide, whereas the 22% figure is for the U.S. only. What were the missing necessary questions in the 2011 survey? I didn't see a criticism of the 2011 survey in the links you gave. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's implicit in the following statements: "the fact that the WMF/UNU-MERIT survey includes data on Wikipedia readers allows us to take advantage of demographic data from a nationally representative phone survey of US adults conducted by the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project", "a series of covariates collected in both surveys (age, gender, education level, immigrant status, marital status, parental status, student status)". In 2013, the 2008 survey was still the only one allowing such remedies for selection bias. I'm not aware of a better survey having ever been performed since then, although there is some hope. Nemo 17:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean now. Thanks for the clarification. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 18:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Now OA: Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory
The entire archive of https://journal-redescriptions.org/issue/archive/ since 1997 is now open access in CC BY thanks to Helsinki University Press. I already spotted some useful resources, for instance Post-Colonial Critique and the Politics of Writing Women's History is a reminder of how controversial even some positive depictions can be. Nemo 21:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing on the list
I can see that pl:Aleksandra Przegalińska iż missing on the WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Poland, though the WD item is full and correct. How can we fix it? BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * That list is limited to 1000 rows, and selects those with more sitelinks. Aleksandra Przegalińska has only one sitelink & is thus not selected. There are currently 10,517 wikidata items for Polish female humans with no en.wiki article. The solution is many more redlists, but really that's probably not wise until we get them a bit more template driven, and that's probably not going to happen fast. Or at all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

request for review by an editor familiar with the parameters for BLPs
If one of you has time, would you be so kind as to take a look at the article on Petah Coyne? Her article has tags from 2011 and 2013. Can someone quickly determine if the issues have been addressed and if so can any of the tags be removed? I don't know about BLPs. Thanks in advance.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Cruft removed. As a rule of thumb, if a nagbox has not worked in 6 or 8 years it's probably time to end the experiment. In this case, I think the issues have been addressed or didn't exist in the first place. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

UBC articles
There are ~47 new articles from students at Vancouver School of Economics at the University of British Columbia here: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/University_of_British_Columbia/Women_in_the_Economy_(Winter_I)/articles/edited ... if anyone has time, please consider looking at some or all of them. Same course did the same thing last year and produced very high quality articles. I've looked at only one so far; very high quality, notable, currently at AfD, obviously. (Soumaya Keynes)


 * In the main, these probably need 1) Authority control, 2) linking to a wikidata item, 3) additional categories, 4) de-orphaning; and sometimes 5) sentence case headers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've looked at these articles and tried to copy edit a couple of them. It is very annoying when Wikipedians, whether beginners or old hands, upload articles before they are adequately edited. I mean, we've all been educated to write proper English, haven't we? It's also annoying when these articles are, well, simply not worthy of being included in Wikipedia because the people they highlight are just not WP:Notable. If these are part of a class project, then the students should be told how important it is to follow all Wikipedia WP:guidelines instead of just hurrying through the assignment in order to get a grade. I would like to help these students, but, like that of all editors, time is limited. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Rubery, I don't think you have a very good grasp of WP:NPROF, BeenAroundAWhile. I respectfully disagree with pretty much all of your post. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind comment. (Oops. That was arch.) Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's dismal to see academics who unambiguously pass NPROF 3 & 5 being marked for deletion or tagged for notability. Also something about "told how important it is to follow all Wikipedia WP:guidelines". --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nominators of AfDs are advised to carry out WP:Before prior to nominating. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC).
 * Point here was editors should not "upload articles before they are adequately edited" really?? .... surely its even more important before nominating for deletion? This line of unsuccessful AfDs does not instil any confidence in any of that editors AfDs that follow. The editors here could have been improving said articles - which they would have done without having to Keep emerging articles from being deleted. Victuallers (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Redlists for "Women who died in 2019"
Does anyone have any suggestions about how to present redlists for our focus on Women who died in 2019? I had wondered whether it would be possible to create a Wikidata redlist based simply on year of death but am not sure whether this would be possible or useful. Alternatively, we could try to create a crowd-sourced list, perhaps based on a number of sources such as Guardian obits or NYT obits. There might be other ideas or useful sources from, , or. For the time being, I've simply suggested contributors should turn up any lists of interest and look for 2019 deaths but that doesn't provide specific redlinked names.--Ipigott (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've created a quick Wikidata list at User:Mike Peel/2019 women deaths (redlinks+bluelinks) in case that's useful. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW, the Guardian and NYT obits lists are updated daily, and the history of the page is kept, so you can go back and look at past months if you want. I can set up similar lists for other sites if they have convenient RSS feeds. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk)
 * Thanks very much for the Wikidata list. That should be very useful. It might well be useful to have other obituary list like those for the Guardian and NYT is you have time to set them up.--Ipigott (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have links to RSS feeds (like for NYT obituaries), then it's straightforward for me to set them up. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Very nice, -thanks- and I've added your Wikidata list to WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index. A friendly FYI to those that are keeping track of such things: before the list can be added to Wikidata as a Women in Red redlist, someone would need to conform it to WiR name, style etc. Maybe  would be interested in that step? I was also wondering if the WiR lists you added to Wikidata can be viewable yet as a list on en.wiki, e.g. a Wikidata alternative to this one, or were you thinking that we need to create something like WikiProject Women in Red and that would be the place to view it? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I have been working on a WD query, but I keep getting timeout errors for full lists and was considering monthly, like someone suggested. I posted a few redlinks with many non—en WP articles. StrayBolt (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I created a modified 's version to only show redlinks and added in # of sites. It can be found here: User:StrayBolt/2019_women_deaths. The bluelinks are useful for improving articles. StrayBolt (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Very useful work. I spent time yesterday improving the wikidata for some of the woman involved on Mike's query. StrayBolt's version is even more more focused on the Redlinks... I will fill a few more gaps! Well done. Victuallers (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow. Wikidata is da bomb! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

LT4ALL conference at UNESCO Dec. 4-6, 2019
I made a table of the female speakers (and one performer) for this event as a subpage of my own account since most of them are not in Wikidata and my usual table wouldn't work then. The ones on the list right now are only the speakers for today. A few will not pass notability checks, but most of them would. I'll add in the speakers for the other two days as I come across their names. -Yupik (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And yes, I'll try to take photos :D -Yupik (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So far none of them have been good, argh. -Yupik (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Hopefully, there will be a chance to get some nice photos. And certainly, they should have Wikidata items. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's looking like some of them might actually be worth uploading. I've added more names today. An incredible number of women without an article in a single Wikipedia :o -Yupik (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

AFD on List of female Transformers
Anyone interested in taking a look at Articles for deletion/List of female Transformers (2nd nomination)? ミラP 23:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Robots in Red? Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Question
As a reviewer at Articles for Creation, is there any particular way that I can recognize a draft as being submitted by Women in Red other than the gender of the subject? I would like to know whether a draft is being contributed by this project, in which case it should be given serious consideration regardless, as opposed to being the usual junk contributions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Things aren't submitted by the project as such, just editors who may be members, some of whom may be capable of producing "junk". Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It's worth checking out the user page for the creating user; students in wiki-ed courses often declare their course affiliation with a pointer to the course; e.g. from the recent Sarah E. Turner, User:Jesswu98 pointing to this dashboard. That said, there might be a low proability they would route via AFC. Beyond that, perhaps check the talk page and the 'what links here' page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a special interest in articles created in connection with Women in Red. You might also find it useful to check AlexNewArtBot for new articles about women. If the number of recent new articles from a user is given as only one or two, they might well have been created by new members of the project or by participants in an editathon. The listing also presents new drafts, some of which may be ready to move to mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. My general practice is that I usually accept a draft if it is a biography of a person who flourished more than 50 years ago who has at least two sources (regardless of gender), with an even higher likelihood of accepting a biography of someone who flourished more than a century ago.  History is a noise filter.  Looking at the user page of the submitter is a good idea.  I think that I will continue to work with the assumption of letting history be a noise filter, and that information left over from a pre-electronic era is likely to be encyclopedic.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "History is a noise filter." - I think this ought to be engraved somewhere. Very nice, and very true. I may adopt it as a motto - it's a precept which I try to follow in my own editing. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It does seem like a useful corollary to Sturgeon's law. Only (maybe) 10% of anything gets through the filter. Nick Number (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Lists in the Wikimedia movement Part 2: Building manual lists using the editorial practices of the Community
This blogpost by, which mentions Women in Red's lists, might interest some of you. Thanks for penning it, Alex. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I found this and the Part 1 blog article on lists interesting and informative as I have always appreciated the potential lists offer on Wikipedia. While the article concentrates on the use of lists to focus attention on articles which need to be created or improved, there is little mention of the usefulness of lists for the general user community rather than for editors. Most of those included under Lists of women, for example, have been compiled to show how active women have been in a wide variety of occupations. It seems to me they are a useful reference to those researching women's contributions to knowledge and society over the years. As we are now focusing on classical musicians, I have just spent a few days preparing a List of women classical pianists which now contains basic details of some 550 blue-linked biographies, sorted by nationality. Interest in the list is reflected by more than 1,200 page views over the past five days. While compiling the list, I also tried to improve the categorization of the biographies, for example by including Category:Women classical pianists in order to distinguish them from the many pop artists or jazz and folk specialists included in categories such as Category:Women pianists (although I found the latter a useful source in compiling my list). Now that the list exists, I hope those who create articles on classical women pianists will add their names to it. (It's a good way to prevent articles being tagged as orphans.) I think the list is now almost complete but there may well be a number of poorly categorized articles I have overlooked. So please add any missing names you manage to identify.--Ipigott (talk) 08:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

TrowelBlazers - archaeologists
I've just discovered this interesting newish article about a project to raise the profile of women in archaeology, with a long list of names featured on the project's website. Not sure that the list is really appropriate as part of a WP article, it's a bit long, but it's got quite a scatter of redlinks (or, at the moment, unlinked names - presumably where disambiguation would be needed?) to inspire article creation. I was alerted to it by a notification that a link had been made to one of my creations. Pam D  18:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I've seen a handful of articles about archaeologists appear recently - I wonder if there's any connection? -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is. Trowelblazers are active on wikipedia (have done editathons, e.g. GLAM/Natural History Museum and Science Museum/Trowelblazers from 2013, through to participation in a 14 Nov 2019 editathon mentioned at https://trowelblazers.com/ and https://www.facebook.com/TrowelBlazers/ ). Not sure they're quite as wikipedia focussed / organized as Women's Classical Committee, albeit wikipedia work is a small part of the activities of WCC. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Good to see has been helping with this. Thanks for the link to the classicists. They do indeed seem to be very well organized.--Ipigott (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This was many years ago, I wonder if someone at Wikimedia UK is still in touch with them. John Cummings (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A couple of people mentioned your event, you made a good impression! Wikimedia UK did an event with Trowelblazers earlier this month. They do tremendously helpful work documenting women working in archaeology, geology, and paleontology which could then feed into Wikipedia articles. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi All, it was me who added all the people from the Trwoelblazers site to the new page! I started (and didn't quite realise how many there were) but then I thought it was worth persevering with so that people could easily tell who had a TB biography and who didn't! I also couldn't work out (because I am pretty new) how I could do it differently! Advice gratefully received! (Lajmmoore (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC))

Number of articles about men and women on Arabic Wikipedia since 2016
Hi all

I'm trying to put together a report for a potential partner and I need a spreadsheet of monthly numbers of articles of men and women on Arabic Wikipedia since the start of 2016. However I cannot work out how to get this information. Does anyone know? I need this specific information, not just the current numbers.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , I think might have access to this information. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Rosie. : I have monthly statistics since the beginning of 2017 (the first graph of the page is what you're looking for). I can extract the data in a CSV file if you want. — Envlh (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, this is great, yes a CSV would be super. Out of interest why does your graph go back to 2017? Is there a reason to not go earlier e.g a change in how the data is collected? Thanks again John Cummings (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is your CSV file. The data goes back to 2017 because the tool was started at this date. It relies on Wikidata dumps (as they are easy to use) and these dumps are kept only a few weeks on WMF servers. I've also concerns with data quality of earlier data (in the early days of Wikidata, items were not as well filled as now). As this is a recurring and legitimate demand, we'll work to gather statistics about earlier times (T230184). — Envlh (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Amazing, thanks so much, I have earlier data if you would like it? John Cummings (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course! I can't guarantee that it will be imported in the tool soon, but any data will be useful. Feel free to contact me by email (envel@undefinedlehir.net), with Maximilian Klein in copy. Cheers. — Envlh (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks again . John Cummings (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Zozi
Love the reactions to Miss Universe 2019, like this one Jane (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Najma Kousri Nomination for Deletion
Hi all, I wondered if you could help/advise - I made a page for Tunisian feminist Najma Kousri (from the Tunisia red-list for this month's edit-a-thon), which has been (swiftly) nominated for deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Najma_Kousri - I take some of their points, but I don't think the nomination is valid. Founding the Tunisian version of the #MeToo movement is absolutely the kind of person who should be included in an encyclopaedia. Please help! (Lajmmoore (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC))
 * I'm not at all sure this person is notable enough for an article but chances would be improved by drawing on secondary sources such as this.--Ipigott (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging who might have access to Arabic-language sources in Tunisia. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Site links
I've done something to this redlist that messed up the display of # of sitelinks. Can someone please check it out and see what needs fixing? Thank you.
 * fixed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Sorry I couldn't sort that out myself, but grateful that you could. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Expanding on Mike's and StrayBolt's work, I created this WiR list for 2019 deaths, plus other "deaths by year" lists for each of the years since WiR was established (2018, 2017, 2016, 2015). --Rosiestep (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

AfD Gloria Ouida Lee
If of interest, have a look at Gloria Ouida Lee - and if anyone can locate a photo for the article, that would be great. Netherzone (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a fair-use image for now, and an infobox; hope it helps! Penny Richards (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If anyone has access to Astronauts, Lost Souls & Dragons: Voices of Today's Chinese Australians (Diana Giese, University of Queensland Press, 1997) there appears to be coverage of her there on pp. 41–44 that I can see only in snippet view on Google books. It might provide additional sourcing for the article. There are lots of different variations of her name to search for but that one uses "Gloria Lee". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well done, team! I've just been to the AfD for her article and see that the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. The notice, however, remains on the bio page. I assume there are admins who have to sign off on the withdrawn nomination and then remove the notice from the bio. Oronsay (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Normally that would be true, but I just wrote on the AfD, the withdrawal isn't enough by itself to close the AfD early, because it has another delete opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all who helped out with this article. This interesting, socially-engaged Chinese-indigenous Australian woman miner has passed the AfD. That is quite a mouthful! It was fascinating to learn about her life and good to know she did not slip through the cracks of history. Cheers! Netherzone (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Jillian Gallagher
Hey there! I just dumped a heap of text at Jillian Gallagher & published it. Its probably full of errors & I was hoping to draw some proof readers from the project --- Go your hardest 8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 01:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Review or help please?
Hi, I'm new to WIR and enjoying my new role as an editor. I wrote a new page on Jacqueline_Baudrier in November and it's waiting for a review. Also, someone tagged it as a stub, but it's not. I got her name from WIR list and really enjoyed getting to know her. Feel free to send me any advice or help. I'm a seasoned writer but new to Wiki. Thanks. AMM Pittsburgh (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thanks for that article; I think you moved it into mainspace, and so I've removed the Articles for Creation cruft and it is now in every respect a live article. My advice: start the next one, please, or improve an existing one :). You should, probably, by now be able to create articles without going through the AfC process, and that's probably the best way. If you want any specific help at any time, pop back here. Otherwise, please do as much as you fancy in any direction that pleases you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the link: Jacqueline Baudrier. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your help and encouragement. AMM Pittsburgh (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to WiR, ! Lovely article. Thanks for writing about her :) -Yupik (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Sanna Marin
hi all, i left a note about the state of Marin's article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/144 a few days ago as i thought it was a bit scant for a parliamentarian of her standing, it might be a good idea to leave a mention here as well, being surprised that WP had such little information about her ie. her political beliefs/stances she has made?, i did a tiny cleanup edit (removing numbers of votes), and note that other editors have made some smallish edits (great that her personal section has been expanded) but just wondering if any of the WIR supereditors:) are able to add some more stubstantive stuff? thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks to me as if this has progressed quite well. Further improvements will no doubt depend on how she succeeds in her new office.--Ipigott (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If someone is up for creating a hook and nominating her article for the Did You Know? section, it'd go through in a heartbeat, especially as there's a good-quality photo of her in her article. For instance: "at the age of 34, Marin is both the world's youngest currently-serving prime minister and Finland's youngest-ever Prime Minister" would already be a perfectly good hook. -Yupik (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

WPBS question
After a draft made it to the article namespace, should I replace by, e.g.,  on its talk page? –84.46.53.177 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say "no", since the template states, "This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project." I think it's reasonable to credit the WiR project. And the template also gives a warning equivalent to "Don't bite the newcomers!". :) Which is useful. You can certainly add . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boud (talk • contribs) 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. –84.46.53.177 (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Woman in blue: after 224 years, the ceiling smashes
Tinkle, tinkle: Émilie Delorme. The reactions from the right-wing press show how scandalous it is that a 224-year-old men-only directorship tradition has been broken at the Conservatoire de Paris. And not just by any woman - by a woman who promotes gender equality and diversity! Feel free anyone to DYK this, though I don't have the patience for DYK proposals any more ... Boud (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to her and the conservatory! I'm a little surprised the article hasn't been taken to AfD already. That seems to be what happens to article on women who have just been given a significant position like this; see e.g. the ongoing Articles for deletion/Courtney Johnston. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted articles worth recreating
I've looked quickly through the batch of articles which were recently deleted. Among those which appear worthwhile recreating are: Hope this proves useful.--Ipigott (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Cornelia Adair, American rancher and diarist ✅ The book source I added is a detailed and lengthy biography Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Lauren Bastide, French journalist, ✅,   &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter, 1 November 2019
 * Nomarussia Bonase, South African human rights activist
 * Daphne (Harriet Hosmer), sculpture (an article exists about the artist Harriet Goodhue Hosmer)
 * Laurence Deonna (born 1937), Swiss journalist and photographer
 * Beatrice Dickson, Swedish philanthropist
 * Louise Dittmar, German feminist ✅ David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Eleanor M. Fox, NY law professor
 * Kristina Hänel, German physician
 * Alwara Höfels, German actress ✅    &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 17:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Anna Kessell, British sports writer, journalist ✅ Theroadislong (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Juliet Macur, American journalist ✅    &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 14:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Diana Maffía, Argentine philosopher ✅ Nick Number (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Isabelle Morel (1779–1834), Swiss writer and translator
 * Margherita Oggero, Italian novelist, ✅,   &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 12:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Roukiata Ouedraogo, actress from Burkina Faso
 * Francesca Paci, Italian journalist
 * Teresa Präauer, Austrian writer and actress
 * Sema Salur, American mathematician ✅ Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 10:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Franziska Schutzbach, German sociologist
 * Amélie Verdier, French government official
 * Penny Von Eschen, American historian ✅ Theroadislong (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Jennifer Weist, German rock musician and television host ✅ Redirected to Jennifer Rostock Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this - a very useful list. Storye book (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks! I took a look at Sema Salur and Franziska Schutzbach and wasn't convinced — Salur has a notable award but I couldn't find much else on her, and Schutzbach has a very slim citation record, enough to make passing WP:PROF unlikely. But others may have different opinions and it is good to have this list of names and occupations to help us decide. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I took a look at Jennifer Weist, the mentions I found were spotify and mentions of her performances. This raises a question for me, just how does one find RS forWP:NOTE, better yet what constitutes notability for a musician?Oldperson (talk)
 * See WP:MUSICBIO. Multiple in-depth published reviews of her performances (or reviews of performances of groups that have in-depth coverage of her part) are the most obvious way. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Just the info I was looking for. Someday I will learn these wiki links.Oldperson (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been here for over two years now and I'm still learning my way around the acronyms.... XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Penny Von Eschen appears to hold a named chair and thus would pass WP:PROF. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And another one before that at Cornell. Eleanor M. Fox also appears to hold a named chair . But instead of either of those, I started a new article for Louise Dittmar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I would like to have helped with the Anna Kessell article, but unfortunately I have a troll following me, which kind of puts me off. But if anyone else with easy access to UK material would like to have a go: Anna Kessell MBE on Linkedin (see the About section), The deleted Anna Kessell article (cached; contains some useful links). There are also plenty of her book reviews quoted online, if you Google "anna kessell" UK sports writer. I have so far found no free portrait image online. Storye book (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have started an article for Anna Kessell in my sandbox but I'm struggling to find reliable sources which aren't the ones she writes for! Will have another look later. Theroadislong (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * : How about and ?
 * Thanks The Irish Times one will be useful, but she writes for the Guardian so that's not so good. Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Swiss writer Isabelle Morel has a German and French article which should help. It was deleted as a G5 so is eminently notable.  scope_creep Talk  11:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * : Thanks for making a start on its recreation. Do you intend to continue working on it? If not, it could be a candidate for the stub contest (i.e. destubbing).--Ipigott (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you plan to hold a contest, please do. I generally complete all I start, if nobody else works on it. I usually leave it for a couple of weeks so Google can re-jig its graph, i.e. making it easier to find content and sources.   scope_creep Talk  14:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean from Renata von Scheliha and John Rittmeister -- both well developed articles. So let's leave it for a couple of weeks. Glad to see you have turned your interest to women. All the more the merrier!--Ipigott (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks That is very nice of you. This is what I try to aim for: Oda Schottmüller. I'm planning to do at least one women article for every man article now. I would work exclusively on here, but I've many many articles to create and the majority of them are men, including a bunch of doctors in the Uk.   scope_creep Talk  16:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I must say I'm really impressed with Oda Schottmüller. You've gone well beyond the German and Polish versions. It's reached at least B class. Why not become a member of wp:Women in Red. You can register at the top of the project page. I think you'll find it useful now that you've started writing such informative articles on women. We all try to help each other along.--Ipigott (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've joined. scope_creep Talk  17:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Think I might do Sema Salur, as the original was only a couple sentences, but I did discover something horrifying: Rochester University puts her page in.... Comic Sans!!! Cue scary music here. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 03:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it looks as if you can't actually blame the university or dept - except perhaps for allowing faculty to do their own thing in personalising their web pages and perhaps a lack of guidance! Or she's a free spirit who likes an informal look. Pam  D  10:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, despite her poor font choices, she now has an article again, which I think is slightly better than the old one in text, though it lacks a list of papers. I actually put the time in to trying to understand what she was researching, which I don't think Slowking did. I did quote a description, but, honestly, that's because it's so technical that I didn't trust myself not to change the meaning by accident. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 10:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And she now gets a mention at the much-upgraded dab page at Salur (disambiguation), which is now accessible by a previously missing hatnote at Salur... and I really need to get on with some RL stuff this morning! Pam  D  10:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

If anyone would like a bit more of a poke at Sema Salur, I've got it to about the level it used to be, which isn't great. We might be able to get it to Did you know? if we can expand it a bit more. She's kind of on the borderline of notability, though. Just past it, I'd say, but a massive article may not be on the cards for her yet. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 10:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Still a few redlinks on this list...is there any place where they've been moved so that people who want to work on retrieving information have that option? (Also posting a comment in the thread to keep it from being archived, so we do have the info at hand if need be.) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I initially tried to move the list to my page (User:Antiqueight/Draft) to work on tidying it but I think I grabbed way more than the deleted articles by this one person and it's not sorted by likely importance or even gender... So.. I think the answer is no.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 14:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a link to the full list of articles (not including images) deleted? I had something buffered previously but can't find it now. I'm particularly interested in identifying women scientists who might have been deleted, thanks all, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , my log has most of it, but there are many others which have been deleted by checkusers or other admins under G5. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Below are more women (and one prize) that editors may wish to recreate. I have not assessed their worthiness of WIR's attention. This list does not include sportswomen. I am gathering a long list of volleyball and water polo players, but I imagine they will also be picked up in individual WIR redlists. Please amend as you wish. I will await your feedback before going further with this. Oronsay (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Oronsay (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm in the process of re-creating the one for Deborah Cohen. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How did you two create these lists? Were they WP:COPYPROB? Might WP:RESCUE help restore/improve/prevent some of the deleted articles? StrayBolt (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I scraped Dirk Beetstra's log and created a spreadsheet that I edited, focusing on non-sports women (above). The discussion above explains that editors felt it best to recreate the deleted articles, rather than restore them and face possible issues in future as they had been created by a blocked sockpuppet. All deleted bios would have Wikidata entries so should appear on various lists in the WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index so I have not taken my list (above) further. Oronsay (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Long review period for article on female footwear designer
Hi all--glad to join this group and contribute.

I created a stub article in October for Jessica Rich, a fashion and footwear designer in LA, and the submission was declined (Draft:Jessica Rich (designer)). I have since resubmitted a longer, more robust draft with plenty of references and links, but it has not been reviewed yet. I have followed up with the editor who originally declined the stub submission without success -- there has been no response since early November (User talk:Liance).

Wondering if this group had any ideas on what to do next? Any ideas welcome! macgirl (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I've published the article. some editors will object to citations from the Daily Mail, so if you can replace them with something better, please do. Thank you for your contribution. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"only 304,131 of our 1,6775,654 biographies are about women"
Is this meant to be 16,775,654? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.175.248.10 (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, but it should be 1,675,654. Typo fixed. Thanks! Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. Thanks for the correction.--Ipigott (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

2019 = the year of women
Just read this, and thought of this project, with Jen Morgan a DYK this year, and someone asking "do we really need another "first woman"? - Yes, we do, and more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Jess Wade and Katherine Maher interviewed on BBC
The current episode of Digital Planet includes an item on the notability tagging of 's women's biographies mentioned above.(cc, )--Ipigott (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, it only takes few minutes of work for a vandal and an admin to generate very valuable headlines. We should try it more often. ;-) (Just kidding, I know the vandalism was most likely harassment.) Nemo 08:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Although the previous piece about using drones for medical supplies is interesting, you might want to note that the Wikipedia interview starts around 06:14, goes on for 7 1/2 minutes. Pam  D  16:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Today, an interview with Jess Wade on Women's Hour (a big show on BBC Radio 4), which she unfortunately starts with a colossal howler, saying that "90% of Wikipedia is written by white males in America" (quote from memory). Of course this is complete nonsense - the true figure would be about a third. Sad, just sad. Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the true figure would be about a third? In the Netherlands, most people on the street who are aware of what Wikipedia is, think it is a Dutch invention. I assume the reverse is true for English, that e.g. people in the UK think it is a UK invention etc. Therefore, her statement referring to the English version of Wikipedia is not wrong and can be seen as informative (most enwiki text on view is indeed produced by US males aged 18-35) to UK viewers. That Wikipedia exists in other languages generally doesn't occur to most people. Jane (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because, unlike you & Dr Wade, I keep an eye on such research as we have! A piece in the latest Signpost confirms (what has always been the rough figure quoted) that 41% of en:wp editors with <5 edits a month are in America.  Then discount say 10% for "males" (based on the various studies we have), and a further discount is needed for "white", which given the number of Asian-American (or Asians in America) editors might well be another 10% (White was officially 73% of the US pop. in 2017, but on WP Latinos and even more African-Americans are probably under-represented).  So about a third, or anyway a very long way from 90%. Wade didn't bring age into it, but your numbers there are equally wrong, as are your wild guesses about what "people" in the UK think. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Last I checked there is almost no correlation between sheer number of editors and and the amount of visible text onwiki per region besides the various studies made that extrapolate based on volunteer data. They do not reflect your numbers at all - quite the contrary. Jane (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Checked what where? Most of my writing recently has been about India, but I haven't been there for years. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course the most written on this issue is in English, but various gendergap workgroups have also conducted studies for various language versions of Wikipedia. When I say checked, I am referring to work done by various gendergap groups as well as updates by various gendergap groups. Your numbers are based on general numbers for IP's which are gender- and ethnicity-blind by nature. Also, a frequently editing IP does not reflect size of contributions and size of contributions must by necessity be evaluated manually. Thus the most interesting numbers are those conducted through editor interviews and workgroup findings. I suggest you start with reflecting on the visible live text on Wikipedia conducted by Wikipedians you have met and can personally verify the gender/ethnicity of. You have a broad editing history in the visual arts, and if you look around the GLAM field in general there appears to be a lot of women active in the field. To reflect that you would expect a proportional amount of live edits by women to be visible in Wikipedia. Focussing on your chunk of the Wikiverse may help you grasp the size of the issue. Jane (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't really understand what you are saying here at all. I don't agree that anecdotal and small-group research is the best type of evidence for understanding the demographics of a huge global group, the vast majority of whom engage entirely online. You seemed above to be defending Wade's assertion that "90% of Wikipedia is written by white males in America" - do you actually think that is at all likely to be true?  And if so, why? Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually it is perfectly desirable behavior to keep gender and ethnicity private for Wikipedia contributors who wish to remain so. I guess the problem you have in understanding this issue has to do with your assumptions about general population statistics per country correlating with Wikipedia IP edits per country. We can of course rule out large swathes of the population due to lack of internet access or digital skills and so forth, but we can't even measure edits per country due to privacy concerns, let alone other demographics. We are forced to collect data on a voluntary basis or indeed anecdotally. We are also not talking about a large group at all. The group for enwiki is smaller than 5000 and the conclusions from numerous studies all show the same thing, and are true in the Dutch community as well on a smaller scale (about 1500). This was quite surprising for me, because the Dutch general population has a much higher rate of internet access than the US and I expected a more diverse group of editors under the Dutch Wikipedian population than recent studies show. In fact the latest number is worse; only 11% of Dutch Wikipedia contributors are female. Jane (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything at all here that supports Wade's bald statement (given as fact) that "90% of Wikipedia is written by white males in America"! It might support "we haven't a clue who writes Wikipedia, except they are mostly male".  What is the "same thing" that "numerous studies all show"?  Only the highest level of wp:en contributors (100+ pcm) is less than 5000, the 5+ edits per month is nearly 40,000.  Anecdotal evidence may work for the Dutch wp, but I don't think anyone believes it works for the broad sweep of en:wp editors.  Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Link is here. Pam  D  12:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Starts at 29:30, after pieces about a woman Eurostar train driver and period poverty. Pam  D  12:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's good if cropped copies of such interviews are uploaded on archive.org for preservation and redistribution. Saying just in case someone feels like it. Nemo 16:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Press reports

 * More on this from The Telegraph.--Ipigott (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that the Torygraph article is their normal evil mendacious bollocks, probably with an agenda to denigrate Wikipedia; its premise has been roundly rejected by Dr.Wade - https://twitter.com/jesswade/status/1203583885369630721 --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, calm down - as far as I can see Wade has only complained about the headline. The great majority of the article is quotes from her, Maher, & WMUK. The most notable error in the piece is supplied by Wade (see above). Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey wait - trash journalism is still welcome in this conversation - we need all the news we can get! Jane (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Maybe worth noting.
 * Similar account in The Daily Mail.--Ipigott (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Similar sort of shitty newspaper. These publications and, sadly, the people who own them, the people who work for them, really are evil and should always be repudiated. https://twitter.com/jesswade/status/1203751128367816707 --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

There's a peripheral comments thread about the Telegraph article on the Miss Representation FB group. The reaction is as you'd expect, but there are a couple of misconceptions. For example, people not donating in protest, whereas my position is that the foundation's donations have a net positive effect on tacking representation bias. I don't feel it's my place to comment directly in the FB group, but if anyone thinks it's appropriate to add a comment in that thread from an WiR insider's point of view, it could be helpful. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 07:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Maria Canal
Hi Folks, I need help to get this new article of a pianist referenced properly with in-line citations. It was plopped over a good redirect at Maria Canals with no sources but it is notable. I copied it into the present page. It needs the revision history taken across as well. It by new editor User:Elia19.  scope_creep Talk  13:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is now up at Draft:Maria Canals (pianist)  scope_creep Talk  13:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Monica Beg - occupation?
If anyone has a suggestion for Monica Beg's occupation in wikidata (she's Chief, HIV Section & Global Coordinator at the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime), please make it so. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q79336870 thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I put "physician". Hope to add more. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "public health" as well.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

2020 initiative, sports?
Hey folks. We're starting to sort out our January event offerings, which includes making a decision regarding our 2020 year-long global initiative. Our 2019 initiative, "suffrage", has been quite successful (572 articles so far!), so thank you to all of you who have contributed to it. Because our July/August sports event was so well-received (1,660 articles!) and because 2020 is a Summer Olympics year, I've suggested making "sports" our 2020 initiative, but am seeking your feedback whether you like the idea or would prefer another. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought we did decided that 2020 would be sports. Otherwise we were discussing it this year and had not made it official. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just seeking confirmation that nothing had changed. Thanks, . --Rosiestep (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh no worries . I'll wait for others to confirm/deny, but it's a definitely yes for me. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I seldom create articles about sports, I realize that this is by far the most popular topic on Wikipedia. That being the case, I think it is important that we should stress the need to cover as many sportswomen as possible over the coming year. I'm therefore 100% in favour and will do my best to help things along.--Ipigott (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's a good idea, and I'll join in the effort. Penny Richards (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)