Editors
Editing
Articles
Events
April 2024
Ongoing initiatives
Recently completed
Coordination
Past events
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
Administration
Sister projects

Shortcuts
Woman of the day: a new one each day from our women's biographies


Invitation to participate in the #SheSaid Campaign 2021

We are delighted to share with you that the #SheSaid Campaign will be running again this year and you are invited to participate in Oct/Nov 2021.The goal is to celebrate notable women and add more entries on Wikiquote. Please have a look at some of the cool bookmarks we have completed and ready for you to print if you wish to do so. If you would like to have the editable version of the bookmark please contact me at Shoodho , visit some sample of bookmarks here:Bookmarks.For more information, please visit the campaign page here:SheSaid page If you have any questions or query please feel free to contact Islahaddow, Anthere or Shoodho.

Kind regards, Shoodho

Olympic & Paralympic Games Editathon July to September 2021

WiR Olympic & Paralympic Games 2021

From July to September 2021, Women in Red held a virtual editathon focusing on Women at the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

A special shout-out to Lugnuts and SportsOlympic for their contribution of preparatory and behind-the-scenes work on this. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! My pleasure to help out. As a side note, there's a discusssion listed at WP:CENT to propose changing the notability of Olympians to medalists only. I've raised issues about WP:BIAS, and if anyone hasn't had a chance to comment (either supporting or opposing the change), please do so. Thanks again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates: sorry for the late reply! Thanks for the message. It was a pleasure! Hopefully there will be one agiain in February/March for the Winter Olympics/Paralympics!? SportsOlympic (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women from Oceania - to add to Wikidata?

Women in Oceania contest

Hello all, I came across this 1987 booklet of important women in Oceania. It includes short biographies of women from - American Samoa, Palau, Micronesia, Guam, Hawai'i', Marshall Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands. (Those in bold still need adding to Wikidata.) I'm not sure all are notable, but several definitely are. The pdf of the booklet includes images (some clearer than others) and since most of those featured are dead, the images might be game for Fair Use! Lajmmoore (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lajmmoore (talk). Well found. I just uploaded the first on the list Mere Tuiasosopo Betham. Certainly well worth including. You might like to post the same message to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/210. Roundtheworld (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Glimpses into Pacific Lives: Some Outstanding Women --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Roundtheworld & Tagishsimon Amazing! Thanks both! *facepalm* that I always forget about just making crowd-sourced lists! & so many of the women are BLUE! Lajmmoore (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tagishsimon. Having now looked through the original source it may be difficult to establish notability for many of them, or even find another citation. Still, I'll give it a go. Roundtheworld (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AdaWiki24.org

One-day online recruitment editathon in connection with Ada Lovelace Day

In view of the highly successful online Wikimedia Women in Red panel presentation, I suggested on Rosiestep's talk page that we could use a similar online approach for a two-hour recruitment editathon which could be repeated two or three times the same day for different time zones. The two hours could consist of three or four short inspiring introductory presentations, possibly by some of the Wikimedia panelists, while most of the remaining time could be devoted to short practical exercises on Wikipedia editing. The participants could be completely new editors or editors who have recently joined but have not yet gained much experience in editing. They would have a week to draft their first article. Their work could then be reviewed and discussed at lessons learnt sessions a week after the editathons. Now that several key contributors have supported the approach, we need to plan the online sessions in some detail. As I have little experience either of online presentations or of editathons, I was hoping that Rosiestep and/or Victuallers could coordinate planning unless there are any other offers. It now looks as if the event could be held in connection with Ada Lovelace Day on Friday, 8 October, perhaps with lessons learnt sessions on Saturday, 15 October. So we still have plenty of time for planning and any further suggestions.--Ipigott (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some ideas that were mentioned might make this even more inviting. Make this 24 hour - so those who think we are antipodean could appeal to their newbies too and to have a follow-up - "Around the Globe". I have approached one of our NZ members - we do have some great WIR contributors from down under. I suspect we could get Emmeline Pankhurst's home as a nominal base if we ask Carol Ann?? Doing it on Ada's day would make it more appealing to the media. Ada and Emmeline, Gendergap and Global should hit some media buttons. Victuallers (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Victuallers, the 24 hour approach is a really good idea as we have WiR enthusiasts all over the world. While having a physical base of operations isn't required as this will be a virtual event, I think it would be great if Carol Ann were interested in participating and if Emmeline Pankhurst's home could be used as a nominal base, e.g. for purposes of the media. Thanks for suggesting it, Ipigott, but I have some time-pressing wiki responsibilities right now so I am not best suited to coordinate planning (though I'd be glad to participate the day of). Surely there are other pagewatchers who might have time and inclination to coordinte planning, for example, some of the other Wikimania 2021 WiR panelists? --Rosiestep (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested we should include a clear link to this in the invitation for September in order to identify others who are interested in helping with the event as well as existing members who might like to take advantage of the practical exercises on basic editing, etc. I'm not too clear about what Roger means by making this 24 hour. I had the same idea from the start but I was thinking of three or four two-hour sessions for different time zones (and maybe with representatives of the areas covered). But let's see what the others think about it. I like Roger's ideas about gaining publicity through the media.--Ipigott (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thats what I mean by "24 hour" Ian. I'm just trying to package that idea up. Your suggestion allows anyone to join in despite being in any of the "24" time zones. Victuallers (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moving forward. I think we have antipodians and I'm about to get a thumbs up (I hope) on the Pankhurst centre. Anyone know of people in US for one time zone and another in central Europe(ish) Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good and it looks to me as if you've taken on the role of central coordinator. For Europe, maybe John Cummings, if he's interested.--Ipigott (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very late to this, but I'd be happy to help out on the day/s. I'm not sure I would have time to support with planning, although it sounds like we just need someone with an account like zoom, and an eventbrite

account to run sign ups. I think the 24 hour idea is very good - 24 hours of continuously editing about women in honour of Ada Lovelace would be great fun! Lajmmoore (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! We are booking the Pankhurst Centre in Manchester. Carol Ann Whitehead is arranging that. I have been DM'ing Lisa Maule in New Zealand and she tells me that they are up for it. Carol was run these before and Lisa constructed a recent editathon on NZ dance/theatre which just about removed the colour red from out hand-crafted theatre based red list. I have asked WMUK if they can cover travel/refreshment costs. So we now have antipodean bases!! Would someone volunteer to create an editathon page? I am hoping that if we build it then they (other editathons) will join us. I'm starting some bullets below for Ada Lovelace Day.

Looks like this may happen!! Victuallers (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victuallers, I am very happy to pitch in on the editathon page setup, tho I will need some guidance from those more involved with the details. Maybe I should start by setting up the WiR annual October STEM editathon and then it’ll be easier to pick some elements from that to use? Innisfree987 (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! @Innisfree987: I would suggest that we note the time difference for UK and NZ in the hope that others will add their new place and time difference. As you suggest I think we need to draft something and it will develop to be something more certain during this month. Victuallers (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Victuallers: Yes, it now certainly looks as if this is going to happen. Thanks for all your efforts to date. I'm happy to see Innisfree987 is now helping out too. Please let me know if I can be of any help.--Ipigott (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ipigott and Victuallers—for now my one question is whether to make the 24-hour event page as a subpage or the month-long WiR STEM editathon (just a draft so far!), or a subpage at WP:Meetup, or other? I will work on it in my sandbox in the meantime. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Innisfree987: I would make it a separate meet-up page which sooner or later should be coordinated with the pages being created in the UK, NZ, etc. Links can later be made with pertinent items in our developments for October. Is this OK with you, Victuallers?--Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I bow to your expertise in this area. I want to make sure that NZ have equal billing and others can see where they can slot themselves in. Are there are people reading this who are not in UK or NZ time zones? as we could do with your contact list to find organisers at other locations. Victuallers (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ipigott, that’s what I’ll do—and I didn’t realize the “local” events had their own pages going, so that’s helpful. Just let me know when those are available to incorporate! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Innisfree987: I don't think any have been developed yet. I just assumed that if we are addressing different time zones, it would be logical to have separate meetup pages. Just let's see how it goes. There's still plenty of time.--Ipigott (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, Innisfree987, Victuallers a couple of things:
  • Yes, Lajmmoore, I was rather hoping that Victuallers and his UK friends could put together the main event page and that there could be links in and out of the other pages. But let's wait until we hear from him.--Ipigott (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here’s the draft I started: user:Innisfree987/sandbox/Ada_Lovelace_Day, but I don’t doubt it could be improved upon! Innisfree987 (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Innisfree987, for making a start on this. I think we need to emphasize that it's primarily a recruitment event. I also tend to share the suggestion that even though we are using Ada Lovelace Day as a trigger, we should open it up to all areas of interest. We also need to feature short, inspiring presentations along the lines of those presented in the WiR panel at Wikimania. If you agree, I'll have a go at adapting it along those lines.--Ipigott (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ipigott, by all means, make whatever changes you see fit! It was just to have something to work with and I will be glad for those more closely involved to revise to fit their needs, including on the STEM v STEAM question. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lajmmoore, to your point, I was rather inspired by the meetup page of Wiki Loves Women, which has a nice clean, modern look and additionally has tabs that might be a good way to compile different events in a central location. Do we have anyone handy with Wikipedia UX design who could assist with that? I made a start of trying to spiff up some of the elements of our usual editathons, but I’m afraid it’s seeming I am not very spiffy! WomenArtistUpdates, I don’t know if this is at all terrain that interests you? Or anyone else with design talents and/or Wikipedia UX expertise? (I know there are user pages which attest to this talent being out there!) Innisfree987 (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Innisfree987, I don't know anything about making those cool tabs or Wikipedia UX :( WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WomenArtistUpdates, ah ok, thanks for letting me know. Was just hoping we could make use of your great eye! But I totally understand, since I can’t figure out how to tidy it up to my liking either! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: (a small) victory is mine! I managed to make a tabbed header tho can’t add it until there are links to use with it. Pasting to the draft’s talk page for eventual use (or not, if not the chosen solution). Other aesthetic and UX improvements continue to be sought! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'll have a look at the page. Thanks to @Lajmmoore:, @Ipigott:, @Innisfree987: et al. Not sure about STEAM, obviously good stuff but I notice the Ada Lovelace Day as a STEM event does not have its own page yet. (Maybe if we can make the media then we can start one to include this late start.) Although WIR has always broadly interpreted its entry requirements for a specific editathon so I wouldn't want to reject artists, especially if we failed attract WIR art enthusiasts. Maybe art in botany or art in maths?? I'm talking to Manchester this evening. Carol doesn't edit much but she is a great organiser. I will also point the NZ team at our page. Pleased that Ipigott reckons we have plenty of time. I'm still optimistic that we will get a offer to collaborate with a US based event and one? in Asia to complete our clock. Any offers of a logo? Cheers Victuallers (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Date? We have been working on October 12th as second Tuesday. Is there a move to be on the preceding Saturday? Victuallers (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Victuallers: I assume you are suggesting 12 October for the online event for reviewing results, etc. I had suggested Saturday the 16th simply because I thought people would not be tied up with their professional work but the 12th is fine by me too.--Ipigott (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I love the idea of illustrators in botany and mathematics. Also CGI artists count I think! And of course SFF writers and illustrators. We could include some verbiage specifically highlighting these professions for inclusivity. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kia ora koutou - NZ here catching up with the convo in this space (Lisa) - there are lots of scientific artists and artistic scientists and I think it is good for there to be a range of types of articles suggested for recruitment to new people. Interesting also to hear 'where' the project might be and ideas how to coordinate across timezones too. Pakoire (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Its gathering wings! Meeting 3 hours ago on zoom to discuss. Its going to start at midnight (UK time) on the 12th in New Zealand. Australia will take over then, UK in the afternoon at Emmeline's house in Manchester. Documents are being prepared including sign up docs and press release. Meeting in exactly one weeks time on zoom.... want to help? Zoom invite by contacting me, or Lisa, Siobhan, Callan etc. Keen to find links in US, Asia and Africa in particular. Help "the first 24 hour wiki editathon" for Ada Lovelace Day in just over a month's time? Victuallers (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if right thread to add to, but hallo @Victuallers: and UK organisers, I'm UK based and would be very happy to help during the session, confident introducing newcomers to editing, helping manage the zoom, etc. Have run workshops on zoom and in person before - with @Lajmmoore: (thanks Lajmmoore for telling me about this event!) Medievalfran (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging arrangements for 8 (12th) October

@Medievalfran: Hi Fran, (and anyone just lurking here) welcome! The event will start in NZ at midnight and anyone can join in at that point. During UK unsocial hours it will move across Australian time zones etc. In the UK we can join virtually but those in travelling distance of Manchester can gather at Emmeline Pankhurst's house in central Manchester. We will be supporting "real"? people there and a virtual audience of what we hope are new Women in Red recruits. We will need trainers, hand-holders and hand-clappers, twitter etc support. This will be for anyone in "our" timezone so links to Western Europe and Africa are on our menu. All of this is done by volunteers. We are happy for you to join in - do feel free to assist as much as you can. Invitations, sign up sheets and a press release are being prepared and they all need friendly eyes to make them great. (One person has offered support for UK editors who prefer Welsh.) Victuallers (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Victuallers: This sounds like real progress. Thanks for all the effort you are putting into this.--Ipigott (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Victuallers: fabulous, thank you for all the info! I can definitely be around virtually on the day. Can help with training/ hand holding/ cheering, etc! Will keep eyes peeled for more info :D Medievalfran (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Victuallers, via the Women in Red instagram other user groups in Africa, Asia, etc. have been messaged about involvement and they've been asked to wave hello here! Lajmmoore (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have just emailed one of the organisers of 2019's BlackLivesMatter editathon. I believe she was also involved with an Ada Lovelace Day editathon last year. Perhaps she and her colleagues may form the missing USA link. --Oronsay (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Lajmmoore, Oronsay (and others) for reaching out. A US based contribution (of any size) is really important to complete the framework. The NZ, AU and UK plans are well progressed and a press release announces the launch in New Zealand at their midday (my midnight). I'm optimistic that we will find contributors and on both the east and west coasts. Obviously other countries are of interest even if they have similar timezones to our existing locations. Victuallers (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Victuallers: I'm really pleased to see things are going so well. May I suggest you write a summary of progress to date and the need for additional support and include it as a new item at the bottom of this page. Only those of us who look at the history of new additions can spot work on this section.--Ipigott (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

#WikiAda24

This carries on the conversation above as per Ian's suggestion. On October 12th we will be celebrating Ada Lovelace and Women in STEM. Women in Red has seen this as an opportunity to raise our profile and do some recruitment. At Midday in New Zealand the day will start with the launch of an editathon. As #WikiAda24 continues the baton will be picked up by Australia. We have made a lot of progress. The NZ WIR editors are organised and ready with a press release, zoom links, eventbrite announcements, trainers (and handholders) ready to support the day. WMAU are committed. In the UK we have Emmeline Pankhurst's house booked and the eventbrites etc created. Trainers are booked and we understand that there may be one in Scotland too. At the moment we are reaching out to find editors in the Americas who could carry the editathon forward. New Zealand are prepared to finish the day

Have a look [here] - the detail is increasing. If you are in UK, NZ or AU then we can sign you up ... if you are not then we really want to speak to you. This is a great opportunity to show off our collaboration. Can you see how you might help? Be Bold. Victuallers (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

& the previous discussion is here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#One-day online recruitment editathon Lajmmoore (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Task for ADA24 bonanza

If anyone is wishing for a on-wiki way to help with the ADA24 bonanza, a task that might benefit from any amount of time you have to give it is clean up on the crowd-sourced red-link lists we’re using (see link), some of which contain many now-blue links. I have been working on tidying this up for the newcomers we hope to attract, but have only finished a few of the lists so far.
Also, if there are additional STEM lists that should be included, please do add! Thanks so much. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if they have now all been cleaned up.--Ipigott (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ipigott and Tagishsimon! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to be more careful with this in future. Some of the blue links I deleted were redirects. Fortunately some of them have been restored.--Ipigott (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, in case it's helpful, I have this enabled this, User:Anomie/linkclassifier, so redirects show are green links, AfD articles are pink links, external links are teal, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That’s terrific, thanks for such a good tip Rosiestep! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Lovelace Day event announced in New Zealand

"Global 24-hour Wikipedia "Edit-a-thon" Kicks Off In New Zealand" - just announced by Scoop, New Zealand.--Ipigott (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update on AdaWiki24.org - Oct 12th - WIR 24 hour editathon

Women in Red Ada Lovelace Day headers

I think we have our final list! We have recruited leads for Pakistan and Kenya and plans for NZ, AU and UK are well advanced with good support from each chapter. We have volunteer editors ready to join us to help the newbies we attract but we could always do with more. We also have places where experienced editors can collegially edit together at different virtual locations. The dashboard for the event should record every new article, picture and editor. Do feel free to come along and help a newbie to steer their way through the wiki maze.... and maybe help them in a weeks time and encourage them to join us here more regularly. Find an error = fix it. Victuallers (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking good, Victuallers. Thank you for all the work you've done on #WikiAda24. I'm really looking forward to participating in this global collaboration.--Oronsay (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Poster for Carol Mwaura in Nairobi's Mukuru kwa Njenga
Thanks Oronsay. I realised we were making good progress when I glanced at the Wiki article for the place where our editathon is taking place in Kenya which is Mukuru kwa Njenga a "slum" for 100,000 people. Luckily our new host there has good working conditions as a librarian, but the power still disappears regularly. We are definitely recruiting new members and the support of existing members makes this possible. Victuallers (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting AdaWiki24.org at WCNA

File:AdaWiki24.org - Wiki Women in Red initiative on 12 Oct 2021.pdf

I'll be promoting AdaWiki24 and seeking participation from North American Wikipedians during Sunday's Lightning Talk session at WikiConference North America. If you're registered to attend WCNA, see you there; or you can watch live/later via this YouTube link. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Rosiestep Lajmmoore (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time table

Wiki Ada 24 - Time table

In case people are wondering how Tuesday is time-tabled, Lisa Maule made this amazing schedule, showing our various locations! Yesterday evening, Victuallers and I showed some of our new Kenyan friends how to make their first edits. If it suits the time zone that you're in, there's an "open" session from 8-10pm UK time, which it would be lovely to see some friendly faces at! There's a sign up here. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lajmmoore (cc: @Victuallers, Oronsay, and MurielMary) - I registered using that link. Will it allow me to participate via Zoom in the Australia/New Zealand event, which starts in just a few hours or is there a different Eventbrite/Zoom link for that one? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And since then Ghana have joined us so that is both east and west Africa, there is an editathon in Scotland at 12 run by Ewan McAndrew which lasts for five hours and a late night UK session will be from 8 to 10 run by Paul and Roberta. There is an eventbrite link being added to the AdaWiki24.org pages now as some of the events are at capacity. Well done all. Do hope everyone whois not going to attend virtually has clicked here to record their silent contributions. Victuallers (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosiestep: - I just saw this, so sorry - so if you go to the NZ/Aus tab of the WIR-211 page then the sign-up should be there? @Pakoire: @Giantflightlessbirds: @DrThneed: can you help? Lajmmoore (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosiestep: - i think it's this: https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/ada-lovelace-day-24-hour-global-edit-a-thon-new-zealand-tickets-184422270977 - there's a table on the NZ event page, where links are in R hand column! Lajmmoore (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lajmmoore, thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lajmmoore that looks right! DrThneed (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion nomination of 14 women Footballers Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Lorsheijd

What does "not fully professional" even mean? Gamaliel (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be defined here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a long shot here ... I wonder if Gerda Arendt has access to Dutch sourcing for something like this, or might be able to suggest another user who might have that kind of resources. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no Dutch, no football, - Drmies? The Rambling Man? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamaliel: Fully professional is a purposefully biased notability requirement that means that a sports league is the only source of income for the players. It was set up so that many men's sports teams would make the requirement, but women's teams (which in general make less money) would not, allowing for the restriction and deletion of women's sports player articles. Of course, whether someone gets the entirety of their incomes from the sport or not is absolutely irrelevant to notability, but the sports Wikipedians made it up on purpose to crop up notability that doesn't exist for the players they care about (the male ones). That allows them to then force the keeping of articles for male players who literally played only a single game in said league and there is no real sourcing about, but can then argue for deletion of women articles that have tons of sourcing. The sports Wikipedians also often try to say that the Sports SNG's are more important than the GNG, so even if a female sports player meets GNG, they'll argue delete if it isn't "fully professional". The whole system is very obviously made and propped up for sexist reasons and for keeping in obviously non-notable male players. The entire sports SNGs should be gotten rid of entirely. SilverserenC 22:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn’t agree more about junking sports SNGs. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well put Silver seren, thank you for explaining the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Truth.4meter4 (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the sports SNGs permit way too many non-notable players to have their own articles, and that even minor efforts to reform them (such as this) have failed, your comments display an absolutely astonishing failure to assume good faith. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so that rule needs to be rewritten. I hope Mikehawk10 follows my suggestion: withdrawing the AfD, and helping us adjust that guideline. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My ongoing question in regards to the sports SNGs, @Drmies:, is what does having a full income from playing have to do with notability? Where is the evidence that there is any sort of correlation between the two? I don't see why it would result in any difference in reliable source coverage. If it is because of some other factor relating to the teams/league themselves that is being claimed for a higher amount of reliable source coverage, then that needs to be specifically stated in the SNGs, rather than something related to money that has never been justified. SilverserenC 00:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Drmies: I'm not withdrawing an AfD on what appears to amount to over a dozen non-GNG articles that were created by one individual in under 3 minutes which additionally fail to meet their relevant sport's guideline. Expanding it to include all tier-1 soccer players who have competed in a match is sure to guarantee an enormous number of permastubs of dubious notability—I don't think that including every single person who played in the American Soccer League (1933–1983) would be a benefit to the project; I can't see them being treated as notable on the basis that they played in that league. Removing the assumption of notability for all tier-1 soccer players would also not really solve the problem, since that would just result in a more stringent criteria that tends towards deletion for a whole large set of articles that have been already created. I'm not necessarily opposed to that sort of change, though I think WikiProject Football might take strong issue with it that would prevent a new consensus from forming. So, we're stuck trying to find some cutoff ground if we want community consensus on a guideline. If you'd like to propose an alternative cutoff, go for it at the relevant page, but I don't think that we should be so quick to adjust the guideline without putting a good bit of discussion into where that line should be. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"since that would just result in a more stringent criteria that tends towards deletion for a whole large set of articles that have been already created."
Isn't that just the WP:GNG, the only notability criteria that really matters in the end? My bigger issue is using these SNGs to bludgeon players that don't meet the criteria with no investigation of GNG notability being done and then, conversely, using the SNGs to prop up certain players despite exhaustive searching for reliable sourcing of the players that doesn't ultimately exist. SilverserenC 01:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I wouldn't object to tightening the guidelines generally. I think that the guidelines, as written, will ultimately presume notability for a good chunk of non-notable people; I can't see how a person who played for 18 minutes in a single game in the 1996 USISL Select League would reasonably be presumed to be notable, for example. Some of the fully professional leagues feel like the equivalent of AA baseball leagues, whose players are not presumed to be notable (even AAA isn't presumed to be notable). However, I also don't think that a proposal to strip WP:NFOOTBALL#2 entirely would be at all likely to succeed. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may disagree with Silver seren, Fram, but 'evidence of intent or else withdraw' stampy foot doesn't cut it. The policy was deliberately constructed by individuals who, presumably, considered the matter intently, and who designed a system that excludes women and includes thousands of, in all other respect, non-notable men. You seem to be suggesting that the outcome was not designed, was not deliberate. That's completely not credible. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's paranoid frankly. The system was designed to exclude tens of thousands of amateur or semi-pro players, the vast majority male, and that is a righteous cause. All the SNGs concern presumed notability, and if RS can be found, it doesn't matter what the SNG says. There are enough sports editors who know this. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tagishsimon:: when something is challenged as a severe personal attack, it is rarely smart to simply double down on the original attack (or to describe calling out such an attack "stampy foot", which is rather childish). I'll invite the people at NSPORTS and the football project over to give their view on how the guideline came to be. I again invite you and Silver seren to remove such attacks unless you provide actual evidence. Simply calling out unnamed but identifiable people as deliberate misogynists because you can't see another reason for the current guideline (like e.g. people thinking "professional soccer" = "sufficient viewers" = "enough attention in the news" = "notable", "amateur soccer" = "less attention" = "not notable", without them thinking "heh, that will keep the men in and the women out!") is just not acceptable behaviour. Fram (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's out-and-out paranoia. I'd like to see the evidence that Fram has requested, or the accusation be removed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This from 2005 seems to be the original source of the 'fully-professional' requirement – which was then part of WP:BIO and across the board for team sports rather than just for football. Number 57 16:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Time to break out the fainting couch! Gamaliel (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you assume that ditching all notability standards would somehow magically increase the number of sportswomen bios and not the number of sportsmen bios? Ravenswing 19:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't suggesting "ditching all notability standards", just suggesting getting rid of GNG and replacing it with something more suitable, eg a quota system. Nigej (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quota system is by no means a notability standard. It's a demographic ghetto, and can be infinitely parsed out to anyone's hobby horse. Oops, sorry, we can't make any new articles on male subjects until the female bios hit 51%? What's the percentage you plan to set aside for non-traditional genders? Hey, it's racist for your quota system to only fixate on gender -- what about nationality, religion, ethnicity, language? Nope, sorry, we can't create articles on women either ... unless they're Han Chinese, because we're far under the proper percentage there. Seriously? Ravenswing 15:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that basis GNG is not a notability standard either. Countless articles clearly fail GNG but nothing ever happens to them. GNG is well past its sell-by date and need replacing. I know that saying that is sacrilege but it still needs saying. No sane person would decide on the content of an encyclopedia using GNG or anything remotely similar to it. Nigej (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Silverseren: you cannot be unaware that AfD -- and the deletion process generally -- is wholly subject to the whims of individual editors, and to the shibboleths of claques entirely willing to give the finger to any guideline or policy that might serve to thwart their agendas. There is no policy or guideline conceivable, none at all, that would immunize Wikipedia against human nature ... except to have no rules at all. Ravenswing 00:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Fram, here, and agree with Amakuru's take on the SNG's construction. The sports SNGs and the GNG exclude far, far more men than women; loosening either of them with the intent of permitting more women bios would absolutely tank that 19.04% we're trying to raise. Just take a look at all the hundreds of male athlete bios deleted in the last few weeks -- is it really preferable that all those be kept just so a few more stubs on women can exist? That said, the sports SNGs definitely do suffer from people misinterpreting NSPORT (or refusing to acknowledge the FAQs at the top of the page that explicitly state the guideline is superseded by and ultimately requires GNG) and !voting to keep bios that meet NSPORT but fail GNG. If you want to change that, participate in AfDs or join the discussions on tightening the criteria -- we had a lengthy RfC closed as no consensus in August that was up for over 3 months, and currently there's a proposal that aims to restrict presumption of GNG to just Olympic medalists rather than all Olympians. (Note that this would only negatively affect Olympians who don't meet GNG.) JoelleJay (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it makes me genuinely uncomfortable to see all of this behavior on the project talk page. A minor change in wording, such as "highest national level of organization of the sport" would make the guideline still selective. One could add caveats as needed, i.e. does not include semi-professional leagues unless there is no fully professional league. SusunW (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Giant Snowman if what you say here is true then why do you repeatedly edit war the semi-pro Scottish Championship onto the "fully professional" list? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except I don't. Stop lying. GiantSnowman 08:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SusunW, the guideline really needs to be tightened, not loosened. If we made the suggested change the immediate effect would be thousands more microstubs on non-notable male athletes that no one ever tries to delete or even expand. A subject who doesn't meet the SNG at least forces the article creator to find actual SIGCOV sources that could contribute to a real encyclopedic biography. JoelleJay (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to JoelleJay. For those of you unfamiliar with the long, long history behind it all, the term "fully professional" has been bedeviling the sports projects ever since the original WP:ATHLETE. The tong war between those convinced it means "anyone who gets paid to play" and those convinced it's a euphemism for "top-flight" is a millstone around everyone's neck, and isn't going to be resolved here. The fallacy I see some people reveling in here, though, is that a change such as SusunW proposes will produce the results they want.

How about this football thing, for instance? If NFOOTY's listing of "fully professional leagues" is overturned in favor of "highest national level?" Yes, indeed, that means a dozen or two women's leagues -- no matter how obscure or ephemeral -- get tapped. Meanwhile, there are over one hundred thirty more federations that belong to FIFA than are represented on NFOOTY's national league list, and you've just greenlighted a hundred thousand new stubs of male players. Oops. Ravenswing 02:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 'Top level' is far too broad. NFOOTBALL might not be ideal, but it's the best anybody has come up with and AFD works a charm dealing with borderline cases. GiantSnowman 08:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm pleased to see this debate. I like to think that many of the editors here are keen to see more balance in Wikipedia. We are not going to find c.180,000 missing women footballers to balance the embarrassing number of male footballers on Wikipedia. However many would acknowledge the injustice of this fact. Deciding who created the embarrassing number of footballers (mostly male) and why, is not going to be productive. Knowing it was done on purpose by Prettboy456 and NursieLady789 in 2012 (I made this up) doesn't actually help. (It takes a very long time to create this level of bias). However given that historical injustice exists, then we should be trying to find a way to note that Wikipedia did not invent history and (most of) its current editors would prefer if it wasn't the way it is. However we do have a duty to report a good version of the (distasteful) truth. As evidence of this intent then we should be doing our utmost to ensure that we get rid of male footballers of dubious notability as a priority. While those articles exist then we can wring our hands and say "it's very tricky" but we expose ourselves to accusations that we created it this way on purpose ...and some will see those articles about dubiously-notable, male footballers as evidence of this. Of course we can claim it wasn't deliberate, its not our fault and it's just too tricky to address, but it's not very convincing. There are other examples in history where social injustice was continued because it was too tricky to address. I'm working with others to create more notable women... it would help the cause that Wikipedia is trying to be be Neutral if could amend the rules to reduce the NN footballers et al as well. We will still have more male footballers BUT our position would be defendable. At the moment ... it isn't.Victuallers (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ravenswing, you and I, to my recollection have never exchanged any conversation on WP. Please do not presume that you have the authority to speak for me or have knowledge of my intent. As you don't know, I am glad to tell you. I went to archive 1 on NFooty and read the discussion there. "fully professional" according to the page came when "we" asked "them" (those developing the guide asked Wikiprojects), you know those mythical all-powerful vague references people use to sound authoritative and appear to have backing. No diffs were provided and I do not have time to go to every sports wiki and verify if they were actually asked. Thus, like so many of our guidelines, there is no actual basis for that clause, just a handful of participants who decided. On the other hand, national/international recognition is widely accepted in the real world as an achievement, and is included in many of our guidelines as a bar of inclusion. Thus, my suggestion was meant to offer changes to wording which is perpetuating bias by an arbitrary measure and found it upon something more concrete and less biased. I absolutely couldn't care less if it also would increase the amount of notable males. We cannot fix the historical injustices that left the majority of people of the world out of history. We can however fix our guidelines so that if they are not equitable, they at least provide a level playing field for inclusion. I will not return to the conversation, I have far more work to do and have no desire to spend time devoted to policy that IMO will likely never change. SusunW (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume, SusunW, that you spoke for yourself. "A minor change in wording, such as "highest national level of organization of the sport" would make the guideline still selective" were your words. If you didn't actually mean what you said, fair enough; we can take that into consideration for any future response you might make. Ravenswing 14:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant exactly what I said and even went to great lengths to explain to you why it was selective. Your attempts to change my words and meaning are unacceptable. I will no longer engage with you, please do not ping me or speak to/of me again. Thank you. SusunW (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Far from "changing" your words, I quoted you, and your attempts to pick fights over doing so are -- well, not "unacceptable," but at the least bemusing. That being said, the only way you can insulate yourself against having editors discuss and respond to your public postings in a public discussion is to walk away. You are free to do so. Ravenswing 22:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • JoelleJay you and I have spoken on this subject before and you know my position. For the record, I am all about strengthening policy, but not in the way you would do it. Writing guidelines to exclude people or sources from the encyclopedia is the wrong approach. We need to define, very clearly what should be included. I daily find people who have literally changed the world, but there are insufficient sources available about them to write a detailed article under our guidelines. Unless there are sufficient sources, written and curated by reputable authors/publishers, to write a complete and detailed biography, no article should be written under our current policies. Why should a sports figure, or anyone else for that matter, be included as part of an encyclopedia based upon a lesser standard in an SNG? That is the problem, and my answer to the question is they shouldn't, unless that have truly impacted the world. As I said above, I won't return to discuss this, you are well aware of my thoughts on the matter. SusunW (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you don't plan to respond, but I do want to note that the sports SNG is explicitly *supposed* to be subordinate to the GNG, and this has mostly been reflected in the recent trends at AfD. Unfortunately, this wasn't always the case, so we've been slowly working through these tens of thousands of athletes trying to filter out the non-notables that accumulated in the early 2000s-2010s.
    I completely agree with Unless there are sufficient sources, written and curated by reputable authors/publishers, to write a complete and detailed biography, no article should be written under our current policies. While I think it's ridiculous that an article on a SNG-meeting footballer can be written sourced solely to stats databases, with the expectation that future editors will come along and actually write a biography, the purpose of the SNG is not to provide an alternate avenue to notability, but rather to identify subjects who are 90%+ likely to have received GNG coverage. And according to NSPORT, such articles can only exist for as long as notability remains unchallenged: GNG must ultimately be met for all athlete bios just as it should for (most) other people. So at its most beneficent, this allows article creation of subjects who don't have easily-accessible RS (at least to the article creator), which should help reduce bias against pre-Internet, different-language, physical-media-only topics. In practice, it also encourages mass microstub creation by a handful of editors who rarely return, producing an unsustainable number of essentially unpatrolled BLPs that never have their notability questioned and never get expanded. Editors are also disincentivized to nominate SNG-meeting bios for deletion due to the cadre of AfD participants who reflexively !vote "Keep, meets NCRIC" or "Keep, subject has [N] caps, sources must exist" or "Keep, subject is from the 1800s, we should wait until someone with access to their local newspaper archives can do an exhaustive search" or "Keep, subject is from [non-Latin-alphabet/non-Western/non-English-speaking country], we should wait until an editor shows up who has access to/can translate sources from [country]" or "Keep, subject was just signed to [team], he will surely receive coverage in the near future" at every AfD.
    This means the ONLY two ways to reduce the proliferation of athlete stubs are to 1) enforce the requirement for GNG in AfDs and make sure candidate RS actually provide SIGCOV and not ROUTINE transfer/injury/signing/match/interview coverage; and 2) restrict the number of future stubs that can be created by tightening the SSG criteria. Athletes who actually made an impact should receive articles regardless of whether they meet the SNG -- in fact, those GNG-notable sportswomen and men who don't meet the SNG are automatically going to have a more encyclopedic bio written about them (due to the requirement for GNG sources from the get-go) than those that scrape by via an SSG (and so only need stats refs verifying this unless and until notability is challenged). JoelleJay (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren supposition

Was wondering where Fram was canvassing people from, since there's no link to here in the AfD in question. It's here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Accusations_of_deliberate_misogyny_in_writing_NSPORTS_/_NFOOTY_at_Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red SilverserenC 20:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." You've been on Wikipedia too long not to have read the guidelines you cite. Ravenswing 21:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant revelation, that. If only I had said something like "I'll invite the people at NSPORTS and the football project over to give their view on how the guideline came to be. "[3], then perhaps people wouldn't have felt the need to wonder how all these people arrived here to comment on the blatant personal attack you started (and which some here saw fit to ignore, and some to support). Fram (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see: telling blatant lies about the reason behind a notability guideline while discussing an AfD about sportswomen on a project devoted to having as much articles on women as possible is NOT canvassing, but informing people that they are being attacked without their knowledge IS canvassing? That's about it? Fram (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do tell then, Fram, what was the purpose of the "fully professional" requirement? Since I was honestly being too narrow in what I said above, as the subject here is about women so I focused on that. But the real purpose of that specific SNG is much broader. The very idea that a top level sports team and its members for an entire country would not have reliable source coverage in that country is laughable at best and yet this SNG is set up so that if it is a poorer country where they can't be "fully professional" the SNG excludes them. Which runs into the same question I already asked multiple times above, what does notability and even presumed coverage to fit the GNG have to do with this "fully professional" SNG?
There is no connection and certainly no evidence ever presented that the full income has anything to do with that. From it's inception, the only usage of that SNG has been to specifically exclude articles on sports players in less wealthy countries, both men and women, with women being more specifically affected in the actually wealthy ones. What conceivable other purpose would that SNG have, since again, being "fully professional" has no connection to notability? At best, you could say it is effective in being applied to countries that do have teams that meets said requirement so you can keep off the lower tier league players from having articles. But that only applies to the very narrow circumstances of countries that do meet that in the first place. SilverserenC 20:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has taken a weird turn. Fram posted a number of neutral messages to suitable venues, yet this ongoing hyperbolic accusatory tone continues? Perhaps that's why people are turned off from trying to help if, from the get-go, all we have is finger-pointing and false accusations. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would not consider them neutral messages in the slightest. Also, no one has yet to respond to my questions about the "fully professional" SNG. Neither have you here in replying to my comment asking it once again. SilverserenC 21:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feels like you've lost the plot on this one. Fram wasn't canvassing, they were simply trying to garner more interested people. Perhaps a closed house discussion was more your flavour on this one, like "they hate us and they don't care" approach which sadly isn't the case in any sense at all. Good grief, your starting position on this debate is catastrophic and completely destructive, which perhaps was your aim, but who knows, it's got lost in the heat. Suggest you take a LONG step back and work out what you really want out of this and realise that most of us would be willing to help if you stopped making it a fucking massive fight. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, please stop with the "f" word. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, when the false accusations get redacted, we can all grow up a bit. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Silver seren, I don't know what you are trying to attain here. Can you please stop it? It is not useful. What we need here is a reasonable tweak to a guideline whose effects are sexist--your accusations might fit in an argumentative essay in an upper-level writing class, but they are counterproductive here. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. In general, it needs to be tweaked so that the top level leagues for a country are included. Whether that means changing it to "semi-professional" or something else to be more explicit in that regard, that is the desired outcome from what I can see. SilverserenC 21:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What it needs to do is fit the reasonable presumption that there will be GNG-level coverage about someone. If, and only if, it can be demonstrated that the large majority of people who would be covered under such wording would have GNG-passing material available about them, that might be appropriate. If not, it's not, as we would be providing bad advice on selecting appropriate article subjects and many of those articles would ultimately need to be deleted. Given the number of permastubs, I'm more convinced that the current criteria are too loose than too tight, but if someone can convincingly demonstrate that passage of the GNG for such subjects is all but assured, I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for pity's sake. Do we really need to spell this out in small enough words? The reason why "professional" was enshrined in the first place was nothing more than the basic (and rather accurate) presumption that professional sports engenders the bulk of the media coverage necessary to pass the GNG. This isn't monolithic, of course: there have been and are many competitions where amateur sport gets media coverage. But that being said, I've a standard response for those wishing to expand the scope of NSPORTS: demonstrate to me that the rules changes you advocate will result in 90%+ of those meeting them readily passing the GNG, and you have my support. The notion that "top level leagues in a country" will fly is absurd, unless anyone thinks it will do Wikipedia good to have sports bios on pickleball beer leagues in Upper Slobovia. Ravenswing 21:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per Seraphim. Probably a significant number of professional male players have no coverage at all and / or their coverage exists solely in obscure newspaper archives in their home country or national paper (if we are lucky) that we do not have access to, so we are dependent on clubs, and other encyclopaedia type content to even verify they existed. The habit of creating articles just because a person exists and is a football player and a professional and therefore notable I find pretty problematic. Way too much coverage is just WP:ROUTINE but because they are on a team-sheet it's like a stamp of authority to gather statistical cruft. Koncorde (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Long-time football editor here. The ridiculous "fully professional leagues" essay is in perennial dispute because it's both sexist and irrational (check the talk page archives). As an SNG it fails since, as others have noted, it's such a poor predictor of notability. There is also a double standard applied by its WP:OWNers, since demonstrably semi-pro men's leagues are frequently kept on via the most laughably spurious pretexts, but semi-pro women's leagues are deleted off. I'm glad to see this embarrassment to the wider project finally getting a bit more exposure here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
its professional players because for the most part only pro players are considered important enough. doesnt matter if its male or female. and honestly, just playing for your country gets you a page in the first place which i disagree with myself. so lots of woman players have pages as a result of playing for their country.Muur (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, a large number of these articles are going to be BLPs and if we overhaul the SNGs to an alternative like 'has played at least one game in the top national league' then we are going to be including tens of thousands of people who are not in the public eye and for whom no substantial WP:RS coverage exists. The serious, serious issue with that, and something that has come to light in a few recent AfDs, is that we have no idea on even the basic facts, we may not even have knowledge of their full name, DOB, history of clubs that they play for. Do such people really warrant an article in a global encyclopaedia in this case? Such people are likely comfortable and better off in their own anonymity rather than having a sub-stub on Wikipedia with no RS to even go off. We need to tighten criteria rather than loosen it to avoid more hoaxes and factually inaccurate nonsense like Nelson Larios to perpetuate and be a black mark on Wikipedia. For what it's worth, there are some women's leagues where, despite not being 'fully pro', players with more than a handful of games appear to have enough WP:GNG coverage such as Damallsvenskan, Frauen-Bundesliga, Division 1 Féminine and probably a couple of others. A-League Women and Úrvalsdeild kvenna also heading that way too in last couple of years. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Rather than being some concerted effort to exclude female footballers from Wikipedia, I suspect the original intention of the SNG was to exclude non-notable footballers (of all genders)... but the nature of football means that because women's leagues are less often professional than men's leagues (compare even top-flight competitions in a variety of countries where the men are paid and the women are expected to maintain part-time jobs as well) the participants are excluded here" - bingo. GiantSnowman 15:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need for encyclopedic tool development

Sad story of all, Wikipedia is 20 years and Wikipedians are not open enough for introspection and genuine acknowledgement of limitations. Where there is discouragement to introspection and acknowledgement of limitations hoping for corrective actions becomes difficult. Not sure we can address all of systemic biases but if structural difficulties are acknowledged properly, one can think of developing tools which can help some balancing.

Many systemic biases exist in real human world itself, some systemic biases (read rules) accrue from open to edit form of Wikipedia, but some rules come from pressures built up out of international level of politics and behind the curtain vested interest – the same standards are applied even where there is no international level conflict. In most rule making there were no statement of purpose given, rational SWOT analysis taken place or proper justifications sans logical fallacies nor proper understanding of what article expanding researching editor–author goes through among curator community. Curator communities (I do respect most of their work) sit like Kangaroo court without any substantial content contribution for years together. Even logical rational voices are shutdown and silenced on basis of sheer majority in Kangaroo courts held every now and then. World almost does not exists here beyond English language. In 20 years people don't get inspiration to update article Encyclopedia itself. Then how would one understand what encyclopedia is supposed to do and not in real sense and how one will take real encyclopedic causes forward and seek to develop tools to improve.

After writing this I am bowing out so pl. don't ping me. I do not wish to elaborate on this on this platform when I get time I will express with academic researchers and or other platforms which happy to entertain and open minded for frank and logical analysis.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot the discussion

Rather than the needless and baseless accusations of deliberate bias, can we reboot the discussion here to understand what the members of this project think would be useful? I have no dog in the fight by any means, and would happily welcome a reduction in the notability guidelines as written to include more individuals but also think this project's "percentage" aim would be blown away by doing so. I'm not clear on what this project is aiming for in practical terms so please, I'd like to hear it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also interested to hear a concrete plan, although I would predict that increasing the scope of the SNG is going to result in more accusations of bias in the future rather than less, given the common complaint that bit-part players for fourth-tier English clubs get articles while miscellaneous borderline-notable female scientists do not. Adding more sportsmen from the Diadora League Second Division is not going to help with that!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always in favor of rebooting a discussion that's gone off the rails into something more productive, but if you want the people you are complaining about to participate it's quite counterproductive to start off with a broad sweeping complaint that is basically a summary of all your previous grousing, so I'd suggest you make a gesture of good faith and reword the above to demonstrate that a productive discussion is indeed your goal. Gamaliel (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're in favour, answer the question. Reframing the question as "grousing" isn't WP:AGF for an experienced editor. Koncorde (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I suggest you make a gesture of "helping the encyclopedia" and trying to solve the matter at hand rather than continue to attempt to digress from it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel I note you've neither retracted your awkward accusation nor contributed positively to this discussion. I think we made some progress without you though. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, I do have other responsibilities. But I'm grateful that you are still able to devote some time to think of me. Gamaliel (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such a gallant apology. No problem, it's on record that you have miserably failed to behave as a reasonable editor, let alone admin. Do your "other responsibilities", we'll try to fix the issues you thought I was (for whatever personal reason) not addressing. Glad you've left it to those of us who want to make a real difference. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everything okay with you? You seem upset. Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only for you. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the attempt, Rambling Man, but it's not going to get anywhere. Without reiterating my own (obviously strong) stance, there are vast gulfs between the warring camps, and there is no compromise or consensus likely to bridge them. Ravenswing 00:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man I appreciate your attempt to reboot the conversation, but (as has been repeatedly stated) we are NOT talking about “relaxing” or “lowering” the notability guidelines. We are talking about restructuring them to eliminate systemic bias…the “professional” sports SNG example is just one. There are biases not only against women and BIPOC individuals, but trying to establish notability on people from the global south is yet another problem. Of course the issue is fraught, as there are multiple sides and many people are passionate about their own views. I honestly think it is perhaps impossible to change our policies/guidelines without some kind of outside input, as the divide between the !ILIKEIT vs !IDON'TLIKEIT sides is vast. I wonder if the the best way to move forward and shed light as well as heat on this discussion is to get a group of neutral academics (representing both the Global North and Global South), who have no stake in Wikipedia, review our guidelines and point out where they can be improved to fill our knowledge gaps and reduce systemic biases. Thoughts.?Montanabw(talk) 19:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I love that idea Montanabw. Many of these discussions have gone on for years with no changes and just end up with frustrations on all sides. I'd welcome neutral arbitration as it were. Perhaps Women in Red could secure some sort of grant to commission a study. Thanks for your input too The Rambling Man, I agree it is a much bigger issue than just this project. SusunW (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think tapping up the WMF for a grant for this kind of thing would be definitely a good approach. After all, if WMF refuses to do so, that wouldn't look so good.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps here you could work on a proposal for WMF, and once you have it, create a petition to garner support from the overall Wikimedia community, and then you have a real chance of success. Per Montanabw though, this mustn't be just about the WIR project, taking a more circumspect view of issues with the notability guidelines will serve the project(s) better in the long term and would garner more support in general I think. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No clue how to obtain a grant, but I am sure there are people here who know how to do that. Also no clue how to garner support from the general editors, but I think it needs to be done. There are English speakers on every continent and if we are going to represent all of those communities, our guidelines need to have a structure that works globally and includes people and topics which should be covered in an encyclopedia across a broad spectrum. Frankly, I appreciate that calm and thoughtful discussion is being had about focusing on potential ways to move forward. SusunW (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like the kind of thing some of the participants in WikiEdu might be interested in supporting. This recent initiative with AIGA seems to be on similar lines. But I have no idea how to obtain support.--Ipigott (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks Ipigott Yes, I agree that WikiEdu might be able to help us. Not sure how we put together a group of neutral academics but maybe they can help. I truly think it needs to include African, Caribbean, Indian, and Pacific voices as well as input from the Americas and Europe to give us a balance and better idea of the strengths and weaknesses in our policies for a global encyclopedia. I think that we must figure out how to get community support and commitment to actually make changes based on neutral review of our policies and guidelines first. Otherwise, we spend money and time doing a review and it goes no where. AleatoryPonderings, there was a review of policy on the Croatian WP, but that was different, it was about disinformation. Ours is not a problem of neutrality in the information, but rather neutrality in inclusion criteria. SusunW (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I see from having read that report was that topics could be presented on the WP, but how they were presented was skewed. Our issue is that topics are being excluded from even being included. And then there is the issue of documentation. I see it as a real problem that a host of material, rather than the reputation of the author and curator is weighed here and that size of circulation has anything to do with validity of a source. I'd like that to be evaluated by professionals. SusunW (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I'm dubious about a panel of academics, and if anything is to be achieved the community would certainly need to be won over first. Most academics know nothing about WP's internal workings, as their papers all too often show, and are most unlikely to take the time to do the necessary learning for an excercise like this. As a prediction, they are far more likely to be struck by our geographical disparities than gender ones. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to know how Wikipedia works to tell us if our notability and documentation standards are problematic. We wouldn't be asking them how to implement their analysis, rather to complete a "review [of] our guidelines and point out where they can be improved to fill our knowledge gaps and reduce systemic biases". And as to pointing out the geographical gaps, I'm not sure how that could possibly be a bad thing, Johnbod. It is an issue that we have been unable to solve, just like changing the notability guidelines. But that's just my opinion. SusunW (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say it is a bad thing - it's what I've always said, and many others too. But, despite many good efforts devoted to the Global South here, I notice this isn't called WikiProject Global South people in Red, and as always a very high proportion of the individuals mentioned in the various sections are American (or sometimes British & from other Anglophone nations). If they do delve deep they may well have things to say about our severe (imo) over-emphasis on biographies of all sorts, as opposed to other types of article. This is almost our worst problem if you ask me. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with that Johnbod and honestly I would be happy to figure out how we arrive at better balance. I do think biographies help people understand broader issues, however, so they are really important. Having worked on nationality law all year, I get that the legalese is daunting. However, an example of how women lost their nationality in a biography makes the legal situation more personal and leads to understanding of the situation and its consequences, if that makes sense. One of the reasons we focus on women's works, and I personally write anchor articles, is that they allow explanation of institutions, social movements, or whatever, and link to people who were impacted and involved to aid in understanding. Ultimately that's our educational goal, IMO, graspng the inter-connectedness instead of things happening in isolation. SusunW (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm speaking strictly based on my interpretation of Montanabw's proposal. She specifically stated that her suggestion had to do with our notability guidelines. Nothing to do with our inner-workings of consensus, AfD, AfC, administration, etc. SusunW (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that an external analysis would be highly profitable. Wikipedia is silo-driven, full of enclaves and historical inertia. To give it a purely independent kick in the backside from a properly objective perspective on this subject would be brilliant. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think any committee would have to have background knowledge of AfD, AfC, NOT, RGW, and our notability guideline discussions to assess how well our criteria work. Our approaches are nuanced, inconsistent, and subjective enough that simply reading the guidelines would produce radically different interpretations between people (as it does now, with actual editors). There are also strong trends in AfD that aren't explicitly codified anywhere (applications of ROUTINE, (justifiable) bias against purely local coverage), not to mention all the essays that are referenced. So evaluators would certainly need to be aware of how our PAGs are put into practice. And whose version of "significant coverage" will be used -- or will the committee also be determining this? I also suspect that if this committee is composed of academics they would have a very different standard for what and who we consider notable in sports and pop culture.
I'm not saying a committee wouldn't work, but I do think it would involve a lot more familiarization with Wikipedia than just reading our PAGs. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also think they'd need a good understanding of the subject the notability criteria was for – in this case, without understanding the different levels of popularity of different types of football in different countries (which ultimately is what drives notability of the players), it would be impossible to make an informed judgement on whether the notability criteria was an accurate reflection of real-life notability. Number 57 21:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think an independent and objective view would be perfect. Without influence from Wikipedians, projects, inertia. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite supportive of the comments made here regarding a WMF grant request for an outside group of academics with an "independent and objective view" (nicely said, The Rambling Man) to review EN.WP notability policies/guidelines and point out where they can be improved to fill gender-based knowledge gaps and reduce gender-based systemic biases (paraphrasing earlier comments by @Montanabw and SusunW). There are certainly other knowledge gaps and systemic biases (e.g., geography-based, language-based, and so forth), but I think our discussion here focuses on gender-based. (Right?) Note, there is a new process for WMF grant requests and it appears that Marti Johnson (WMF staff) coordinates "gender thematic area". Perhaps someone could reach out to her for guidance on what's doable and what's outside the scope of WMF funding? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Rosiestep and agree with your view The Rambling Man. JoelleJay, in my opinion, which carries no weight whatsoever, that is exactly what we don't want. To obtain an objective view of whether the policies actually convey criteria to determine if a subject is encyclopedic, or notable or not notable, or whether our documentation standards assist or fail in actually supporting notability or lack thereof, they should not be distracted with our interpretations of what we think the policies say or trends that aren't "explicitly codified anywhere". That would mean that their objectivity has been compromised. I'm not sure that results which provide "different standard for what and who we consider notable in sports and pop culture" would be a bad thing, but as I said, we would not be asking them how to implement the results whatever they are. Number 57 agreed, not only do we need to make sure that the reviewers cover different geographical areas, but that their skill sets cover an encyclopedic range of topics, but as Rosie said, our focus would be gender-based. Definitely won't be easy. SusunW (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well if we just want a committee to guide us on what they believe would be the most consistent, fair, and reasonable notability criteria then that's doable without understanding Wikipedia itself. I just meant if they wanted to assess how we define and implement notability they would need a lot of background knowledge. Looking at the PAGs alone could produce a very different consensus interpretation among the committee than what is actually practiced -- which could be great (I am all for an academic treatment of sports/pop culture/everything notability, but I realize now that that wouldn't be clear unless you've been following my athlete AfD participation, and you've said in the past you don't visit that area anymore) -- but it wouldn't be an accurate evaluation of the community's actual implementation, that's all. JoelleJay (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with those holding the view that we want outsiders. The problem we are having here is everyone flinging around our guidelines and policies without really looking at how the outside world assesses notability. When the average pornstar or some minor league pro football player (any version) can get a bio faster and with less pushback than a Nobel Prize winner, we have a big problem—and yes, we have a big problem. Montanabw(talk) 06:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC) Montanabw(talk) 06:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A "panel of outsiders" would lead to other people appealing to outside "sources" of authority to try and win Wikipedia arguments...that would be bad. (Could you imagine? "Well Dr. Smith says that this AfD is discriminatory so it should be closed") I think we're better off looking at peer reviewed research on Wikipedia to see if there are problems (which we are unable to identify ourselves) than trying to have other people directly fix it for us. As for the various topics and solutions proposed above, firstly; quotas are a bad idea, all they do is enforce things as a statistic and not based off how notable they are. Second, the SNG in question about fully professional sports teams (making all your money off football) was probably not written with the intention of being racist/sexist. I imagine some Western-origin editors thought it would be a good way to keep people from writing articles on non-notable, probably small-time white male European soccer players. Yes, this means a lot of women and/or global south players aren't presumed notable. I do not think the solution should be to rewrite the SNGs for presumed notability, the solution should be to get rid of most of the SNGs and let every player be judged equally by the merits of the sources. For example, as was pointed out in the large sports notability SNG discussion about Olympians, there are many people who pass the threshold of the guideline even when there's next to nothing about them in sources. If the sources don't care, why should we? The basic litmus test for notability is significant coverage in RS. As far as Global South players go, my experience in writing about Central Africa is that the regional media cares a lot about football (many African news websites have dedicated sports tabs) and thus they write about the players who they actually do care about. As long as you know where to look, you can find sources on the actually notable Global South athletes. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And ultimately ... it might be heretical to say so here, where the term "systemic bias" is being thrown around like a self-evident evil, but I freely predict that a Wikipedia that is completely "balanced" would be something that almost everyone here would hate. As I suggested uptopic, "balance" means more than having a certain percentage of biographical articles about women. It would mean a certain percentage of non-gender articles. People would demand, reasonably enough, similar divvying up based on ethnicity, religion, language and nationality. One in five humans is Han Chinese; one in four professes Islam. Are we willing to see indefinite holds on biographical articles that feature neither until the percentages catch up? (Come to that, I wager the percentage of bios of United States residents is far, far higher than the 4% of the world's population the United States accounts for.) Ravenswing 08:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of our ADA marathon today

Ada Lovelace Day 2021

Big Tech's Big Tobacco moment. Despite the title, today's Axios podcast introduced by Niala Boodhoo includes comments by Roger Bamkin on today's 24-hour ADA marathon.--Ipigott (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to the special event: Ada Lovelace Day:24-Hour Global Edit-a-thon 12 October 2021
Women in Red (WiR) is celebrating Ada Lovelace Day—12 October—with a round-the-clock online edit-a-thon. Online events in Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Kenya and UK timezones, focused on the biographies of women in STEM, will offer inspiring presentations and extensive support, especially for new contributors creating their first articles about women. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly episode for Ada Lovelace Day at 1700 UTC

Join us for live editing Wikipedia Weekly videocast at 1pm EDT/5 pm UTC. Working with @Rosiestep @restlesscurator @SiobhanLeachman @WikiWomenInRed @Fuzheado on the Timeline of women in computing and more.

Hope you can join us, and feel free to ask questions/interact. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That group is requesting updates to Timeline of women in computing to bring it up-to-date. (2019, 2020) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WomenArtistUpdates: If they have any items they want to add to 2019, 2020 or 2021, I would be happy to assist them. (cc Fuzheado).--Ipigott (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New editors from Pakistan

Hello all, our new friends in Pakistan @Femonics: and their team, worked extremely hard on some new stub pages this evening. If people could support some polishing, that would be very much appreciated:

Thank you for all the support. We had so much fun and a wonderful learning experience Femonics (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Saxelby

Anne Saxelby, a noted figure in the American artisanal cheese movement, had her obit published in The NY Times today: [4] Any help with her article would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I started a tiny stub on her. Plenty of sources and would be a nice easy article to write. Someone may want to have a look! Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I considered making it and was concerned about the lack of sourcing outside NY city/state. Is there sourcing available from other areas or does it matter? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that anyone who gets a proper obituary in the NYT is going to be notable. The rest of the sourcing is pretty strong. There's also a WSJ article we could add that's mostly about her.[5] I'd definitely vote to keep even if the sourcing is NY-centric. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not a big cheese, but big in cheese. Ripe for expansion. Edwardx (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Despite multiple attempts to do so, WP:AUD has never been expanded to apply to people-- this means that within reason relatively local papers can contribute to GNG, and the NYT local obituaries definitely fall in that category. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Australians and New Zealanders active on women in religion

WATAC explores feminist activism in action, an article from CatholicOutlook, presents plans for covering more women on Wikipedia under the Australian Women in Religion Project with a Zoom session on 13 October. See also Kerrie Burn's video.--Ipigott (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evangeline St Claire

Perhaps impressively, we have articles on almost every woman mentioned in this Guardian article on overlooked women artists. The only one mentioned that we do not have an article for is Evangeline St Claire. If anyone can find good sourcing, ping me and I will make a stub. I looked around and could not find much. --- Possibly ☎ 15:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found this tiny, uninformative reference entry referring to "Marlor, Soc Indp Artists" - presumably some edition of OCLC 10996579? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: https://atelier17.christinaweyl.com/artist-biographies/evangeline-st-claire/ ? I'm not sure it adds up to notability. But if she was part of Atelier 17, as the Guardian piece says and that bio shows, why isn't she listed in the article? There are a lot of black-print (ie not even an optimistic red link!) women artists listed at Atelier 17: it may be that the website could help show that some are notable? PamD 15:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC) (@Possibly: forgot to ping you! PamD 15:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]
The Marlor ref seems to be Marlor, Clark S. (1984). The Society of Independent Artists : the exhibition record 1917-1944. Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes Press. ISBN 9780815550631. , which I've now added as "Further reading" to Society of Independent Artists: sounds useful for anyone researching in that kind of area. One of the several entries in Abe Books says "Gives the history of the Society, decade by decade, many appendices (officers, exhibitors, purchasers, by-laws, members, etc.), catalogs of exhibitons, and index of text. Almost 500 pages consist of the alphabetical listing of artists and their entries. " PamD 15:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That website is by art historian Christina Weyl, who also wrote this book about Atelier17: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300238501/women-atelier-17 So I'd imagine it would count as an RS, and if not, well we can always get ahold of the book and cite that. Gamaliel (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Possibly PamD and Gamaliel, In my opinion Weyl's online resource for the women of Atelier 17 is reliable. I've have been working on the Atelier 17 article since 2020. The source I used for the list of members was the catalogue for the 50th anniversary retrospective exhibition in 1977. There was never an "official" list, and this was the most reliable source I could find. An artist could be tangentially related to the atelier (use their equipment) and be considered a member. I have added a citation for Evangeline St Claire in that list, as she was not included in the 50th anniversary catalog. The reason I did not make optimistic redlinks for the members of the atelier is that I researched them (men and women) and I could not find enough reliable sources to create articles. Good luck with Evangeline! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red contest templates

Hello, is there a policy of this project to use the unused templates starting from 12108 to 12125 from the Unused Templates report? Asking to avoid any potential major disruption as part of my task force idea to deal with the backlog of unused templates as part of WikiProject Templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiCleanerMan. I can address one of them, 12125, ((Women in Red Women Writers header)): okay to delete. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WikiCleanerMan! I created 12108 through 12124. They are badges for the winners of our WiR Continental challenge. Most of the assigned badges are on the pages as the underlying code rather than as "templates". They seem to be appearing where the winners want to display them so I don't see any disruption caused by the templates deletion. Thank you for checking with us. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Myriam Sarachik

This article about a recently deceased physicist with a remarkable life story—her Jewish family fled Belgium during WWII and she eventually ended up in New York—could use some attention. Especially from people with physics knowledge (not me). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly, have people used She Thought It before for bios of women in science? (Bio of Sarachik is here). Apparently a publication of the University of Porto - see https://ilcml.com/. Cites sources, is bylined and dated, so I'd say it's reliable, but I've never heard of it before. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Female Entrepreneur Businesses

Hello:

I was wondering, is this project 100% focused on biographies, or do you also assist with/work on pages for women's businesses? Thank you! LeepKendall (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The project is not strictly limited to biographies. For example, Women's suffrage in New Jersey or Associação Feminina Portuguesa para a Paz are examples of non-biography articles that were part of recent Women in Red events. I'm not sure a company will be of much interest to the project just because there is a female CEO or founder, but you can always try and ask about the specific case. MarioGom (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LeepKendall: The project covers all aspects of women and their works. We certainly can help with women's businesses and related organizations. Are there any specific items you have in mind.--Ipigott (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:MarioGom and User:Ipigott for your responses. I have drafted an article for a business called VIDA https://shopvida.com/pages/our-story. I am in a COI relationship with the company and will declare such when I propose the article. I've only created one other new article Julie Lythcott-Haims. As recommended by volunteer editors at that time, I posted it to my sandbox and then invited editors for input. I will plan to do the same for VIDA/Umaimah Mendhro. Again, thank you for your responses. Best LeepKendall (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:Ipigott. I have a draft ready for review. Would it be best that I post it in my sandbox first and request input? Or shall I use the AFC tool with Women in Red coding? It would be helpful if it is not yet ready for 'primetime' to have some feedback as to why. Thank you in advance for your reply. Best LeepKendall (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LeepKendall: Sorry about the delay. I've been tied up for the last couple of days. I would suggest you first post your draft in your user space, using User:LeeKendall/article name. I might not have time to look at it for the next couple of days.--Ipigott (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much, User:Ipigott. I will get that in my draft space next week and tag you. I appreciate your time and don't expect an immediate response. When you have the time. Best LeepKendall (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for a separate notability guidelines for referees

Hi. I noticed that since that Wikipedia has a notability guideline policy for sports athletes, players and sometimes coaches to see whether or not they have passed that notability guidelines. However, I also noticed that sports referees, particularly association football (soccer) referees, most of them are prone to not meet notability guidelines. Here are my options:

1. The first primary option is to make a separate notability guideline for referees, umpires, match officials, etc, either within the sports notability guideline or a guideline for general match officials in professional general sports, along with football (soccer) referees.

2. The secondary option: is to make the similar guideline to the first option I have stated, but at least have notability guidelines for a how to meet the notability criteria with mostly a topic referring to football (soccer) referees, and/or with other match officials in other major sports.

3. The third option might be tricky to specifically describe but in a nutshell for describing the case: to include a notability guideline for referees for most particularly football (soccer) referees which includes the following categories:

A. Any referee, men and/or women who had officiated it summoned in a major international "senior" tournament such as the FIFA World Cup, the Olympics, the UEFA Euros, the AFC Asian Cup, the Copa America, the CONCACAF Gold Cup, the Africa Cup of Nations, and the OFC Nations Cup, along the UEFA and CONCACAF Nations League, plus the qualifiers, particularly with World Cup qualifiers, Euro qualifying, as they are supposedly deemed to have significant coverage, can be deemed to meet the criteria.

B: Concerning about notability guidelines for players and coaches within a fully professional club league, referees who have been summoned and officiated in a fully professional league such as the Premier League, LaLiga, Seria A, Ligue 1, Bundesliga, Major League Soccer, the Argentine Primera División, etc, or have officiated in their respective club tournament within a league, or a confederation based club tournament, such as the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Europa League, the Copa Libertadores, the Copa Sudamericana, and/or is listed in the FIFA International Referees list can be deemed to meet the criteria. Referees who officiated in a non-professional league are not deemed to be notable, unless they could have significant coverage as they have either been summoned or had officiated in a professional league, a major professional league tournament, or a confederation-based club tournament, or the “senior” international match, and is a listed international referee. Minor club and confederated-based tournament referees including friendlies, even in a senior international friendly match, unless they have meet the significant coverage or some other forms of general notability guidelines.

Continuing with the third option could add a few examples about female referees, which may not meet the criteria due many women’s league mot being fully professional. (It’s not gender-biased this way.) Having said that, if women referees didn’t have enough strength to meet the criteria, they may not be notable, unless they have summoned and officiated the major tournament, such as the FIFA Women’s World Cup, and the Olympics, . The only difference from men’s scenario is that the female referees who have officiated in a league, tournament, club tournament, or a confederated-based club and/or international tournament, may not be deemed to meet the criteria, unless a referee has been summoned and officiated in a FIFA tournament, or the Olympics, and is a listed international referee.

There are some cases that female referees (e.g Kateryna Monzul, and Stéphanie Frappart whom they had officiated in top senior men’s tournament, club and/or international) can meet the criteria. They can meet the criteria if they have officiated an international women’s tournament, summoned and officiated a professional men’s league with their respective football association, has significant coverage, and/or is a listed international referee.

As to referees in other major sports, I don’t know if they could have significant coverage to every sport, and I am aware that this suggestion of the new separate guideline could be controversial, but let’s just say it for the sake of the argument.

Any match official, or umpire who have have officiated in the finals of their respective international tournament, such as in tennis, the Grand Slam tournament, US Open, an IIHF World Cup finals, the IFBA World Cup finals included, and sports in any Olympic final can be deemed notable if they have officiated, has most of the significant coverage, and other methods that passed general notability guidelines.

Assistant referees in any sports are not deemed notable.

I know that I was suggesting a lot in this regard, but these are the conditions.

We can discuss further whether to add the new guideline in a separate article, within the article with athletes, or have any other discussion on how to implement that in many other ways. I am open to any discussion within this topic.

With that being said, please to hesitate to discuss either here, or leave a reply to my talk page.

Thank you, and have a nice day. Ivan Milenin (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wind is set against sports SNGs (special notability guidelines) in general, and I doubt any version of this will obtain general buy-in. Most referees only get sufficient coverage to meet the GNG when they make highly controversial decisions, or are notable for something else, so I think the SNG idea of presuming notability is inappropriate, except for extreme cases like the ref for the FIFA World Cup final. I don't see why we can't just use the normal GNG criteria. The numbers we already have in Category:Association football referees by nationality seem absurdly high to me - 187 English and 68 Scottish ones leap out. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone wants to merge an article?

For all I know this might have been created as part of WiR outreach anyway... Talk:Lesley Akyaa Opoku Ware Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Ipigott (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikidataCon 2021 - invitation to submit a proposal

Hi all. I'm writing to you as a co-curator of the 'Sister projects' track along with Susanna Ånäs for WikidataCon 2021, which will take place online on 29-31 October 2021. The conference website is at [6].

We would like to invite you to submit a session proposal to the track, specifically on how Women in Red uses Redlists from Wikidata to support new article creation here - but we are also open to proposals on related topics!

If you are interested, you can find information about how to submit a session proposal at [7], and you can access the submission form at [8]. Please submit a session proposal through the Pretalx process so that we can review and schedule it appropriately - and make sure to mark it as a 'Sister projects' track proposal. Please note that we cannot accept a session outside of the Pretalx process. We also encourage you to submit talks to other tracks if you are interested!

Note that the deadline for submitting proposals is the 20th October - sorry for the short notice! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Touchy subject, insofar as Listeria has been largely borked since March (iirc) as a result of which redlists are a mess. WD's policy of not providing tools, but leaving it to users to knit their own, means there's a single point of failure outwith any of our control. We could reflect on the period, now passed, when it worked smoothly, but we could not right now encourage others to adopt a broken tool. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tagishsimon: So you could talk about the importance of the redlists, and the issues that have been encountered when using them? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't, no. Others on here might be willing to. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Megalibrarygirl and Gamaliel: would you have time and inclination to develop a panel proposal and make the submission? I'd be glad to join you on a panel, and possibly others would, too, but not take the lead on this. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosiestep: Everything is so up in the air both at work (moving and reopening libraries) and my personal life, I hate to commit to anything and flake out. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear you are prepared to take part in the disucssion, Rosiestep, as you certainly have extensive experience in this connection. MarioGom may also have useful suggestions. Even if you are not willing to take part in a panel discussion, Tagishsimon, I think it would be useful if you could provide further details of the recent problems we have faced with the failure of Listeria to carry out regular updates on the longer lists. On the more positive side, I personally find our Wikidata redlists invaluable. Even in cases where there are no articles in other languages, I make frequent use of the listings from biographical dictionaries. These lead me not only to biographies but in many cases to additional sources, images, etc., while providing a basis for more traditional searches. I think the results of our meetups show that many of our contributors make good use of our Wikidata redlists. So there's quite a lot of positive experience to discuss, apart from all the frustrating problems we have faced. One interesting avenue to explore is how to extend them more easily to our multilingual environment, especially in connection with the major languages.--Ipigott (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be speaking at the event, but I can help with any technical question/input for prep, if needed. But maybe it might be more interesting for a wider audience to talk about the not-so-technical aspects? Redlist criteria that were particularly successful, nuances of listing criteria, notability caveats, etc.
About the ListeraBot breakage, I drafted a proposal for the upcoming Community Wish List: meta:Community_Wishlist_Survey/Sandbox#Fix_ListeriaBot_memory_issues. MarioGom (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that, MG. T'other issue, as you are probably well aware, but I'll surface here again, is that Listeria is not aliasing the article title of redlinks in the situation where the WD label of the item is the same as an existing WP article for another person. Previously it appended the QId to the redlink's article title. Now, redlists contain bluelinks, and woe &c. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to be part of a panel, particularly to discuss the Listeria Redlists vs Crowd-sourced lists vs off-wiki spreadsheets that I've seen favoured in some editathons, including Ada Lovelace Day. When refs are added to the Wikidata statements they can be used to defelop the new bio. And, also, the issue of having to merge duplicates on Wikidata, sometimes because of naming differences but often straight duplication. And the importance of assigning Sex/Gender to capture the gender % for the weekly statistics update. Don't know quite how to frame / finetune these ideas for a proposal though.--Oronsay (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's great news, Oronsay. I don't know to what extent our involvement should be associated with specific proposals but there has been a lot of interest in our redlists from other language versions of Wikipedia. I've been asked myself more than once to adapt our redlists for use by other language versions but my answer has usually been that the English versions probably contain most of the names which are not covered in other languages. Nevertheless, I'm sure there must be an easy way for those working on other language versions to adapt them to their own needs, perhaps through a simple tool. The main issue is nevertheless the Listeria updating problem which has existed for far too long. Hope you can put these points forward.--Ipigott (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have no ideas about how to convert our redlists for use by other language Wikis, but am definitely a fan of keeping info centralised in Wikidata. My foreign language skills are from 40+ years ago. I do understand the Listeria issues, and the failure to disambiguate in our redlists, which causes confusion. So my hand is now only semi-raised as I'm not sure I can contribute in the way that's wanted unless it's to ask the question "How can Women in Red's redlists be adapted for use by other language Wikipedias? and hope someone can come up with an answer.--Oronsay (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relatively little needs to be done to use EN Wiki WiR lists for another language wiki. The schema:isPartOf <https://en.wikipedia.org/> part of the ((Wikidata list)) sparql= query needs to be changed to point at the appropriate language wiki - e.g. schema:isPartOf <https://fr.wikipedia.org/> for the French wiki. Beyond that if header & footer templates are wanted, they'll need to written. Listeria will take care of language issues, and although many languages have few item descriptions on WD, Listeria's description fallback service (the parameter |autolist=fallback) should provide adequate descriptions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tagishsimon. So you have your answer there, Oronsay, and don't need to bother about it too much in the discussion. Maybe one of these days we should prepare a WiR page on Wikidata redlinks which could be used not only by our EN contributors but also by other language groups. Some of the procedures which seem simple to experts are not so easy for ordinary editors to implement. What do you think, Rosiestep?--Ipigott (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, I think it's always a good idea to create new, informational WiR pages! Oronsay, if you have time/inclination to submit a proposal for Wikidatacon, that would be great. As I mentioned earlier, I'd be glad to participate, but I can't take a lead. Does anyone else want to participate? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to participate and I'd usually be willing to be the organizer but I'm taking a breather from conference organizing this year. Gamaliel (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, thanks for discussing this. Just a reminder that the deadline is the end of today (20th). If a panel would be too much, a short presentation (25 minutes) or lightning talk (10 minutes) would also be great (and if several of you submit a presentation, we can schedule them back-to-back). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Registered for #WikidataCon? Please join us on day 2, Saturday, 30 October, 10:15pm UTC: Improving women’s biographies on Wikipedia using Wikidata tools - Experiences from WikiWomenInRed and the Smithsonian Institution. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep: Great to see that you got a presentation slot in the end, but also kinda sad that it wasn't in the sister projects track this morning! But it looks like that was mostly down to speaker availability? Hope it goes well, sorry I can't attend a talk that's so late in the European day! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mike Peel. We developed and branded our session as Sister Projects/GLAM Tracks as it is indeed a combo. As for placement on the schedule, I don't know who made that decision. I did work on the proposal but didn't make the submission. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment, Anne Wyllie

There is a request for comment on Anne Wyllie's talk page where discussion is centred around whether a list of selected publications is appropriate on a scientist's page. Would welcome other views. DrThneed (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chanel Contos

Saturday's New York Times carries a profile on Chanel Contos, an Australian student and sexual consent activist. She's become globally known in the past eight months, with a huge amount of coverage. I probably won't add much more to the above stub, so I encourage anyone here to dive in! Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 07:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite Dunlap

Hi all. I've just posted Marguerite Dunlap - I've been working with a relative of her off-wiki to find sufficient references to demonstrate notability, and I think it's finally ready for mainspace. Any input/edits that anyone here can make to the article would be appreciated (via the thanks button)! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milena Smit photo

I’ve tried to find an available photo of Milena Smit but I can’t seem to find one. Is there one out there? Thriley (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thriley: How about this?--Ipigott (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's the Slovenian ambassador to Brazil, also a Milena Smit. The one we want is an actress born October 5, 1996! She looks like this. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard it's possible to use stills clipped from YouTube although I'm not too sure about the copyright conditions. Someone might be able to advise whether any of these could be used.--Ipigott (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In general the thing to do is search YouTube using the Creative Commons license filter. However one still needs to be cautious as sometimes content is posted there with a CC license, but the uploader did not actually possess the rights to license the material freely. I worry that’s what happened in this clip, the only one I could find that included Smit. The broadcaster certainly has the right to license their own work, but they did not appear to do their own red carpet interviews (the microphone I could see said Lincoln Center), and I doubt very much that it was CC-licensed (or we’d see lots of clips using it.) In short, I came up empty-handed. Sorry about that! Innisfree987 (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all! I may try the screenshot method if nothing comes up soon. Thriley (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smithsonian event on women in aviation

Women Innovators in Aviation and Space is an on-line editathon to be presented by the Smithsonian on 28 October from 1 pm Eastern. It is apparently being held in connection with the WikiEdu project Wikipedia:GLAM/Smithsonian Institution/American Women's History Initiative (AWHI). I see that CarCai is preparing further details on Wikipedia:WikiProject Smithsonian AWHI/Meetup/Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon: Women Innovators in Aviation and Spaceflight. Anyone can follow the event on YouTube.--Ipigott (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A-Z of cricket

Hi. Latest female cricket bios include players from Argentina and Zimbabwe. Anesthesiologist and captain of the Argentine team Veronica Vasquez plays tomorrow in the Americas qualifier tournament in Mexico, after she made her international debut two years ago. Earlier in the month, the Irish cricket team toured Zimbabwe, prompting a raft of new Zimbabwean bios, including Chiedza Dhururu and Loryn Phiri. Zimbabwe's captain Mary-Anne Musonda made her one-day debut on the tour, scoring a century in her first match. Not to be out-done, Ireland's Amy Hunter also scored a century in the last match of the series, becoming the youngest cricketer (male or female) to score an international hundred in a one-day fixture. Enjoy. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metrics not updating

Our Metrics for October have not been updating since 12 October, now stuck at just 604 new articles. Does anyone know how to fix the problem or who we should alert?--Ipigott (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott It is probably a bot problem, see Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#General query for a technical explanation. I don't know who can fix it, unfortunately. TSventon (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. It's a problem with User:Reports bot which Harej has not been maintaining since 2016. Don't know if anyone is interested in investigating the problem, otherwise we'll probably have to give up on monthly metrics and rely instead on Humaniki. This might be a sensible solution as the statistical results should be more or less identical. The only problem is that we will no longer have a record of the titles of the biographies created day-by-day.--Ipigott (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if @MZMcBride and Legoktm:, who operate User:BernsteinBot, which as far as I know handles reports listed at Wikipedia:Database reports, might be able to help. The issue for WiR is as above; User:Reports bot produces / has stopped producing pages listing women biographies created in each month, based on wikidata items & article creation dates; updating on a daily basis, in the form listed in the right-side column of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics, such as Aug 2021 Sep 2021 Oct 2021, and drawing a graph as shown on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics. WiR could do with the bot task being adopted by new owners; no clue on source code for the current bot, so... --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tagishsimon: I would recommend you make a request at WP:Bot requests, I don't really have the capacity to take on new bot tasks right now. Legoktm (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about MarioGom who has been so helpful with many of our problems. Any chance of a quick fix?--Ipigott (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've also dropped a note on the talk page of The Earwig, who has helped in the past. iirc the two causes of dead metrics have been failure to send a valid user-agent string, something which absent a regression error was fixed long ago; and (I vaguely think) borked WD items. It's regrettable we don't know anything about our own metrics software - not sure I can point either at the source or the toolforge process :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The Earwig ftw. Metrics are back. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good news! Thanks for your assistance Tagishsimon.--Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Frankel

I recently created a draft for American author Rebecca Frankel. Any help would be appreciated! Thank you, Thriley (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting at AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhat Bashir

Hello all. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhat Bashir has been relisted for discussion and further comments would be appreciated. This is an article created as part of #AdaWiki24. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afd

Hi Folks!! This lady won a national award Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lethia Sherman Hankins. If anybody has any time, can these please take a look at it. scope_creepTalk 13:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperjanes, I am hoping you have time to look into the Black Archives collection on ProQuest. I don't have access. I find nothing in Newspapers.com or Newspaperarchive.com, but that isn't unusual, given her era. SusunW (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW, regretfully I struck out there. Did find (and add) one interesting note from the main ProQuest database about her personal effects being acquired by the permanent collection of the Cape Fear Museum. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another article about her award is indexed here if access to the periodical Southern Cities can be found. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey sorry for missing this, SusunW, but thanks for the ping ;) Thankfully, it looks like it all got sorted and the article was kept! - Whisperjanes (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still more Listeria woes…

I’m sure the answer is yes, but to confirm, is it a known issue that Listeria isn’t automatically updating even lists that aren’t too long for it to handle? In anticipation of next month’s Film + Stage editathon, I spent some time last night tidying and manually running the actresses by country Wikidata red lists, and most did run when prompted … so I’m not sure why they hadn’t done so in two months. Just add it to the list of problems? Innisfree987 (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we've characterised Listeria's capricious approach to updates; but I see the pattern you speak of - a couple of months of nothing, and when cornered, an update as if butter wouldn't melt in its mouth. It remains regrettable that there's a single maintainer for Listeria, who chooses at the moment not to comment on its issues; and that there's complete indifference on the part of WMF to the loss of a key tool. So it goes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might be the memory consumption problem (or it might not!). If that's the case, note that the issue is not really that the list is too long, some +2k items lists are just fine, but the content of the lists. If they happen to have links to a few entities (like countries) whose items contain many statements, it can trigger the issue even on smaller lists. Anyway, do you have an example of a list with these weird update frequencies? MarioGom (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
example, though it seems to hold good for most of the recent WiR updates done by ListeriaBot. The memory issue isn't a good explainer for the bot's decision to do no updates for a period, and then update when asked. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding country links was a good hint. I tried removing the birth and death places from the table in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Mathematicians and now I can get it to list all 1339 of them (as of now) when previously I had to artificially limit it to 500 to get it to run. The countries are mostly mentioned in the descriptions, and non-country birth and death places are not useful for this redlist, anyway. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup in the recent updates, those actress lists that ran on October 20 (but mostly hadn’t run since August) were ones I nudged (plus a few new lists). Meanwhile sorry for speaking imprecisely; I understand that for lists that won’t run even when nudged, it’s not strictly length, but various things that overload memory. But yeah, 90% of the ones I tried did run—they just hadn’t in two months. Curious. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope Gamaliel and Rosiestep have seen this in connection with the conference discussion.--Ipigott (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do plan on mentioning the technical issues we've been having, in about 15 minutes or so. Gamaliel (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major Montreal editathon on 23 October

This item in French and English on Cision announces a major event at Montreal's Palais des congrès on 23 October in connection with Canada's Women's History Month. Special attention will be given to Elise L'Heureux and Sally Elizabeth Wood. Details have been announced in French, stating that the event will run from 10 am to 5 pm Eastern in Room 720. The morning will cover Wikipedia training, the afternoon lectures. A free lunchbox will be offered to the first 20 to register.--Ipigott (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not WiR-specific, but poking around re these two photographers, I noted what seems like a rather gaping hole in our cultural coverage: photography in Canada. I may take a stab at it in the next while, but thought I'd flag in case anyone had the inclination. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AleatoryPonderings: I think it would be great if you could create a general article on Photography in Canada. A few years back, I wrote about Photography in Denmark and Photography in Luxembourg but there are still very few countries with such articles. I see however there's an article on Photography in the United States which may be helpful. Thanks btw for looking at Elise L'Heureux. Maybe today's meeting will reveal additional details. Let me know if I can be of any assistance in your coverage of Canada.--Ipigott (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have expanded versions of fr:Elise L'Heureux and fr:Sally Elizabeth Wood. Looks like the editathoners found some good new French sources for the former, and there's apparently an exhibit catalogue for the ongoing exhibit at the Brome Museum on Wood & Wheeler. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had already done more work on the EN versions of both of these and have today incorporated some of the useful additions from Lea-Kim. Perhaps she can tell us how to gain access to the resources which were to be made available during the editathon or pinpoint any other important photographes québécoises who should be covered on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AleatoryPonderings: After quite a bit of looking around, I think I have found the resource page for this event. It's here. As it has been updated by Natharchives who has also been active on the EN wiki, it might be useful to ask if there are any other women from Quebec who have been notable in photography. I see, for example, that our article on Geraldine Moodie has now been translated into French and that improvements have been made on the French version of Elsie Holloway. There is also a French article on the Montreal writer and photographer Louise Abbott. As we are interested in writing a general article on Photography in Canada, perhaps Natarchives could give us some guidance. It would also be interesting to hear how many attended the event on 23 October and whether any showed signs of wanting to contribute further to Wikipedia, either in French or English. (cc LuceMatrimoine)--Ipigott (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Photography in Canada now exists; I'll compile some refs in the next while and get some prose started pending offwiki commitments. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

I'm looking for a collaborator

I am attempting to revive an abandoned draft about Alison Kafer. She is an American academic who has written an influential book Feminist, Queer, Crip about the intersectionality of Feminist, Queer, and Disability Studies. She has also authored many other works on related topics. I'm looking for someone reasonably familiar with feminist and/or queer scholarship, as I'm quite comfortable dealing with disability topics but I'm out of my depth with the other two subject areas. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies as well? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dodger67, I popped my head in. It would be better if I had time to read the book (alas), but the amount of scholarly attention given to it sure seems sizeable, and she has a couple of edited collections as well (the book being a bigger deal than the journal issue but I noted both for good measure.) I’ve left a good number of citations if anyone wishes to follow the threads. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Innisfree987 Thanks for adding those sources, they seem eminently usable and I think they provide the necessary evidence of notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many new editors

I'm seeing a lot of edits today on WIR-related biographies by different new editors, with similar patterns of adding links: Ta1202 (talk · contribs), SoCerulean (talk · contribs), ‎Enegrini (talk · contribs), GoatHeard65 (talk · contribs), Itl259 (talk · contribs), and Afryedits (talk · contribs). Does anyone know of any editathons or classes this might have come from, or is it maybe some strange form of sockpuppetry? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern I see is edits to maths people articles. Editathon, today concentrating on the ((Cite)) templates. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein: See Enegrini here. Their edits certainly don't look to me like socks.--Ipigott (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And here's the invitation for the event. Detective work completed!--Ipigott (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tracking this down. Sockpuppet was much lower on my list of possibilities than edit-a-thon or class, which is why I was asking here rather than taking precipitate and WP:BITEy action. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main facilitator seems to be AlwaysInRed.--Ipigott (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The edits look pretty good, but people are always alert to unusual patterns of editing. It's a pity that the event organiser didn't find any guidance to read to suggest (a) encourage the new editors to create a minimal user page ("Hallo, I'm a Maths graduate student keen to contribute to Wikipedia" ), and (b) some sort of links to the editathon details ("This page was edited / This editor started editing as part of an editathon at Worcester Polytechnic Institute celebrating 50 years of the Association for Women in Mathematics.") Is there a page of guidance somewhere, I wonder? PamD 07:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, neither of those points seem to be included at Wikipedia:How_to_run_an_edit-a-thon. PamD 07:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:How_to_run_an_edit-a-thon#Identifying_editathon_participants_and_their_edits. But, yes, AlwaysInRed etc, well done, nice edits, and I hope this group of students finds time in between their studies to continue their excellent contributions to Wikipedia and that they encounter kindness and welcomes from editors along their way. PamD 08:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this connection, the brochure on "Editing Wikipedia" has a short section on User pages and Talk pages on Page 14. One of the disadvantages of using the dashboard approach rather than standard Wikipedia pages for editathons is that much of the information is not widely accessible. In WikiEdu events like this one, the participants form a closed circle; they know each other and their instructors and are not generally encouraged to look any further into Wikipedia resources. Nevertheless, the standard of early edits testifies to the effectiveness of the presentations and assistance offered.--Ipigott (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well; to be clear & in case there's any doubt: good job, AlwaysInRed / Elisa Negrini / whoever organised this. Thank you for putting together the event & for the constructive edits. Please don't take any of the above as criticism; just WiR chewing the cud. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am the lead-moderator and one of the organizers of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute Wikipedia Editing Community events; we are a group of editors on campus (students, faculty, and staff) who are organizing monthly editing meet-ups each with a different theme. We will continue using a dashboard to track our work under the WPI Campaign. Our hope is to train a few new editors each month and build a community of editors on campus. Our October event was centered around celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the Association for Women in Mathematics; our November event will be celebrating Native American Indian Heritage Month. Thank you for your useful suggestion regarding user pages! I will make sure to mention it to our new editors and will incorporate this step in my tutorial starting with our next event. Our community is small and many of our members are students getting started with editing, so we really appreciate the support of experienced editors. --AlwaysInRed (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, AlwaysInRed. So glad to meet you! I'm wondering if your community has a central page on Wikipedia which includes information about Worcester Polytechnic Institute Wikipedia Editing Community events (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject 1000 Women in Religion)? Something else to consider is a talkpage banner for articles created/improved during your events, e.g. ((WIR-209)). Just food for thought. Thanks for what you're doing and happy editing! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for responding so quickly, AlwaysInRed. You and your colleagues are doing a great job with the students at WIP. If any of them would like to continue editing, they can be sure of receiving support from Women in Red. I would personally be happy to mentor any who are interested in creating their own articles. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ipigott - that is a very generous offer. And thank you Rosiestep for the suggestions and example links, they are very useful. We do not have a central page on Wikipedia for our community at the moment, but this can definitely be something we work on if our group becomes a permanent thing like we hope. And I like the banner idea! It's something to look forward to adding when we create our first new page. --AlwaysInRed (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Hemings categories

Hi all! I wanted some help - I was working on an article for a controversial novel from a few years back about the Hemings/Jefferson controversy. I noticed that there was no category for Hemings herself, despite being mentioned in and the focus of several articles. I've fixed this with the category Category:Sally Hemings, but this still needs some work. Can anyone help ensure that everything looks OK and also help create any new subcategories as needed? At the moment I'm just sort of creating new ones as I go along. It would also be awesome if people could add this to articles (when appropriate, of course!) - I don't get as much time on Wikipedia currently, as my home computer no longer works, so I'm kind of limited on what I can do. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Kermit Roosevelt (journalist, lived 1927–2003)

Anyone want to tackle this? Edith Kermit Roosevelt was apparently a prolific and fairly renowned journalist who published in major outlets. Granddaughter of Teddy; daughter of Archibald Roosevelt. Problem is, she has the same (full) name as her First Lady grandmother, so searching is more difficult (plus the name on-wiki redirects to her grandmother, although it shouldn't in my opinion). But an article on her would be really helpful, in my opinion. So far I've found this: [9], [10]. Looks promising for anyone who has the time and interest. Thanks very much. Softlavender (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Started Edith Kermit Roosevelt (Q109292139) as a preliminary. Also known as Edith Kermit (Roosevelt) Barmine; was briefly married to Alexander Gregory Barmine. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about someone impossible to google! Even VIAF appears to confuse the two. Gamaliel (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Her daughter is Margot Roosevelt, and I've been poking around to see if Margot wrote anything about her mother, but unfortunately all I've been able to find is this terrible anecdote (warning: sexual harassment). Gamaliel (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've found best search tactic is "Edith Kermit Roosevelt, granddaughter" or "Edith Kermit Roosevelt, columnist" because otherwise you get things written by her, or things about her grandmother.[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17] there is also an image[18] which does not appear to have a copyright mark and has proof of publishing on the back, but someone would need to have the skill to remove the watermark or find another version of it and research the logs to be sure. SusunW (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Lee Maphis

American country singer Rose Lee Maphis has died. I created a brief stub for her. Any help would be appreciated! Thank you, Thriley (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have upgraded the refs, created a Maphis surname page, and raised her profile within her husband's article. PamD 08:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And found another ref with a lot of biog details. PamD 08:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And incoming redirects from versions of her name. PamD 08:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The photo used on this obit seems like it would be an excellent candidate for commons:Template:PD-US-no notice, but I can't track down an authoritative source. I tried searching the Country Music Hall of Fame archives to no avail. It's included in her NYT obit credited to Starday Records and described as an "undated publicity photo". Is there some central repository for publicity photos, maybe? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings I'm still looking, for the first one in that article. The 2nd one was published 15 December 1956. There does not appear to be a mark on the photograph showing copyright. Nor does the masthead indicate it was copyrighted. Weirdly, I scrolled through the paper twice and cannot find the typical publishing notice. Checking the periodical registrations for 1956, I find no registrations for Long Beach Press Telegram or any configuration of it, just searching Long Beach, Long Beach Press, Long Beach Telegram. Also find no registration for Schaeffer, which the Music Row piece indicates was the photographic studio. On it, you should be fine with PD no notice.
I found a 1953 photo p. 30 in The Cash Box. It was copyrighted, see p 3, which shows a registration number on p 210 of B450364. Renewals would have to have been filed in 28 years so if you go to LOC and search for cash box, put it in date order, and look for a number that starts with RE (for renewal) in 1977-1984 I find nothing. (The search may have expired but you can rerun it yourself.) Also find nothing for B450364 as a document number or registration number, so I think you are okay to use it as well, PD not renewed. You will need to put in all of the documentation to confirm the research on the copyright, like in this example. I'll look tomorrow again for the other one, as it is late here. SusunW (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's incredibly impressive research! I've been trying to track down "Schaeffer Studio" or "Schaeffer Hollywood", which is credited with this one, to no avail. There's an A. L. Schafer (one F) who did quite striking publicity stills for Hollywood stars, but his style is way more interesting than the two-F Schaeffer. I see three, more, pics (possibly four) by "Schaeffer Hollywood", but none with Maphises. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried as well and couldn't figure out who it might have been, but it isn't copyrighted, so I think you are good. You do need to list Schaeffer of Hollywood as the photographer/creator. I looked at the Library of Congress and found nada on the Cliff Riddle image. Checked ebay and while I didn't find your first photo, I did find this which tells me she wore her hair in that style in 1966. (If you find a publicity photo on ebay, you need front and back, as the copyright information is supposed to be stamped on the back.) If you want to use that first photo, you will need to figure out if it was a publicity photo (there's other rules for advertising) or published. 2 ways to do that, search newspapers for the photo (1964-1968, literally you just have to keep scrolling until you find an exact match) or write to Music Row or Robert K Oermann who wrote the article and ask him about the copyright status. I find that Riddle took lots of photos in the late 1960s-1970s, but cannot find anything specific about him either. He may hold a copyright if he is living. SusunW (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Straus

While working on women's nationality, I ran into Judith Todd and found a photo of her, but unfortunately while it is in the PD in New Zealand isn't in the US. While trying to find another image to use, I ran into a pioneering photojournalist Evelyn Straus/Evelyn P. Straus. She looks plenty notable to me, i.e. [19],[20][21],[22][23], and this which says she was 26 in 1942, i.e. born 1916 +/- and was from Nassau, NY. Family search shows 23 in 1940, which led me to born 22 June 1916/died 10 March 1992, which in turn led me to her obit. Anyone interested in making a start on her? (I'm trying to finish Malawi by the end of the month and don't think I have the time to do Straus.) I've asked GRuban to look over the photographs I found to see if we can use any of them for Todd or Straus. Thanks. SusunW (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Small Einstein Wright, American designer, author and business person

Hello Women in Red! I just created an article on the American designer, author and business person Mary Wright (1904-1952). She was an equal business partner with her husband, the American mid-century modernist industrial designer, Russel Wright (who was better known than her). I'm thinking of nominating it for DYK, however I'm not the greatest writer, and would deeply appreciate it if someone has the time to read through it and correct my grammar and awkward sentence structure. Thank you in advance for your interest and help! Netherzone (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, the article easily meets DYK criteria. I would suggest is that you add alt= descriptions to the photographs for those with visual limitations. It isn't required, but helpful. Thanks for the interesting article. SusunW (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SusunW that's a great idea, but I don't know what an alt=description is. A question for the group: Gerda suggested on my talk page that the article be named Mary Wright, since that is the name on the book cover; it is also how the sources refer to her. I chose to name the article with her full name because there are so many Mary Wrights on Wikipedia. Which is preferred by this group: Mary Wright (designer) or Mary Small Einstein Wright? Netherzone (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone, I'll do the infobox, as an example, and then you can add it to the other photos. Would that work. MOS says use common name (so Mary Wright (designer)) and add to the disambig page. SusunW (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SusunW thank you, I will follow your example for the photos. Would you happen to know if an administrator needs to change the article name, or is that something I can do myself? Netherzone (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone, You should just be able to "move" it. Let me know if you run into problems. I'm not an admin but can do it, I think. (Who knew? Me doing something technical.) SusunW (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The move went seamlessly and preserved the history! Article now renamed Mary Wright (designer). I'm not sure why my alt= caption for visually impaired users is not displaying the text. I will keep fiddling with it to see if I can make it work - the code is there in the book cover file, but it's not showing up on my screen for some reason. I'm following the instructions found here: MOS:ALT but seem to be doing something incorrectly. Netherzone (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! Netherzone I saw that you also added her to the disamb page too. I was told that alt text only displays when hovering over the image in the info box. For other images, it will appear if you have a "reader" program. I have to trust that is correct, as I don't know enough about coding to make a determination. Your descriptions look fine to me. (It isn't easy to describe an image, IMO, but that was what made me realize that it is probably useful to have a description if one cannot see it.) SusunW (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, and it's good to know about this feature. Netherzone (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photo for Nancy Cappello

Hi, everyone. I just finished making articles on breast cancer survivor Nancy Cappello and on the condition of dense breasts. I was rather surprised the latter wasn't made by some science-minded Wikipedian in the past, as it is mentioned across many articles. Anyways, it exists now. One problem I'm having is finding a photo to use for Cappello's article. As she died recently (2018) and so there's plenty of photos that exist, but all copyrighted as far as I can tell. Anyone have any suggestions? SilverserenC 23:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the period of time in which she lived, and the fact that she wasn't a celebrity, your best bet is probably going to be a "fair use" photo, which must be used at the top of the article for identification purposes. Figure out which one you want, upload it it here as a non-free image and insert a rationale like this one [24]. SusunW (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Silver seren there are certain requirements (like size of images, etc) when uploading fair use images otherwise it will be taken down, more info here: Wikipedia:Non-free content. All best, Netherzone (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Dobs article - help would be appreciated

I'd appreciate help with Draft:Adrian_Sandra_Dobs - given the endocrinology initiative and seeing her red link - I started the with intent to hand off (I have COI) but thought it would help to just get it started. — soupvector (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article back to mainspace as Adrian Sandra Dobs b/c notable, well-formed, neutral & enough refs. That's not to say the article does not deserve more work. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Bart

An obit for Pauline Bart just appeared in the NYT. I am sure she's notable but none of the standard criteria seem to apply: WP:NPROF seems like the best fit, but she wasn't a named chair, her sole-authored papers aren't that widely cited, and most of her books are co-authored. WP:NAUTHOR is a little sketchy for the same reason. WP:BASIC might work if more obits appear, but I'm concerned that this will be taken to AfD if I create it right now. Pauline Bart (Q109327850) might be useful for anyone interested in pursuing this.

Plenty of news coverage through The Wikipedia Library. Here's some I clipped.
Rape expert studies best defenses
UIC firing feminist over discrimination
Study says women who fight more likely to avoid a rape
Letter Very Heartwarming
Bart's Topic: Women's Health
I hope that helps. SilverserenC 22:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories