![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
I'm starting to think about my speech at Wikimania this year and I want to focus on the issues around gender representation in Wikipedia. I have as an idea for a sort of case study the term " socialite" (see also Category:Socialites).
Kardashian, a disambiguation page for the famous family, neatly sums up what I'm thinking about. The father, a famous attorney and businessman, is called that, and properly so. Of the children, 3 of them - the daughters, are called 'socialite'. The son, Rob, who as far as I can tell "spends a significant amount of time attending various fashionable social gatherings" (the key phrase from our definition of the term) as much as his sisters do, is not called 'socialite'.
If this were an isolated case, I'd just move on. But I started researching how we use the term, and I'm not at all happy with what I found. While the Kardashian family is actually a very good example of "socialites" (were it to be applied in a gender neutral way) I suppose, I think it is far more often used (by the tabloid media and non-serious media in general) as a subtle "put down" for women who are successful in their own right but who also attend fashionable events and come from famous families.
It is seldom used for men, regardless of their social life. (I did a spreadsheet and looked at about 30 examples from our category, just to confirm the pattern.)
My current view is that this is an old fashioned term which might properly be applied only to members of aristocracy in the distant path who didn't have any other career or accomplishments other than being prominent by virtue of their social standing, hosting parties, and so on. Even in this case, I would personally cast a critical eye on older sources which may have used the term as a way to "pooh pooh" the independent accomplishments of women of high social standing through birth or marriage. I hasten to point out that we need not slavishly follow the particular language of older sources - we don't call Martin Luther King, Jr. a "negro" even though contemporary media about him back in the day of course used the term extensively.
I'm actually not here with a particular proposal, and I don't even know if I'm in the right place. I just wanted to think about this with people who may also be concerned about this kind of issue.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
This does seem to be a heavily gendered term. When a man is mostly known for his socializing he's more likely to be called an epicure, courtier, and bon-vivant, or some such. But I think "socialite" has more than one meaning. Beyond the "aristocracy" or "famous for being famous" people we seem to be mostly talking about, it has also been applied to quite a few 19th- and early 20th-century American women who were prominent in the social clubs of their locale, because that was the only thing most women of those times and places were allowed to do. For these women, I think it acts more to describe how they made the most of the opportunities they had, than to be dismissive of their other accomplishments. On the other hand, it can be a danger sign for the article. Many Wikipedia editors tend to believe that being prominent in women's social clubs is not a thing one should be notable for, and so apply strict standards for what level of coverage is needed to have articles on such people. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isophene Goodin Bailhache for a recent example of an article that was deleted for this reason. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm very glad to see you here, @ Jimmy, and addressing this topic. I tend to write about pre-XX-c women. As others have mentioned, and you might inherently know, the opportunities for women in terms of education, occupation, and profession were limited in that time. What was possible for some women was to develop a circle of friends and acquaintances who would meet and discuss topics of interest to them, the "salon". The salonist would have had to have financial means, e.g. an appropriate home to host such gatherings. How many of these circles, large or small, existed we will never know as the greatest triumph of a salonist was to make it into the "history books". Some did so in their own right, while others did because they were a daughter or wife of someone who was "notable". From her wiki article, we know that the salonist Germaine de Staël (1766–1817) began attending salons as a child, sitting at her mother's feet. Apparently involved in some scandals, I think she would have been characterized as a "socialite" or "celebrity" if the term were in vogue in her day. Germaine's mother, Suzanne Curchod (1737–1794), held various salons, the first being a literary group. Mother and daughter were both writers. And not just writers, but women writers who were published, no small feat in their day. How many women were published in the pre-XX-c era, we will never know. This is because many of them took on a gender-neutral pen name in order to get published. Take, for example, Eunice Eloisae Gibbs Allyn (1847-1916). She wanted to become a teacher, but her mother opposed this, instead, wanting the daughter to "enter society". Acquiescing to her mother's wishes, Eunice did not become a teacher. Instead, she started writing. But as her brother didn't want a member of the family to be known as a " Bluestocking", Eunice had to take on a pen name in order to get published. She went on to become a part of the Dubuque Ladies' Literary Union, and eventually published using her real name. Mark Twain had a copy of her book, The Cats’ Convention on his bookshelf. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 18:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Adam Cuerden: You wrote: " I think the term may be alright as a catch-all for historical women who both fit into the category and don't have another, more specific classification"...I think that's a fair point. "Socialite" is very much an outdated term to me, nowadays - I'd never think of calling anyone contemporary by that term. I tend to think of it as referring to a particular kind of person, in a particular kind of role, at a particular time. Which indicates to me that maybe there are instances when people are classified as such and it's not the most useful category. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 18:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm finding this discussion fascinating. I think we've identified several categories of people who are called socialite in Wikipedia and I think we should address them separately as the solution to the issue may be different in different cases.
My concern is basically that the term is generally perceived to be negative, at least in contemporary usage. If a woman is socially prominent and successful in her own right it seems clear to me that it is dismissive of her accomplishments to call her a 'socialite'. This most often happens for children of wealthy or famous parents. Let me give an example: Jade Jagger is professionally a Jewellery designer but she isn't in that category although she is in the category British socialites. Zero of the sources for the article call her a 'socialite' - please don't view this as an invitation to go find some because they surely do exist, quite possibly as a result of what Wikipedia says! (COI notice: she's a neighbor who I know).
This is a very different category from the (rather rare, I think?) people who have made a career of "being famous for being famous" - the Kardashians are the most familiar example.
And this is still different from historical examples of women who are notable for holding political/intellectual salons back in a time when most professions were denied to them. And that's different from courtiers, which really implies visiting a royal court I think. And that's also different from women who are notable for purely being socially influential without an intellectual/political salon component, etc.
I think some of these uses are wrong and some of them might not be. I'm still reflecting on it.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 10:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
This has got me thinking about another type of present-day "socialite": social media influencers. I'm a fan and follower of The Bachelor and its spin-offs. Several of the contestants have gone on to become "social media influencers", [3] and are actually making a living off of it. [4] For the moment, there's no Wikidata item for "social media influencer" and no Wikipedia article (there's a redirect). There was also no category for it, so I created Category:Social media influencers and populated it with some of the articles (mostly people, but also a dog) that contained the phrase "social media influencer". -- Rosiestep ( talk) 20:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
...Would you believe that there isn't a single image in the article on Susan B. Anthony of any real quality? The lead image is a mediocre reproduction of an engraving. There's an awkwardly composed shot of her and Elizabeth Cady Stanton (which would be fine if this didn't exist). It uses a rather good, but nonetheless drawn image of Stanton, and the other two images are mediocre, even if I'd keep one. The best thing in the article is a coin.
So, let's fix this, shall we? Here's some proposals, tell me what you think:
...For such a prominent leader in American suffrage, I think this will greatly help. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 21:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I happened upon this article on actress Frances Lee McCain while performing other tasks. It has no reliable sources. It's only source is IMDb. I tried finding sources, but only found one that I am not sure about, a wiki, here: [5]. This is not an area in which I usually work. I actually tried doing a couple actor articles a year ago, and had trouble finding reliable sources at that time. Anyway, please help me decide if this article needs rescued or put out of its misery. And then, naturally, help me with the resolution? I will work on it if we can find sources or if it goes to AfD, then I just need some "Support". Thanks...
Do we have Wikidata-generated redlist for African diaspora (Q385967) to include Black British (Q3244280), African American (Q49085), and all the other nationalities from Category:People of African descent. If not, would it make sense to create? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
One clearly visible factor that has contributed to the success of the wir movement on Wikipedia is the number of dedicated volunteers that coordinate activities for the movement. I'm inclined to think there are other less-obvious factors that has aided the engagement of many Wikipedians to this WikiProjects. I might be wrong, but the oldest memory I have on how I became a member of this WikiProject was through Dr. Blofeld's Africa Destubaton contest, which I think contributed to popularizing wir within the wiki community. As a volunteer, who will like to see a similar level of diligence among members of WikiProject Nigeria, it'd be nice if anyone can share tips on what he/she thinks can be done to see this modelling structure replicated in other WikiProjects.
Even though the scope of WikiProject Nigeria is less generic to what wir offers, I want it to be an active on-wiki community where alarm can be raised on articles that needs improvement or monitoring, and a good-faith policy-oriented response will be duly provided. Regards. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 09:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, This year we are adding a wikipedian and gender gap contest to the Wiki Loves Love contest on Commons. I hope our project will participate, the idea is to add content related to ceremonies, festival and testimonies of love on Wikipedia. We have set up a list of articles to work on which also tackle themes of gay weddings (also the laws relating to it), and alternatives like free union, polyamor, bride buring, children marriages, bride abduction. You can have a look here (we have placed the project on Meta to allow multilanguage participation). You can participate as a project or as individual contributors. The main project page is here : Wiki Loves Love on wikipedia 2019. I hope that you will participate! Nattes à chat ( talk) 17:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I have just given Australian journalist Kate McClymont a tickle and removed the stub template. It will need a proof read. I'm looking forward to seeing any improvements an interested editor can make. 8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 01:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I created a stub-class article for Oumou Armand Diarra and I got a warning popup about self-publishing. Her book was published by Xlibris, but she had other articles as well. Is this going to be deleted? Thanks, Natalie Bueno Vásqueƶ 20:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalie Bueno Vasquez ( talk • contribs)
Just created a stub this can be expended. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 04:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Would anybody here be interested to help expand this article, Renu Malhotra, about a planetary scientist? Jehochman Talk 15:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I've set a personal goal for this year to do substantial work on at least one article of a woman scientist every month. For my first effort – I've not done too much writing on Wikipedia before – I've expanded Ruby Payne-Scott a good deal and would love copyedits, suggestions, thoughts, anything. Thanks! ␄ – Nucleosynth ( t c) 00:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I've created this header to tie these three posts together. In light of the attention that the world is paying this year to "International Day of Women and Girls in Science", I think it would make sense for us to make Science an annual February event. I know that Ada Lovelace Day in October is also celebrated, which might mean Science and/or STEM twice/year, but why not? -- Rosiestep ( talk)
Also, see this regarding a Women + STEM event happening now at University of Leicester where an editor has encountered trouble while assisting newbies. Don't know if there's a meetup page? cc: Victuallers -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
In connection with the International Day of Women and Girls in Science on 11 February, the University of Toronto has been encouraging coverage of Canadian women scientists and individuals belonging to marginalized groups. Their Wikipedian in residence, Alex Jung has been helping out. (cc: Soulsinsync)-- Ipigott ( talk) 11:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Victuallers, for the notification regarding The Royal Society spotlighting Women in Red on Twitter. Awesome, in deed! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Cool article by Jesswade88 published 3 hours ago in The Independent: "This is why I’ve written 500 biographies of female scientists on Wikipedia". -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Published today by Nick Douglas at Lifehacker, a new article about Women in Red: "Read New Wikipedia Entries About Women With 'Women in Red'". It links to an article, "From Chinese spies to award-winning geologists, we’re making women visible on Wikipedia", published January 8th by New Statesman, which mentions Women in Red in the context of the fantastic work being done by Jesswade88 (450 new biographies on Wikipedia in the past 12 months) and the honor she's received for it, being named by Nature as one of ten people who mattered in 2018. Congratulations, all! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Hey, sorry, I've been travelling, so I sort of lost track of this. The Press page is its own subpage of WiR; while it's currently transcluded on the about us page, you can also transclude it on the main wikiproject page just as easily. Basically just open the relevant section on the about us to see how it's done if you're unfamiliar (and remove it there if you want), and you should be good to (re)use it wherever (which I think was the point having it as a subpage, so you could use it multiple places, but if not there's also ye old subst: and redirect to section just get rid of the subpage outright). Does that help, or did I totally miss what you were after again? -— Isarra ༆ 11:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
This is missing nearly all 2017 elections and all 2018, so about 20 women in total. They can easily be picked up from List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 2018 and 2017. They should (almost) all have photos in the equivalent Commons cat - some don't seem to be in the articles. Then 2019 will be announced in a couple of months, though the official photos take a while to come through (they are only taken at the ceremony, a while later). It would be great if someone could take this page on - the list templates are pretty fiddly at first, but it is an important page, with nearly 8,000 views last year. It's pretty mechanical updating the list. Johnbod ( talk) 18:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
![]()
![]() ![]() ![]() Please join us for these virtual events:
| ||
|
In today's Washington Post, by Monica Hesse. Nice piece - I think it gets a lot of what we're trying to do better than a lot of other news pieces I've read. It also ran in print today - I've already had someone alert me to it. :-)
I mean, it's not perfect...I'd like to know more about this excerpt:
One of Oba’s colleagues, Ilana Ross, who spearheaded the company’s Wikipedia project, told me the group had tried to submit a Wikipedia article on the New Zealand writer Alison Waley, but it was rejected. She showed me a screenshot of the rejection. Perhaps, it posited, Waley could just be part of her husband’s Wikipedia article instead?
Specifically where that suggestion was coming from. (I have my suspicions.)
I'm going to try and shoot her an e-mail today about this. May be tricky, given I have meetings all day. But as the Post is my hometown paper I feel that a comment or two may not go amiss. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 15:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
up 3 percent from a few years ago, according to the Wikimedia Foundation, not that it is up from 3 percent. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The article in Washington Post made me also look at Draft:Alison Waley by User:Ehsehsehs623 and the references. I added many more references and created Alison Waley (Q61768107). It looks like there is a general lack of information about Alison Waley other than a footnote here and there or someone mentioning her in passing. Also it does not help that she was known under great many names. I think we should figure out few more facts about her:
It would be great if others help with some of the loose ends. -- Jarekt ( talk) 15:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello all! Based on the images that Rosiestep uploaded to #1day1woman 2019, I created a redlist based entirely on images. I think it might be a fun way to choose a new biography. Sometimes I pick a person to write about because they look interesting. Here is the redlist which I'm going to alphabetize and add more to. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 21:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering why the articles at the monthly editathons are not included in the metrics count, even though they are tagged on the talk page as being part of WIR. An example is Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/January 2019 in comparison to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/105. I believe that are under the monthly editahons and #1day1women are not being counted. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 01:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I think, fwiw, that the true percentage of female biogs is between 17.64 & 17.67, after spending a day digging around items with no properties. Whether WHGI drops to that level remains to be seen - depends on how quickly statements are added to the blank items. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 23:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I added a column to this project to show which profiles are missing. Please have a look and maybe we can help each other's projects. Wikipedia:MacTutor archive-- Akrasia25 ( talk) 16:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I added Moldovan and Cofman to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Mathematics — probably both are notable. Shapley [15] [16] and Hellman are probably both also notable, but as an astronomer and historian of astronomy respectively, rather than as mathematicians — do we have project members who cover that topic? Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Astronomy doesn't exist. Boyle [17] and Simpson, to me, look non-notable despite having some coverage on the MacTutor site: their MacTutor articles, if translated to Wikipedia articles, would be worthy of A7 speedy deletion, as they make no claim of significance or importance for their subjects. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
I'm starting to think about my speech at Wikimania this year and I want to focus on the issues around gender representation in Wikipedia. I have as an idea for a sort of case study the term " socialite" (see also Category:Socialites).
Kardashian, a disambiguation page for the famous family, neatly sums up what I'm thinking about. The father, a famous attorney and businessman, is called that, and properly so. Of the children, 3 of them - the daughters, are called 'socialite'. The son, Rob, who as far as I can tell "spends a significant amount of time attending various fashionable social gatherings" (the key phrase from our definition of the term) as much as his sisters do, is not called 'socialite'.
If this were an isolated case, I'd just move on. But I started researching how we use the term, and I'm not at all happy with what I found. While the Kardashian family is actually a very good example of "socialites" (were it to be applied in a gender neutral way) I suppose, I think it is far more often used (by the tabloid media and non-serious media in general) as a subtle "put down" for women who are successful in their own right but who also attend fashionable events and come from famous families.
It is seldom used for men, regardless of their social life. (I did a spreadsheet and looked at about 30 examples from our category, just to confirm the pattern.)
My current view is that this is an old fashioned term which might properly be applied only to members of aristocracy in the distant path who didn't have any other career or accomplishments other than being prominent by virtue of their social standing, hosting parties, and so on. Even in this case, I would personally cast a critical eye on older sources which may have used the term as a way to "pooh pooh" the independent accomplishments of women of high social standing through birth or marriage. I hasten to point out that we need not slavishly follow the particular language of older sources - we don't call Martin Luther King, Jr. a "negro" even though contemporary media about him back in the day of course used the term extensively.
I'm actually not here with a particular proposal, and I don't even know if I'm in the right place. I just wanted to think about this with people who may also be concerned about this kind of issue.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
This does seem to be a heavily gendered term. When a man is mostly known for his socializing he's more likely to be called an epicure, courtier, and bon-vivant, or some such. But I think "socialite" has more than one meaning. Beyond the "aristocracy" or "famous for being famous" people we seem to be mostly talking about, it has also been applied to quite a few 19th- and early 20th-century American women who were prominent in the social clubs of their locale, because that was the only thing most women of those times and places were allowed to do. For these women, I think it acts more to describe how they made the most of the opportunities they had, than to be dismissive of their other accomplishments. On the other hand, it can be a danger sign for the article. Many Wikipedia editors tend to believe that being prominent in women's social clubs is not a thing one should be notable for, and so apply strict standards for what level of coverage is needed to have articles on such people. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isophene Goodin Bailhache for a recent example of an article that was deleted for this reason. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm very glad to see you here, @ Jimmy, and addressing this topic. I tend to write about pre-XX-c women. As others have mentioned, and you might inherently know, the opportunities for women in terms of education, occupation, and profession were limited in that time. What was possible for some women was to develop a circle of friends and acquaintances who would meet and discuss topics of interest to them, the "salon". The salonist would have had to have financial means, e.g. an appropriate home to host such gatherings. How many of these circles, large or small, existed we will never know as the greatest triumph of a salonist was to make it into the "history books". Some did so in their own right, while others did because they were a daughter or wife of someone who was "notable". From her wiki article, we know that the salonist Germaine de Staël (1766–1817) began attending salons as a child, sitting at her mother's feet. Apparently involved in some scandals, I think she would have been characterized as a "socialite" or "celebrity" if the term were in vogue in her day. Germaine's mother, Suzanne Curchod (1737–1794), held various salons, the first being a literary group. Mother and daughter were both writers. And not just writers, but women writers who were published, no small feat in their day. How many women were published in the pre-XX-c era, we will never know. This is because many of them took on a gender-neutral pen name in order to get published. Take, for example, Eunice Eloisae Gibbs Allyn (1847-1916). She wanted to become a teacher, but her mother opposed this, instead, wanting the daughter to "enter society". Acquiescing to her mother's wishes, Eunice did not become a teacher. Instead, she started writing. But as her brother didn't want a member of the family to be known as a " Bluestocking", Eunice had to take on a pen name in order to get published. She went on to become a part of the Dubuque Ladies' Literary Union, and eventually published using her real name. Mark Twain had a copy of her book, The Cats’ Convention on his bookshelf. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 18:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Adam Cuerden: You wrote: " I think the term may be alright as a catch-all for historical women who both fit into the category and don't have another, more specific classification"...I think that's a fair point. "Socialite" is very much an outdated term to me, nowadays - I'd never think of calling anyone contemporary by that term. I tend to think of it as referring to a particular kind of person, in a particular kind of role, at a particular time. Which indicates to me that maybe there are instances when people are classified as such and it's not the most useful category. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 18:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm finding this discussion fascinating. I think we've identified several categories of people who are called socialite in Wikipedia and I think we should address them separately as the solution to the issue may be different in different cases.
My concern is basically that the term is generally perceived to be negative, at least in contemporary usage. If a woman is socially prominent and successful in her own right it seems clear to me that it is dismissive of her accomplishments to call her a 'socialite'. This most often happens for children of wealthy or famous parents. Let me give an example: Jade Jagger is professionally a Jewellery designer but she isn't in that category although she is in the category British socialites. Zero of the sources for the article call her a 'socialite' - please don't view this as an invitation to go find some because they surely do exist, quite possibly as a result of what Wikipedia says! (COI notice: she's a neighbor who I know).
This is a very different category from the (rather rare, I think?) people who have made a career of "being famous for being famous" - the Kardashians are the most familiar example.
And this is still different from historical examples of women who are notable for holding political/intellectual salons back in a time when most professions were denied to them. And that's different from courtiers, which really implies visiting a royal court I think. And that's also different from women who are notable for purely being socially influential without an intellectual/political salon component, etc.
I think some of these uses are wrong and some of them might not be. I'm still reflecting on it.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 10:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
This has got me thinking about another type of present-day "socialite": social media influencers. I'm a fan and follower of The Bachelor and its spin-offs. Several of the contestants have gone on to become "social media influencers", [3] and are actually making a living off of it. [4] For the moment, there's no Wikidata item for "social media influencer" and no Wikipedia article (there's a redirect). There was also no category for it, so I created Category:Social media influencers and populated it with some of the articles (mostly people, but also a dog) that contained the phrase "social media influencer". -- Rosiestep ( talk) 20:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
...Would you believe that there isn't a single image in the article on Susan B. Anthony of any real quality? The lead image is a mediocre reproduction of an engraving. There's an awkwardly composed shot of her and Elizabeth Cady Stanton (which would be fine if this didn't exist). It uses a rather good, but nonetheless drawn image of Stanton, and the other two images are mediocre, even if I'd keep one. The best thing in the article is a coin.
So, let's fix this, shall we? Here's some proposals, tell me what you think:
...For such a prominent leader in American suffrage, I think this will greatly help. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 21:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I happened upon this article on actress Frances Lee McCain while performing other tasks. It has no reliable sources. It's only source is IMDb. I tried finding sources, but only found one that I am not sure about, a wiki, here: [5]. This is not an area in which I usually work. I actually tried doing a couple actor articles a year ago, and had trouble finding reliable sources at that time. Anyway, please help me decide if this article needs rescued or put out of its misery. And then, naturally, help me with the resolution? I will work on it if we can find sources or if it goes to AfD, then I just need some "Support". Thanks...
Do we have Wikidata-generated redlist for African diaspora (Q385967) to include Black British (Q3244280), African American (Q49085), and all the other nationalities from Category:People of African descent. If not, would it make sense to create? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
One clearly visible factor that has contributed to the success of the wir movement on Wikipedia is the number of dedicated volunteers that coordinate activities for the movement. I'm inclined to think there are other less-obvious factors that has aided the engagement of many Wikipedians to this WikiProjects. I might be wrong, but the oldest memory I have on how I became a member of this WikiProject was through Dr. Blofeld's Africa Destubaton contest, which I think contributed to popularizing wir within the wiki community. As a volunteer, who will like to see a similar level of diligence among members of WikiProject Nigeria, it'd be nice if anyone can share tips on what he/she thinks can be done to see this modelling structure replicated in other WikiProjects.
Even though the scope of WikiProject Nigeria is less generic to what wir offers, I want it to be an active on-wiki community where alarm can be raised on articles that needs improvement or monitoring, and a good-faith policy-oriented response will be duly provided. Regards. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 09:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, This year we are adding a wikipedian and gender gap contest to the Wiki Loves Love contest on Commons. I hope our project will participate, the idea is to add content related to ceremonies, festival and testimonies of love on Wikipedia. We have set up a list of articles to work on which also tackle themes of gay weddings (also the laws relating to it), and alternatives like free union, polyamor, bride buring, children marriages, bride abduction. You can have a look here (we have placed the project on Meta to allow multilanguage participation). You can participate as a project or as individual contributors. The main project page is here : Wiki Loves Love on wikipedia 2019. I hope that you will participate! Nattes à chat ( talk) 17:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I have just given Australian journalist Kate McClymont a tickle and removed the stub template. It will need a proof read. I'm looking forward to seeing any improvements an interested editor can make. 8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 01:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I created a stub-class article for Oumou Armand Diarra and I got a warning popup about self-publishing. Her book was published by Xlibris, but she had other articles as well. Is this going to be deleted? Thanks, Natalie Bueno Vásqueƶ 20:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalie Bueno Vasquez ( talk • contribs)
Just created a stub this can be expended. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 04:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Would anybody here be interested to help expand this article, Renu Malhotra, about a planetary scientist? Jehochman Talk 15:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I've set a personal goal for this year to do substantial work on at least one article of a woman scientist every month. For my first effort – I've not done too much writing on Wikipedia before – I've expanded Ruby Payne-Scott a good deal and would love copyedits, suggestions, thoughts, anything. Thanks! ␄ – Nucleosynth ( t c) 00:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I've created this header to tie these three posts together. In light of the attention that the world is paying this year to "International Day of Women and Girls in Science", I think it would make sense for us to make Science an annual February event. I know that Ada Lovelace Day in October is also celebrated, which might mean Science and/or STEM twice/year, but why not? -- Rosiestep ( talk)
Also, see this regarding a Women + STEM event happening now at University of Leicester where an editor has encountered trouble while assisting newbies. Don't know if there's a meetup page? cc: Victuallers -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
In connection with the International Day of Women and Girls in Science on 11 February, the University of Toronto has been encouraging coverage of Canadian women scientists and individuals belonging to marginalized groups. Their Wikipedian in residence, Alex Jung has been helping out. (cc: Soulsinsync)-- Ipigott ( talk) 11:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Victuallers, for the notification regarding The Royal Society spotlighting Women in Red on Twitter. Awesome, in deed! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Cool article by Jesswade88 published 3 hours ago in The Independent: "This is why I’ve written 500 biographies of female scientists on Wikipedia". -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Published today by Nick Douglas at Lifehacker, a new article about Women in Red: "Read New Wikipedia Entries About Women With 'Women in Red'". It links to an article, "From Chinese spies to award-winning geologists, we’re making women visible on Wikipedia", published January 8th by New Statesman, which mentions Women in Red in the context of the fantastic work being done by Jesswade88 (450 new biographies on Wikipedia in the past 12 months) and the honor she's received for it, being named by Nature as one of ten people who mattered in 2018. Congratulations, all! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Hey, sorry, I've been travelling, so I sort of lost track of this. The Press page is its own subpage of WiR; while it's currently transcluded on the about us page, you can also transclude it on the main wikiproject page just as easily. Basically just open the relevant section on the about us to see how it's done if you're unfamiliar (and remove it there if you want), and you should be good to (re)use it wherever (which I think was the point having it as a subpage, so you could use it multiple places, but if not there's also ye old subst: and redirect to section just get rid of the subpage outright). Does that help, or did I totally miss what you were after again? -— Isarra ༆ 11:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
This is missing nearly all 2017 elections and all 2018, so about 20 women in total. They can easily be picked up from List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 2018 and 2017. They should (almost) all have photos in the equivalent Commons cat - some don't seem to be in the articles. Then 2019 will be announced in a couple of months, though the official photos take a while to come through (they are only taken at the ceremony, a while later). It would be great if someone could take this page on - the list templates are pretty fiddly at first, but it is an important page, with nearly 8,000 views last year. It's pretty mechanical updating the list. Johnbod ( talk) 18:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
![]()
![]() ![]() ![]() Please join us for these virtual events:
| ||
|
In today's Washington Post, by Monica Hesse. Nice piece - I think it gets a lot of what we're trying to do better than a lot of other news pieces I've read. It also ran in print today - I've already had someone alert me to it. :-)
I mean, it's not perfect...I'd like to know more about this excerpt:
One of Oba’s colleagues, Ilana Ross, who spearheaded the company’s Wikipedia project, told me the group had tried to submit a Wikipedia article on the New Zealand writer Alison Waley, but it was rejected. She showed me a screenshot of the rejection. Perhaps, it posited, Waley could just be part of her husband’s Wikipedia article instead?
Specifically where that suggestion was coming from. (I have my suspicions.)
I'm going to try and shoot her an e-mail today about this. May be tricky, given I have meetings all day. But as the Post is my hometown paper I feel that a comment or two may not go amiss. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 15:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
up 3 percent from a few years ago, according to the Wikimedia Foundation, not that it is up from 3 percent. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The article in Washington Post made me also look at Draft:Alison Waley by User:Ehsehsehs623 and the references. I added many more references and created Alison Waley (Q61768107). It looks like there is a general lack of information about Alison Waley other than a footnote here and there or someone mentioning her in passing. Also it does not help that she was known under great many names. I think we should figure out few more facts about her:
It would be great if others help with some of the loose ends. -- Jarekt ( talk) 15:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello all! Based on the images that Rosiestep uploaded to #1day1woman 2019, I created a redlist based entirely on images. I think it might be a fun way to choose a new biography. Sometimes I pick a person to write about because they look interesting. Here is the redlist which I'm going to alphabetize and add more to. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 21:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering why the articles at the monthly editathons are not included in the metrics count, even though they are tagged on the talk page as being part of WIR. An example is Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/January 2019 in comparison to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/105. I believe that are under the monthly editahons and #1day1women are not being counted. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 01:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I think, fwiw, that the true percentage of female biogs is between 17.64 & 17.67, after spending a day digging around items with no properties. Whether WHGI drops to that level remains to be seen - depends on how quickly statements are added to the blank items. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 23:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I added a column to this project to show which profiles are missing. Please have a look and maybe we can help each other's projects. Wikipedia:MacTutor archive-- Akrasia25 ( talk) 16:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I added Moldovan and Cofman to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Mathematics — probably both are notable. Shapley [15] [16] and Hellman are probably both also notable, but as an astronomer and historian of astronomy respectively, rather than as mathematicians — do we have project members who cover that topic? Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Astronomy doesn't exist. Boyle [17] and Simpson, to me, look non-notable despite having some coverage on the MacTutor site: their MacTutor articles, if translated to Wikipedia articles, would be worthy of A7 speedy deletion, as they make no claim of significance or importance for their subjects. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)