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 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
Hi Women in Red!
Are you curious about what tools are effective in reaching Women in Red’s goals? Are you interested in contributing to the building of scalable solutions for closing Wikipedia’s gender gap?
I’m with a group of researchers working on using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to promote gender diversity in Wikipedia contents and thus to close the gender gap. We want to make sure you, as an important member of the community, can be heard as we build and refine these AIs.
We would like to invite you to a quick interview to share your thoughts about gender gaps on Wikipedia and the current efforts, as well as potential solutions to them. It would only take about 30 minutes over phone or video chat. We will send you a $15 Amazon gift card as a way to thank you for your time.
For more details about our project, please refer to our Wikipedia page here.
If you decide to participate, your opinion could help build the future of Wikipedia. Hope to talk to you soon! Reply to this message here or send me an email at bowen-yu@umn.edu and I can share more info and plan a time to connect. Bobo.03 ( talk) 19:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It's the first of the month. Usually I'd be working on articles (well, solidly-sourced stubs at least) for all the WiR Editathons of the month (as listed here). But I feel despondent about the future of this wonderful volunteer-powered encyclopedia of ours, given the recent events described here and summarised in the latest WP:Signpost. Some powerful elements of the WMF appear to treat volunteers like mushrooms ("keep them in the dark and feed them s***"). Until relationships between the WMF and the English Wikipedia community are improved, I am reluctant to contribute. I hope to resume article creation soon, but am not confident about the future. Pam D 08:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
(G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Out of caution this should be hidden from view until ArbCom rules. We can’t have scandalous assertions without evidence)". A good thing too, but that's how nasty things are getting. Pam D 14:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. There's a COI edit request at Talk:Kim Echlin that participants in this project might be interested in helping out with. Echlin is a female, Canadian novelist. The request probably can't be implemented wholesale, but the article certainly could do with some improvement, and there may well be useful material for this task in the request. I've made some minor additions to the article myself, but help would be appreciated. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I misspelled an article title, Juilet Clannon Cushing should be Juliet Clannon Cushing (and it's spelled right in the rest of the article). Help! Penny Richards ( talk) 15:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
There are a lot of redlinks at Nari Shakti Puraskar, "India's highest civilian award for recognising the achievements and contributions of women", as I found out while creating an article for Didi Contractor, one of the 2018 winners. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Since you have a lot of experience with newbies and article creation, you might have good feedback for this. Please comment at the above link! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Alva Belmont and Séverine passed, as did
New ones are:
Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 23:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi folks, I just got a response on my very first GAN nom for Prof Susan Kauzlarich @ UC Davis. You can take a look on the talk page Susan Kauzlarich. I don't mind pursuing things further but I was a bit surprised by the reviewer's justifications. Would someone else mind taking a look and letting me know a second opinion? Also, aren't the reviewers usually supposed to be part of an article's relevant project groups (for instance a reviewer for this article would be be affiliated w/ Wikipedia: Chemistry or Wikipedia: Women in Science). thanks! Nanobright ( talk) 18:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
So I've come across an interesting-sounding woman called Irene Scouloudi (1907-1992), an English historian whose interest in the Huguenots led to documentation of methods of assisting refugees. No article on Wikipedia. It turns out there is a page on Wikidata here, but it appears to refer to her not as a person but as the subject of a scholarly article. Am I reading that correctly? I added the description "English historian and philanthropist". What do I need to do to get Wikidata to automatically add her to the appropriate Redlist? -- Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 13:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Carbon Caryatid: I realise your question was about Wikidata, but if you're interested I have access to the David M. Wilson's one-page reflection on her importance. I've only skimmed it, but she sounds like the kind of person who should have a Wikipedia article (as well as an entry in Wikidata of course). Richard Nevell ( talk) 14:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
And back to wikidata - her item needs a P106 Occupation before it'll turn up on a redlist. I've added such. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 15:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
If you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Educators, it contains 3,000 items, out of >12,000. How does Wikidata determine which items are included in the first 3,000, and which ones aren't. What if we changed the max to 1,000 items; which items would be more likely to be included vs. excluded? Would it be possible to have two lists of "Educators", one which only includes items that have site links, and the other to include items with no site links? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Megalibrarygirl. Sure, those are good occupation titles. I couldn't find a Wikidata redlist for "academic" (Q3400985), so we'd need someone to create it: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Academic. I also couldn't find one for "educational specialist" (Q5341303), so this would be another new one: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Educational specialist. Note, neither of these occupations are included in the "educators" redlist so I'm still struggling with how to decrease the number of items from >12,000 to something more manageable. These are the ones that are included: -- Rosiestep ( talk) 01:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
What do you think about creating items for all of our redlists and editathons, including the statement on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008)? If you like the idea, what other WiR subpages would be suited for a Wikidata item, e.g. subpages which might be replicated in another language, e.g. this is the Italian language Wikidata redlist of women educators. If you like the idea, how would we structure this as an "ontology", because other projects, e.g. A+F, BLT, 1000 Women in Religion, Atari Women, etc. are using it only (I think) as a way of associating biographies with their project, not as a way of demarcating their subpages. cc: WiR Librarian in Residence, Megalibrarygirl. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 17:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I suspect there are German and Italian sources, probably Netherlands and other European languages, that I'm not getting to, if anyone has access. This is a developing event, the ship captain who just docked a rescue ship without authorization in an Italian harbor and has been arrested for it. It would be nice if we could get the article in good enough shape to put it at In The News. -- valereee ( talk) 12:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
New article on murdered scientist, which has been nominated at ITN for inclusion in recent deaths. If anyone could help out with expanding and making her notability more clear it would be great. On a quick glance the citation record looks strong to me. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Opens June 20. Press release here. This one's in my backyard, so I intend to go see it once I'm back from Central Asia.
According to the press release: "Three of the artists—Chief Nike Davies Okundaye of Nigeria, Patience Torlowei of Nigeria and Billie Zangewa of South Africa—will attend the June 18 press preview." We have articles on two, and the third should be easy to write up. But this would be a great opportunity to get some photographs. I cannot go - I have too many commitments that day. Any contacts in DC we could ask, other than KellyDoyle? -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 15:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
In connection with the item "Looking for more sources" above, I have found a complete list of all those listed in the International Encyclopedia of Women Composers at The Music Sack. By clicking on a name, you can also find other sources in which the composer is mentioned. It looks like a useful source for Wikidata too. I was wondering if there is any easy way of finding out which names are still redlinks in the EN wiki without having to edit them all manually. I have checked out the first 20 names and see that only three of them have articles. (cc SL93).-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone, just wanted to let you know that I've requested a clone of User:RonBot#11 at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Clone_of_RonBot_#11. As the bot has not run for 3 months, and User:Ronhjones has also not been active since then (and his email has been disabled), it seems sadly that he may not be able to run it any longer. It was so useful in identifying declined drafts that we could assess for notability and work up into articles about notable women, and I would really like to resurrect it, so I'm hoping one of the bot operators can clone it and get it running again. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 04:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Well! The previous set is cleared, hell, we've had one pass since then. As usual of late, I'm not linking the nominations directly to avoid accidentally creating a voting guide, but those interested may go to WP:FPC and look around there. So, without further ado: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden ( talk • contribs) 09:22, July 11, 2019 (UTC)
One request, somewhat related: Looking in the Suffrage event pages, I found
File:She. It is time I got out of this place. Where Shall I Find The Key? Convicts Lunatics and Women! Have no vote for Parliament, ca. 1907-1918. (16052110985).jpg, which is a brilliant example of British pro-suffrage posters. If anyone knows more articles it could be put in, please do; it'll help it at FPC in the near future.
Adam Cuerden (
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs 17:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
FYI, Metrics have been kaput for the last 3 days. Cause is likely to be a temporary ban on the Wikimedia Toolforge querying wikidata. Normal service might be resumed Sunday or Monday. I'm on the case, with the help of someone who has a clue about the plumbing.
Also FYI, Emijrpbot, which used to do an excellent job of creating new wikidata items for en.wiki biographies, has been quiet presumed dead since the end of April. So there's now that much less being done about creating wikidata items for biographies.
Anyone who wants to help out on this task is cordially directed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/Wikidata, and notably to the various reports under the heading 'Articles with no wikidata item'. Petscan, on which these reports run, is notoriously tempremental (some downstream dependency fail outside Magnus's control, AFAIK), so that adds to the joy of trying to keep metrics up to date. Oronsay & Nat965 continue to put in much spadework in this area, for which thanks. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 17:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Mike Peel has kindly taken over Emijrpbot, the work of which is now handled by
User:Pi bot. Suggest we all owe Mike a pint (& presumably a pie) if ever encountered IRL. --
Tagishsimon (
talk) 09:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering if someone could copy-edit Ann Peterson if it needs one. I don't really feel confident in writing sports articles, but I do want to nominate this one for DYK. SL93 ( talk) 17:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski: I removed the ABC mention and I thought that the "What did she win to qualify for the Olympic team?" was already answered by the article with "During this time, she gained a spot on the United States' Olympic diving team by competing in the women's 10 meter platform competition for the Olympic trials" and "She was in the lead going into the finals with 169.86 points, later adding 46.74 points, 50.82 points, and 51.75 points to her last three dives". SL93 ( talk) 21:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Despite the misleading title, this is about the image of an intersex person that was discussed before. It's not particularly graphic, it's simple nudity. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 21:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Later tonight I'm going to get an article up (unless someone beats me to it!) for Alexis McGill Johnson, who was named acting president of Planned Parenthood today. She should have an article. Marquardtika ( talk) 21:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I started gathering sources for an the article Jill Schlabach from Diving at the 1991 Pan American Games and even though I found quite a bit of information to use, I am unable to locate her birth date. SL93 ( talk) 06:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
(born {{birth based on age as of date |25|1991|June|17|noage=1|mos=1}})
Some of you may know that I am a member of the Wikimedia movement strategy Community Health Working Group(CHWG). It is one of nine Working Groups (WG) involved in developing recommendations to the WMF Board of Trustees regarding planning for the future. In order to make informed recommendations, we seek the opinions of editors. Here's a link to the survey. No need to respond here stating whether you've completed it or not... I just hope that you make the time to do it. Thanks in advance. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Rosiestep, The Incivility page of the Community Health Survey begins: There is a problem of incivility, harassment and overall bad behavior in the Wikimedia community. Bad behavior includes anything that makes others feel uncomfortable or unwelcome in their Wikimedia community.
This seems like an overly broad definition of "bad behavior". In my experience new and not-so-new editors feel hurt and very unwelcome when their edits are changed, their articles are deleted, or their drafts are rejected at Articles for Creation. Unlike most websites that people post to, this is an encyclopedia with complicated content standards. For newer editors our rejection messages are accompanied by welcome messages with helpful links, but this doesn't make it any more "welcoming", and is often seen as insulting if editors have been here awhile. Doesn't this survey imply we must never reject anything anyone writes (other than vandalism). Shouldn't the survey be asking how we can help editors get beyond feeling uncomfortable and unwelcome for these reasons as they learn how to contribute?
StarryGrandma (
talk) 21:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm grateful to Rosiestep for letting us know about the survey, but shocked that it has been so poorly publicised otherwise to the English Wikipedia editing community. It, and any other attempt to ask "the community", needs to be announced in The Signpost, and perhaps in a page-header seen by editors, and possibly by stretching a definition, in the "Central discussions" template. Or it could have been announced on the talk pages of all WikiProjects. The editors who look at Meta or discuss Wikipedia on social media are not a representative sample, AFAIK, of the editors who create and maintain the encyclopedia. Yes, it looks like another WMF failure to understand who we, the editors, are. Pam D 22:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
... and to be fair, it was a WMF employee who told the project, even if not in an official capacity? To me, it seems that you are referring to -- well, me. This is why I am asking. For the record, I've never been a WMF employee, but I was a WMF contractor (part-time; April 2017 - June 2017) on the m:Gender Diversity Mapping project. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Deadline for filling out any of the 9 Working Group surveys has been extended to July 31. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 03:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Everything from the last report has passed, or is passing. Which is nice! So, let's cover the new stuff! And I'm barely present in it for once. I think that's a good thing.
Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 07:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record, WiR had 8 featured pictures in June, out of 47 total (counting the train photography that was broken up into many files for size reasons as one file). I make something like 16 FPs in that time that are connected to men in sufficient ways that they'd come under WiR were those men female. E.g. opera posters (male composers/artists), pictures of men, architecture (presuming I'm reading the architect right), and so on. That's not perfect, but it's way better than things used to be.
Adam Cuerden (
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs 21:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Showcase#Featured pictures It auto-updates with the current total number of featured pictures (approximately; it depends on PAGESINCATEGORY:Featured pictures for its count) and just requires us to update the count passed to it when new FPs are added to the Showcase. I was surprised to discover that we're likely to have had more featured pictures this year than in our entire history previous to this (43 so far this year compared to 66 before, if I remember correctly), though that may be that I've been trying harder to keep track of relevant images this year. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 10:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Could someone familiar with colleges and locations in England take a look at this article? I'm reading Indian and UK sources and am not sure I'm interpreting them/wikilinking them correctly. Thanks for any help! -- valereee ( talk) 13:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
We'd like to sort out our August programming within the next 48 hours or so; your comments are welcome here. Regarding programming for September and beyond, stop by any time at the Ideas Cafe; hope to see you there! Thanks! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
This week our Antarctic Women collaboration is mentioned in TIME magazine and Jess Wade gives us a call out in the New York Times. Victuallers ( talk) 23:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey there! I am writing an article about Maria van Pallaes. Her full name was "Mayken (first name) Lubbert (middle name) van Pallaesdr. (patronymic name, means 'daughter of Van Pallaes' as her father's surname was Van Pallaes)". Normally, we would use her given name. In this case, though, her common name is "Maria van Pallaes" (without "dr.", which means 'daughter of'), as in, she started using her father's surname as her own surname, instead of the patronymic name she was given. As such, I'm not sure whether to use Van Pallaes or Maria when referring to her in the article. -- MrClog ( talk) 21:09, 17 July 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 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
Hi Women in Red!
Are you curious about what tools are effective in reaching Women in Red’s goals? Are you interested in contributing to the building of scalable solutions for closing Wikipedia’s gender gap?
I’m with a group of researchers working on using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to promote gender diversity in Wikipedia contents and thus to close the gender gap. We want to make sure you, as an important member of the community, can be heard as we build and refine these AIs.
We would like to invite you to a quick interview to share your thoughts about gender gaps on Wikipedia and the current efforts, as well as potential solutions to them. It would only take about 30 minutes over phone or video chat. We will send you a $15 Amazon gift card as a way to thank you for your time.
For more details about our project, please refer to our Wikipedia page here.
If you decide to participate, your opinion could help build the future of Wikipedia. Hope to talk to you soon! Reply to this message here or send me an email at bowen-yu@umn.edu and I can share more info and plan a time to connect. Bobo.03 ( talk) 19:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It's the first of the month. Usually I'd be working on articles (well, solidly-sourced stubs at least) for all the WiR Editathons of the month (as listed here). But I feel despondent about the future of this wonderful volunteer-powered encyclopedia of ours, given the recent events described here and summarised in the latest WP:Signpost. Some powerful elements of the WMF appear to treat volunteers like mushrooms ("keep them in the dark and feed them s***"). Until relationships between the WMF and the English Wikipedia community are improved, I am reluctant to contribute. I hope to resume article creation soon, but am not confident about the future. Pam D 08:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
(G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Out of caution this should be hidden from view until ArbCom rules. We can’t have scandalous assertions without evidence)". A good thing too, but that's how nasty things are getting. Pam D 14:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. There's a COI edit request at Talk:Kim Echlin that participants in this project might be interested in helping out with. Echlin is a female, Canadian novelist. The request probably can't be implemented wholesale, but the article certainly could do with some improvement, and there may well be useful material for this task in the request. I've made some minor additions to the article myself, but help would be appreciated. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I misspelled an article title, Juilet Clannon Cushing should be Juliet Clannon Cushing (and it's spelled right in the rest of the article). Help! Penny Richards ( talk) 15:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
There are a lot of redlinks at Nari Shakti Puraskar, "India's highest civilian award for recognising the achievements and contributions of women", as I found out while creating an article for Didi Contractor, one of the 2018 winners. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Since you have a lot of experience with newbies and article creation, you might have good feedback for this. Please comment at the above link! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Alva Belmont and Séverine passed, as did
New ones are:
Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 23:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi folks, I just got a response on my very first GAN nom for Prof Susan Kauzlarich @ UC Davis. You can take a look on the talk page Susan Kauzlarich. I don't mind pursuing things further but I was a bit surprised by the reviewer's justifications. Would someone else mind taking a look and letting me know a second opinion? Also, aren't the reviewers usually supposed to be part of an article's relevant project groups (for instance a reviewer for this article would be be affiliated w/ Wikipedia: Chemistry or Wikipedia: Women in Science). thanks! Nanobright ( talk) 18:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
So I've come across an interesting-sounding woman called Irene Scouloudi (1907-1992), an English historian whose interest in the Huguenots led to documentation of methods of assisting refugees. No article on Wikipedia. It turns out there is a page on Wikidata here, but it appears to refer to her not as a person but as the subject of a scholarly article. Am I reading that correctly? I added the description "English historian and philanthropist". What do I need to do to get Wikidata to automatically add her to the appropriate Redlist? -- Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 13:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Carbon Caryatid: I realise your question was about Wikidata, but if you're interested I have access to the David M. Wilson's one-page reflection on her importance. I've only skimmed it, but she sounds like the kind of person who should have a Wikipedia article (as well as an entry in Wikidata of course). Richard Nevell ( talk) 14:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
And back to wikidata - her item needs a P106 Occupation before it'll turn up on a redlist. I've added such. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 15:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
If you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Educators, it contains 3,000 items, out of >12,000. How does Wikidata determine which items are included in the first 3,000, and which ones aren't. What if we changed the max to 1,000 items; which items would be more likely to be included vs. excluded? Would it be possible to have two lists of "Educators", one which only includes items that have site links, and the other to include items with no site links? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Megalibrarygirl. Sure, those are good occupation titles. I couldn't find a Wikidata redlist for "academic" (Q3400985), so we'd need someone to create it: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Academic. I also couldn't find one for "educational specialist" (Q5341303), so this would be another new one: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Educational specialist. Note, neither of these occupations are included in the "educators" redlist so I'm still struggling with how to decrease the number of items from >12,000 to something more manageable. These are the ones that are included: -- Rosiestep ( talk) 01:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
What do you think about creating items for all of our redlists and editathons, including the statement on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008)? If you like the idea, what other WiR subpages would be suited for a Wikidata item, e.g. subpages which might be replicated in another language, e.g. this is the Italian language Wikidata redlist of women educators. If you like the idea, how would we structure this as an "ontology", because other projects, e.g. A+F, BLT, 1000 Women in Religion, Atari Women, etc. are using it only (I think) as a way of associating biographies with their project, not as a way of demarcating their subpages. cc: WiR Librarian in Residence, Megalibrarygirl. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 17:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I suspect there are German and Italian sources, probably Netherlands and other European languages, that I'm not getting to, if anyone has access. This is a developing event, the ship captain who just docked a rescue ship without authorization in an Italian harbor and has been arrested for it. It would be nice if we could get the article in good enough shape to put it at In The News. -- valereee ( talk) 12:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
New article on murdered scientist, which has been nominated at ITN for inclusion in recent deaths. If anyone could help out with expanding and making her notability more clear it would be great. On a quick glance the citation record looks strong to me. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Opens June 20. Press release here. This one's in my backyard, so I intend to go see it once I'm back from Central Asia.
According to the press release: "Three of the artists—Chief Nike Davies Okundaye of Nigeria, Patience Torlowei of Nigeria and Billie Zangewa of South Africa—will attend the June 18 press preview." We have articles on two, and the third should be easy to write up. But this would be a great opportunity to get some photographs. I cannot go - I have too many commitments that day. Any contacts in DC we could ask, other than KellyDoyle? -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 15:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
In connection with the item "Looking for more sources" above, I have found a complete list of all those listed in the International Encyclopedia of Women Composers at The Music Sack. By clicking on a name, you can also find other sources in which the composer is mentioned. It looks like a useful source for Wikidata too. I was wondering if there is any easy way of finding out which names are still redlinks in the EN wiki without having to edit them all manually. I have checked out the first 20 names and see that only three of them have articles. (cc SL93).-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone, just wanted to let you know that I've requested a clone of User:RonBot#11 at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Clone_of_RonBot_#11. As the bot has not run for 3 months, and User:Ronhjones has also not been active since then (and his email has been disabled), it seems sadly that he may not be able to run it any longer. It was so useful in identifying declined drafts that we could assess for notability and work up into articles about notable women, and I would really like to resurrect it, so I'm hoping one of the bot operators can clone it and get it running again. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 04:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Well! The previous set is cleared, hell, we've had one pass since then. As usual of late, I'm not linking the nominations directly to avoid accidentally creating a voting guide, but those interested may go to WP:FPC and look around there. So, without further ado: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden ( talk • contribs) 09:22, July 11, 2019 (UTC)
One request, somewhat related: Looking in the Suffrage event pages, I found
File:She. It is time I got out of this place. Where Shall I Find The Key? Convicts Lunatics and Women! Have no vote for Parliament, ca. 1907-1918. (16052110985).jpg, which is a brilliant example of British pro-suffrage posters. If anyone knows more articles it could be put in, please do; it'll help it at FPC in the near future.
Adam Cuerden (
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs 17:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
FYI, Metrics have been kaput for the last 3 days. Cause is likely to be a temporary ban on the Wikimedia Toolforge querying wikidata. Normal service might be resumed Sunday or Monday. I'm on the case, with the help of someone who has a clue about the plumbing.
Also FYI, Emijrpbot, which used to do an excellent job of creating new wikidata items for en.wiki biographies, has been quiet presumed dead since the end of April. So there's now that much less being done about creating wikidata items for biographies.
Anyone who wants to help out on this task is cordially directed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/Wikidata, and notably to the various reports under the heading 'Articles with no wikidata item'. Petscan, on which these reports run, is notoriously tempremental (some downstream dependency fail outside Magnus's control, AFAIK), so that adds to the joy of trying to keep metrics up to date. Oronsay & Nat965 continue to put in much spadework in this area, for which thanks. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 17:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Mike Peel has kindly taken over Emijrpbot, the work of which is now handled by
User:Pi bot. Suggest we all owe Mike a pint (& presumably a pie) if ever encountered IRL. --
Tagishsimon (
talk) 09:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering if someone could copy-edit Ann Peterson if it needs one. I don't really feel confident in writing sports articles, but I do want to nominate this one for DYK. SL93 ( talk) 17:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski: I removed the ABC mention and I thought that the "What did she win to qualify for the Olympic team?" was already answered by the article with "During this time, she gained a spot on the United States' Olympic diving team by competing in the women's 10 meter platform competition for the Olympic trials" and "She was in the lead going into the finals with 169.86 points, later adding 46.74 points, 50.82 points, and 51.75 points to her last three dives". SL93 ( talk) 21:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Despite the misleading title, this is about the image of an intersex person that was discussed before. It's not particularly graphic, it's simple nudity. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 21:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Later tonight I'm going to get an article up (unless someone beats me to it!) for Alexis McGill Johnson, who was named acting president of Planned Parenthood today. She should have an article. Marquardtika ( talk) 21:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I started gathering sources for an the article Jill Schlabach from Diving at the 1991 Pan American Games and even though I found quite a bit of information to use, I am unable to locate her birth date. SL93 ( talk) 06:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
(born {{birth based on age as of date |25|1991|June|17|noage=1|mos=1}})
Some of you may know that I am a member of the Wikimedia movement strategy Community Health Working Group(CHWG). It is one of nine Working Groups (WG) involved in developing recommendations to the WMF Board of Trustees regarding planning for the future. In order to make informed recommendations, we seek the opinions of editors. Here's a link to the survey. No need to respond here stating whether you've completed it or not... I just hope that you make the time to do it. Thanks in advance. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Rosiestep, The Incivility page of the Community Health Survey begins: There is a problem of incivility, harassment and overall bad behavior in the Wikimedia community. Bad behavior includes anything that makes others feel uncomfortable or unwelcome in their Wikimedia community.
This seems like an overly broad definition of "bad behavior". In my experience new and not-so-new editors feel hurt and very unwelcome when their edits are changed, their articles are deleted, or their drafts are rejected at Articles for Creation. Unlike most websites that people post to, this is an encyclopedia with complicated content standards. For newer editors our rejection messages are accompanied by welcome messages with helpful links, but this doesn't make it any more "welcoming", and is often seen as insulting if editors have been here awhile. Doesn't this survey imply we must never reject anything anyone writes (other than vandalism). Shouldn't the survey be asking how we can help editors get beyond feeling uncomfortable and unwelcome for these reasons as they learn how to contribute?
StarryGrandma (
talk) 21:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm grateful to Rosiestep for letting us know about the survey, but shocked that it has been so poorly publicised otherwise to the English Wikipedia editing community. It, and any other attempt to ask "the community", needs to be announced in The Signpost, and perhaps in a page-header seen by editors, and possibly by stretching a definition, in the "Central discussions" template. Or it could have been announced on the talk pages of all WikiProjects. The editors who look at Meta or discuss Wikipedia on social media are not a representative sample, AFAIK, of the editors who create and maintain the encyclopedia. Yes, it looks like another WMF failure to understand who we, the editors, are. Pam D 22:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
... and to be fair, it was a WMF employee who told the project, even if not in an official capacity? To me, it seems that you are referring to -- well, me. This is why I am asking. For the record, I've never been a WMF employee, but I was a WMF contractor (part-time; April 2017 - June 2017) on the m:Gender Diversity Mapping project. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Deadline for filling out any of the 9 Working Group surveys has been extended to July 31. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 03:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Everything from the last report has passed, or is passing. Which is nice! So, let's cover the new stuff! And I'm barely present in it for once. I think that's a good thing.
Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 07:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record, WiR had 8 featured pictures in June, out of 47 total (counting the train photography that was broken up into many files for size reasons as one file). I make something like 16 FPs in that time that are connected to men in sufficient ways that they'd come under WiR were those men female. E.g. opera posters (male composers/artists), pictures of men, architecture (presuming I'm reading the architect right), and so on. That's not perfect, but it's way better than things used to be.
Adam Cuerden (
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs 21:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Showcase#Featured pictures It auto-updates with the current total number of featured pictures (approximately; it depends on PAGESINCATEGORY:Featured pictures for its count) and just requires us to update the count passed to it when new FPs are added to the Showcase. I was surprised to discover that we're likely to have had more featured pictures this year than in our entire history previous to this (43 so far this year compared to 66 before, if I remember correctly), though that may be that I've been trying harder to keep track of relevant images this year. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 10:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Could someone familiar with colleges and locations in England take a look at this article? I'm reading Indian and UK sources and am not sure I'm interpreting them/wikilinking them correctly. Thanks for any help! -- valereee ( talk) 13:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
We'd like to sort out our August programming within the next 48 hours or so; your comments are welcome here. Regarding programming for September and beyond, stop by any time at the Ideas Cafe; hope to see you there! Thanks! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
This week our Antarctic Women collaboration is mentioned in TIME magazine and Jess Wade gives us a call out in the New York Times. Victuallers ( talk) 23:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey there! I am writing an article about Maria van Pallaes. Her full name was "Mayken (first name) Lubbert (middle name) van Pallaesdr. (patronymic name, means 'daughter of Van Pallaes' as her father's surname was Van Pallaes)". Normally, we would use her given name. In this case, though, her common name is "Maria van Pallaes" (without "dr.", which means 'daughter of'), as in, she started using her father's surname as her own surname, instead of the patronymic name she was given. As such, I'm not sure whether to use Van Pallaes or Maria when referring to her in the article. -- MrClog ( talk) 21:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)