Hello folks, I posted about my global challenge on Twitter & got in touch with a couple of journalists, one of whom wrote this piece about the project: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/05/uk-academics-wikipedia-project-raises-profile-of-women-around-the-world - its quite short, so sadly doesn't include the various ways I mentioned how important this project has been to mentor me, support me and inspire me. I hope others here can see relfections on the conversations we have on this talk page in the article. Deepest thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

What a fantastic piece @Lajmmoore! Thank you so much for all your efforts to raise the profile of WIR’s goals! I appreciate it so much. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Like Congrats! Thanks for your contributions and keep up the amazing work! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Just came across the article and wanted to come here to say congrats! I love seeing Wikipedia portrayed in a positive light in the media. Hopefully this will inspire some new editors to join the project. Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 19:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Well done, @Lajmmoore, what a great article. Thanks for all your work! PamD 20:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Lajmmoore: This is just the kind of publicity we need. Not only have you demonstrated your own enthusiasm and creativity but you have shown how important it is to have more contributors, especially women, helping to improve our coverage of women. Great stuff! Especially as everyone worldwide can access The Guardian"".--Ipigott (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@LajmmooreThe Guardian piece and you just got mentioned on Radio4 Today newspaper round up 7 40 am Wednesday 6 March. Great to have this public acknowledgement MerielGJones (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, heard it on Today (BBC Radio 4) too: I thought the tone was a bit patronising/bemused, but still great coverage! PamD 08:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Very inspiring. Thank you! Balance person (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Lovely piece, Lajmmoore. This is inspiring in so many ways. Congratulations! --Rosiestep (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Such great coverage @Lajmmoore, you are an inspiration! :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Lajmmoore (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh well done you @Lajmmoore! And thanks for flagging that up; I read the Guardian daily, but somehow missed that. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Late to the party (as when am I not?), but congratulations and well done on all of this. I had hoped to listen to the As It Happens interview when it aired on my local NPR station, but I...er, have been asleep whenever it's on this week (a recurring issue...hence my lateness, with apologies.) I shall seek it out online instead. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

My daughter just let me know of this piece - really fantastic, and well done you! Dsp13 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oronsay: I am here to discuss the bold edit of mine to Template:Women in Red navigation which you reverted. There is a complete list of WiR events listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Events going back to 2015. I also included a link to this page from the navigation template. I think the navigation template would be more useful if it only contains the most important links, and I believe it is excessive to include a link to every meetup in this template. If editors want to see the complete list, they would be better served by clicking the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Events to see the full list. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change this important WIR template. It is only the current year's events that are displayed in full in the template and just a single click to show the earlier years. I don't seek why it is better to click away from the template. The list on the the Events page is very long and not easy to see at a glance, unlike in the template where the info is condensed. Oronsay (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I just think it's excessive for the template, and we could make a much more useful and accessible list of past events on the /Events page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Oronsay. Yes, it's a lot of events, but the purpose of the navbox is to help people navigate, and I would rather find my way through a long list in this template than be sent somewhere else to look through it. This is more convenient to me as a user. DrThneed (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Well perhaps you can tell me how you think they should be displayed? This is what happens when they are all listed in one box, and it looks pretty terrible.

And this is what it looks like when separated out into years. I think you'll agree that this takes up too much space.

Generally I don't think this template is useful for someone who is genuinely trying to look for a past event. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I've used the template to find past events, especially if I can't remember which biographies I might have written for a theme, so think it's useful and a good go to place. Is it really neccessary to change it? Lajmmoore (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Which of the above do you prefer or can you suggest any improvements? I was thinking that something like the below would be more useful on its own page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

There are two reasons I prefer the original template. I can make a single click and see all the previous events, 2015–2023. Your amendment means I have to make 9. More importantly, the January 2024 events don't appear at all and when the calendar turns to April, neither will the February ones. Please ensure that this year's events will all appear in the template. Oronsay (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Ha, well spotted! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm in this boat as well; I frequently use the template to find past events and like that I can see all events in one place. I can see your point @MSGJ about it looking unwieldy though and it's likely to get to a point where it is too much for one template at some point.

Maybe instead of 2015-2023, we could do 2015-2019 and 2020-2024? Two clicks to see all previous events instead of 9? Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion: show all events from the past 4 years in the template, and include a link to the list of all events elsewhere. I seriously doubt anyone is using this template to look for an event from 2016. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I frequently do, and from their previous comments it appears that @Oronsay, @Lajmmoore and @DrThneed may also do so. Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

True. Please also read below, @Rosiestep's comments on these recent template changes. Oronsay (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I am confused. I was looking at the green template for the "temperance women" event we did in January 2024, as I'm about to write another article about a temperance woman, and I don't see our January 2024 events on the green template. I guess I missed a conversation where this was decided? (pause) Okay, I searched by number, starting at 293, and found "temperance women" at 296. Looking at #296, though, I don't see the other January 294 events like I used to. Why aren't they showing up here? If they don't show up, it's wiping out our history. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It's an oversight, just pointed out by Oronsay above. I'll fix it shortly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Reply above was in response to your question about the "green template" - this should now be resolved. Your second point relates to something different I think? Are you referring to the navigation buttons at the top of the meetup page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

MSGJ, (1) Regarding the "green template", I don't like the change made where the months associated with the year's events are no longer shown. It has worked well for us to be able to see what events we did in, for example, in January, of each year. If you are the one who made the change, would you please revert it? Thank you. (2) Regarding the second point, yes, it was that the links at the top of an event page used to include all the events for the month, e.g., if the particular event page was for a January 2024 event, there would be links at the top for all the other January 2024 happenings. If you are the one who made the change, would you please revert it? Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding (1), I will look into it. Regarding (2), would you also want to see link to the current events and upcoming events, or just that particular month? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rosiestep; does this work for you? (You may not realise but these lists are being created on the fly from the list of events, so when we get it how everyone likes it they will update automatically each month with no more manual updating needed.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

MSGJ, it's hard for me to respond to ... "does this work for you?" as what we had worked for all of the working members of Women in Red... not just for me. With the latest depiction of the "green template" that you are sharing, each event has a month next to it vs noting the month once and then all the events associated with it trailing. Let me also note that I have to click each year separately to open it, vs. in the past, with one click, I could view all events for all years. This is really helpful when our members are trying to decide what worked in Foo month in our first five years vs. our last five years. I get that you are trying to be helpful with automation, but WiR has always operated from the stance that we gain consensus first, and then we take action, vs. what you're doing, which is the opposite. Frankly, it flummoxes me that you persist in this way, and I wonder if it's because no one is being forceful enough in saying, 'please stop'. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree fully! As noted above, I regularly use the template to refer to all past events and can't do so on the current version. I understand this may seem like an odd way of using the template, @MSGJ, but given that there are a few people here in the same boat, could we please discuss and reach consensus before changes are made? Thanks, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hear hear. Consensus first. It's most frustrating to find big changes made to commonly used templates without even a discussion started first (I'm used to missing discussions that have happened, but that's on me). DrThneed (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• I've restored an earlier version. See "WiR template" below.--Ipigott (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you, Ipigott. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Ipigott and MSGJ: Something's gone wrong: the March (ie current) events are not showing up on either Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red#Events or Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Events! PamD 19:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

PamD: Past my bedtime. I'll look into this tomorrow if MSGJ has not already taken care of it.--Ipigott (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added the current events but we now have two sections on "Ongoing initiatives". If MSGJ cannot sort this out, we should perhaps return to our earlier method of presenting events. Any reactions?--Ipigott (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll look into this later today — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Silly mistake of mine. Thanks for reporting — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

For our "Education" campaign, I created 2 articles about defunct Australian girls' industrial schools -- Newcastle Industrial School for Girls and Biloela Industrial School for Girls -- and would appreciate a glance at them from our Australian editors. My big concern is getting the nuance right as the follow-on institution for both of these was Parramatta Girls Home, which has a "See also" section that includes Stolen Generations. Should that be included in the Newcastle and Biloela school articles? Thanks. -- Rosiestep (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for creating these two articles of importance in New South Wales history. The article on Stolen Generations states 1905 as the commencement date. As both the Newcastle and Biloela schools closed in 1887, they pre-date the period covered by Stolen Generations. Parramatta Girls Home, in taking over from them in 1887 and continued through to 1974, warrants the link to SG. Oronsay (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Oronsay. Happy that you could sort this out. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Former Women-in-Red project. I managed to get a featured pictre for her, but her article's rather undercited. Anyone want to help fix it up? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 17:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Have added a few citations. Balance person (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Added three refs, now it's at 10 in the reflist, but some of the items in the further reading list after references should probably be worked in as refs too. Penny Richards (talk)

Dear Friends.

I wonder whether a Polish article about Aleksandra Janusz, a Polish writer and neurobiologist, would be considered encyclopedic, thus, do you want a translation into English?

Best wishes --Kaworu1992 (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear Friends.

I expanded the article about Katarzyna Paprocka, based upon the Polish Wikipedia article. However, my English and understanding of Wikipedia is not perfect - if a native English speaker could look at the current version of the article, I would be grateful.

Best wishes -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kaworu1992 Please remember that in English wikipedia we do not link dates or years. Thanks. PamD 18:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

And when including references with non-English titles it's helpful to use the "trans-title=" field in the citation, to show readers the title translated into English. Thanks. PamD 18:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear Friend.

I am not very good with Wikipedia "code", so to speak. Could you please say something more in this topic?

Best wishes

--Kaworu1992 (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added the translated titles (using Google translate) to three of the four books in the Bibliography section of Katarzyna Paprocka, so you can see there how this works. I didn't add the translated title of the Tarnowska book, because Google turns it into "Spell-mary ending at the stake in Fordon": with your knowledge of both Polish and English I'm sure you can produce a better translated title (and please change the other three if they are not right: they all looked plausible, but I don't read Polish!). It's just kinder to the readers of English Wikipedia if we show them what the titles of the sources are, translated into the language they know. I hope that explains it OK for you. Thanks. PamD 13:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear Friends.

Seems I had a productive night. I translated an article about Jadwiga Szubartowicz into English from Polish (it was on one of the redlists). Please, check my grammar and other stuff, okay? ;-)

Best wishes -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kaworu1992:: I should first point out that our redlists are not intended to indicate suitability for inclusion. This biography may meet the requirements of the Polish wiki but I'm not at all sure she is notable enough for the English version. Unless they were notable for other reasons, many articles about centenarians and supercentenarians have been deleted. In future, whether you are translating or creating biographies yourself, I recommend you make sure articles meet the notability requirements listed in our Ten Simple Rules.--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear Friend.

I wasn't aware. I thought since the lady is "in red" and has a Polish Wikipedia article, an English translation should follow. I'm sorry if I did something wrong. I will remember to ask in the future for other's opinion on whether a given lady is or is not encyclopedic.

Again, very sorry.

Best wishes

--Kaworu1992 (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi. While I was writing a separate article, I noticed that Winifred West, an Australian educator, had an Australian Dictionary of Biography entry. Her Wikipedia article had been redirected on notability grounds 8 years ago, but I noted that an entry in the ADB equals a passage of WP:ANYBIO#3 and reverted this ancient redirect. However, the article is in pretty dismal shape, with the ADB entry being the only citation provided. I am unable to work on it as I am busy with another project so I figured I'd toss it here to see if anyone is interested. Curbon7 (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I've sourced her CBE and added the ref, with the text of the citation. Also made a redirect from Winifred Mary West, and added her to West (surname). PamD 09:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Curbon7 for creating her bio from the redirect and @PamD for your contributions. I have print materials that I will look out later today and should be able to add some details and more references. Oronsay (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Despite many requests for restoring the template we have used over the years for navigating past meetups, etc., nothing has been done. I have therefore restored an earlier version myself. It looks OK to me but might need to be updated for anything included over the past few weeks. You can view the template at the foot of our main WiR page. (Or go to Template:Women in Red navigation and click on Show.) I for one make frequent use of the template but was unable to find anything in the version recently reworked by MSGJ in good faith but without prior consultation. In connection with the preparation of events for April and beyond, we need to be able to review past events which are similar or relevant.--Ipigott (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this module is behind the various new presentations of our events. By returning to our traditional navigation template, I appear to have caused our two new events for March to disappear from our Events page. I have now added them "manually" but the heading "Ongoing initiatives" now appears twice. We have called on the assistance of MSGJ to help with these problems but as yet there has been no response. I'm not sure how we should proceed at this stage. It seems to me we are increasingly near to re-adopting the approach we have used for years without major problems. Perhaps WomenArtistUpdates who has given support to some of the new features would like to respond.--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Ipigott, I think you should rollback your changes and give MSGJ time to fix the problem. Also remember to Help:Purge the pages to check on updates to cascading templates. I wish we could all work together to make WiR the best it can be rather than fighting. That means both sides. WiRers couldn't code their way out of a paper bag, and the coders really need to get a consensus before making changes. MSGJ is really good at documenting the changes and assisting with directions and fixes. Can't we all just get along? Meanwhile, can someone please respond to the request for an update on the "One biography a week articles" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/293. Who's doing the tallying? Also, anyone want to work on proofing the pages for April? Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates: Thank you for responding so quickly. I'm really surprised you believe I have been involved in some kind of fighting. Quite the opposite: I've been looking for solutions. I've followed your advice and restored MSGJ's navigation template. I see he's already resolved the Events page. As for the "One biography a week" issue, I had not seen the query you refer to but I was prepared to handle this myself unless you would like to handle it in your usual expert way.--Ipigott (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Ipigott, I am referring to the discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#Firming_up_for_April. I can't remember who started the "One biography a week articles" challenge back in January. Could they take ownership? Do they want an announcement in the invite. etc... --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• WomenArtistsUpdate: Thanks for alerting me on this. I've responded on the Ideas page and edited #293. As for recognition, I had simply intended to send out suitable barnstars but you might be able to come up with a more suitable one, for example combining a WiR barnstar with #1women1week or something similar. Are you interested or should I take care of everything myself?--Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

How do I edit the Events page? Why has this been hidden from me? I have edited that page for a number of years and am deeply unhappy with recent changes. For example, a number of Events occur over several months and would appear in the old template correctly. Now, the new-look template and changes to the Events page no longer reflect what we have done accurately. For example, Women who died in 2023 is not shown as a January Event. There is also the issue that past event pages no longer show the events happening at that time, just the future, current and most recent ones. This was pointed out by @Rosiestep in an earlier post. Why are we allowing one editor to change the way we work? Oronsay (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Oronsay, The page Events is generated automatically from the main events template, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/events. Instructions for updating that are at Template:WikiProject Women in Red/doc. I believe "Women who died in 2023" is not showing up in January because it spanned 2 months beginning in December 2023, which is where the event shows up in the archive. Hope that helps. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Why only one month when it's a two-month event? It didn't used to be like that in the old template, so why the change? Oronsay (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the code can only grab one month. When we hand-coded everything we could list things once, twice, or three times. That said, we chose to only list #1day1woman only once, the same with the year-long initiative. When content for the pages is "managed" centrally it saves time creating new pages and updating existing pages. If an error occurs it only need be corrected once and it is correct on all the WiR pages. Taking the really long view, after you and I are gone, the next editors should be able to pick up where we left off. Also taking the long view, if the English Wikipedia continues to grow, the server space required to house it all will just keep warming up the planet, so I think the idea is to find space saving for the good of the encyclopedia. And, as I understand it the server fees are in the multi-mullions annually. Money and resources. That's my understanding anyway. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oronsay, many events are identified as spanning multiple months, so it can be done. I didn't realise we had any that spanned more than 1 year, so I will need to do some further work to support this. I agree it is really important that these are represented accurately. Are there any other events that span more than one year, do you know? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

In December each year, WIR starts a two-month event for women who have died that year. The most recent event was named "Women who died in 2023" and should appear under December 2023 and January 2024. However, I notice that the event pages have been re-named to "Women who died", which implies that articles about any woman who has died should be added to that event. The invitation for December and January show the event correctly. So the event pages for "Women who died" need to be correctly titled with the year added AND the template should reflect the two-month duration in each case. I know that @Rosiestep is keen to retain the history of the WIR project via the template. Oronsay (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Oronsay, indeed, that's a type of event we repeat every December/January. Don't know how the name got altered, but would someone please correct it? Thanks --Rosiestep (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/291. I have rewritten the code so it can now display dates which span more than one year. I will do likewise for the other "Women that died" events. In terms of including the event in lists, I need further guidance. I don't think you want to list it in each month that it spans, because then the same event will be listed multiple times. A 3-month event would appear three different times, etc. and this could be impractical for long events (such as the annual initiatives). So instead should they be listed according to the start of the event, or perhaps they can be listed separately to the monthly events. What do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That's better. But rather than "Women who died: in 2023" I think it would be better "Women who died: 2023". The year-long events are listed separately as such and don't need to be repeated. Oronsay (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Oronsay I think I have finished all the code changes to fully support flexible start and end dates. Can you please check that everything looks correct and let me know if any other changes are required? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• I am glad to see that on the basis of our discussions, MSGJ has restored our old navigation template and intends to make improvements to the new version on the basis of the discussions on this page. On this basis, we should be able to proceed without further difficulty.--Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  Looking for feedback on the new version at Template:Women in Red navigation/sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I have moved this request for feedback to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#Technical --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Circling back to comments addressed by @Oronsay and WomenArtistUpdates regarding server space, event duration, etc. I want to address the factual depiction of the duration of a WiR event as it is an important element of our work. It is something that researchers are and/or will study in years to come because what we do and how we do it is unique. MSGJ, WiR members have been meticulous in documenting event duration (1 month, 2 months, 1 quarter, half a year, 1 year) in the "green template". If you have an automated method to factually document WiR event duration (green template, event pages, and/or elsewhere) please explain on this page what you think is a good way forward. The level of frustration by some contributing editors, evidenced on this page and mentioned elsewhere, is high because there's a feeling that you don't adhere to a basic principal of Women in Red: we do things by consensus. This takes time. WiR has never curbed enthusiasm or de-valued automation. For example, and you may not be aware of this, WiR was an early adopter of WP:WikiProject X, and used it as our starting page management system in July 2015. When it no longer worked for us, it took us months of discussions and hours of work to change to a different style. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think what is in order is to develop some simple guidelines/processes for addressing potential changes to WiR templates and/or other structural changes. This idea is influenced by Ipigott's comment in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Archive it! section regarding a recommendation for simple guidelines in other areas where we work. Curious to know: how do people suggest changes in technical spaces? Hoping our tech-inclined editors can get some guidelines started. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

We have a section on the Ideas page Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#General ideas for improving Women in Red. Ideas for changes can be presented there. If they are for a beta version of a template the creator can point to that and users can respond. That way the conversations wont be sprinkled throughout the main talk pages

I used up a lot of time arguing (persuading?) to get the data preserved (itemized tags on talk pages ). I am not so concerned as to how that data is presented in templates as long as the underlying data is preserved.

Thanks for the background on project X! --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Preservation is of course extremely important. I spent the last 12 years of my career with the European Commission working with libraries and museums across Europe in projects designed to help them preserve cultural heritage by means of digital collaboration. Librarians in particular are expert at devising methods for ensuring a systematic approach to cataloguing and exchange of digital data. But at the same time, they recognize the importance of facilitating the practical requirements of users. In our case, we need an easy means of reviewing past events, especially when dealing with similar but not identical proposals for the future. You may be right, WomenArtistUpdates, that this entire discussion should have been handled on our Ideas page but as it has been such an important item here, it seems logical to continue discussion. I would therefore simply like to suggest that we support two "navigation templates", one in the interests of preservation and saving computer resources, the other to give an accessible and uncomplicated overview of everything we have accomplished over the years. As Rosiestep mentioned Project X earlier, I must say when I saw MSGJ¨s Module:Women in Red event/sandbox it reminded me of the problems we had with Project X when those involved moved on and no one was able to correct things when they went wrong. One of the major advantages of the old template is that we can all edit it without any special technical experience. If there are problems with the new one - or even the event pages displays - there's only one person able to put things right. This does not appear to me to be a sound basis for further development. I really appreciate MSGJ's enthusiasm for trying to resolve WIR problems triggered by the introduction of the banner shell environment - and some of these now seem to be working well. But I really think we should be wary of introducing changes which could lead to future difficulties. Finally, I agree with Rosie that before any major developments are undertaken, they should be discussed here, based on a definition of the problem, explaining why the current approach is causing difficulties and needs to be changed, assessing the amount of development work required, and explaining the expected advantages/improvements when work is completed. As far as I can recall, no one was experiencing problems with the navigation template and it was therefore quite a surprise for most of us that it was suddenly replaced with what we might call a technology-driven approach. Sorry to have given such a lengthy reply on this but I can assure you all that I am not trying to fight anyone but am sincerely trying to ensure our project can proceed on the best available basis. That surely must be in everyone's interest.--Ipigott (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Earlier this week, I noticed for the first time that there's a section on the WiR "Ideas" page that includes Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#General ideas for improving Women in Red (mentioned above by WomenArtistUpdates). I only came upon it by chance. Mostly, I only go to the "Ideas" page to participate in conversations regarding next month's events; I imagine this is common with other WiR editors. Conversely, this talkpage gets thousands of monthly pageviews -- from WiR members and from civil society. I suppose that our talkpage archive gets its share of searching, too. So if we want to socialize a "request for comment" regarding coordinating our work (tech, templates, etc.), there's a benefit to keeping the conversation here, vs. splintering onto a WiR subpage, or a user talkpage, etc.

What's been missing, though, is a defined "process". Things have worked okay till now without it. But now it's time to develop it. There are on-wiki talkpage models for these sorts of discussions (Request for Comment pages, Articles for Deletion, Administrators Noticeboard, etc.). What can we take from them and apply to us? I agree with Ipigott regarding a "request for comment" for coordination-related work should incorporate several project-management-style elements, e.g., "... definition of the problem ... ". Maybe a KEYWORD in the header? Maybe an icon at the top-right, as a visual? Let's open a discussion and develop a process in a new section. Ipigott, as you have professional experience in this area (broadly-construed), would you be comfortable in getting this started? Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Rosie, for your confidence in my abilities and for agreeing with the approach I suggested. While I would be happy to contribute to any discussions, I would feel happier if the initiative could be launched by an administrator.--Ipigott (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

April marks our annual event dedicated to the academics and activists who pushed for women to be included in the historical record. Without their dedication, none of our work would be possible, and to my mind it is one of the most important editathons we host. I am suspending work on my chain for April because I think it is such an important focus. Because women's and gender studies are interdisciplinary, they often incorporate academics from across a wide spectrum. Some of the first courses created were by art historians interested in investigating women whose images appeared in Renaissance paintings. While obviously the majority of academics who created these programs were anthropologists, sociologists, and historians, some of them came from completely different fields, like genetics and even Sinology. If you aren't comfortable writing articles about academics, you can contribute to the event by adding names to the red list of the founders of the women's or gender studies programs at the university you attended or the university nearest you. You can sign-up or add names here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/303. Happy editing! SusunW (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

SusunW: I always try to create one or two biographies of women from the Nordic countries who have become notable for their work in gender studies. But unlike some of the other sectors we cover, I am never sure how they should be listed. For those who are still living, I am not too happy about adding them to the list of feminists which up to now has not included anyone born after 1940. Most of them can of course be added to the lists of women writers but would it not be more helpful for those interested in the subject to have a separate list of those known for their work in gender and women's studies? If so, what should we call it? Perhaps "List of women in gender studies" or "List of (women?) gender studies academics". Perhaps you can to suggest something better. We should be able to find most of them from Category:Gender studies academics, Category:Women's studies academics and those involved in Category:Gender studies organizations.--Ipigott (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Ipigott Personal preference, but I don't like tables. I find them somewhat harder to navigate and add info. In the List of feminists the subheadings "Mid to late 20th-century feminists" and "Notable 20th and 21st-century feminists" seems a likely place for them. Another alternative would be List of women's and gender studies academics. If we go to a separate list, I think you have to have both because the history is that women's studies came first and then morphed into gender studies, which more broadly includes all genders, evaluating the socio-politico-economic and health/sexuality factors which impact gender throughout history. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

SusunW: I don't like list tables either. They are too difficult to edit, discouraging expansion. All those I have created have been simple lists of names, DOB/DOD, nationality and main achievements, which anyone can edit without difficulty. I'll think about putting together a List of women's and gender studies academics before the end of the month. Thanks for the suggestion.--Ipigott (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Cool. Thank you Ipigott! SusunW (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I came across this wntry on a scholar and author and it seemed like something that should be in mainspace. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It was created using Generative AI though. Theroadislong (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Theroadislong interesting. Is that allowed? Should a "fresh" alternative version by created by hominids? I am unfamiliar with how AI works or if it's allowed here. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Jaireeodell: You can use AI or any other method to create a biography but this is almost entirely the result of an analysis of one source. If you can back this up with two other reliable sources which cover Stephanie Mitchem in some detail and add pertinent wikilinks, the article will no doubt be acceptable for mainspace. Please let me know when you think it is ready.--Ipigott (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I have been working on this in stages. The draft started with only what the AI engine produced. I have been revising it based on a single source (as you note). I intend to complete another round of revisions with additional sources that were not discovered or used by the AI tool prior to moving it to mainspace. This article is the subject of a presentation at WikiConference North America ... about benefits and risks of using RAG AI. Sorry that it's taking me so long to finish it. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Any proper journal or newspaper reviews of her various books, Jaireeodell? I found this, which is a start. We'll need a good couple more to properly reference things though and show notability. Silverseren^C 20:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of published reviews, enough to give a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR, many probably available through The Wikipedia Library:

• Reviews of African American Folk Healing: C. Renate Barber, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, JSTOR 40541727; Yvonne Chireau, Church History, JSTOR 20618536; Nancie Erhard, Studies in Religion, doi:10.1177/000842980903800122; Deirdre Cooper Owens, The Journal of African American History, JSTOR 25610057; Frederick Ware, Pneuma, doi:10.1163/157007408X346717
• Reviews of Race, Religion, and Politics: Toward Human Rights in the United States: Dara Coleby Delgado, Pneuma, doi:10.1163/15700747-04301006; S.A. Johnson, Choice, ; Robin Fretwell Wilson, Journal of Church & State, doi:10.1093/jcs/csz105
• Reviews of Name It and Claim It? Prosperity Preaching in the Black Church: Lewis Brogdon, Pneuma, doi:10.1163/157007408X346492; Kathleen Hladky, Religious Studies Review, doi:10.1111/j.1748-0922.2008.00308_10.x; Carol Troupe, Black Theology, doi:10.1558/blth.v7i1.125
• Review of Introducing Womanist Theology: Eileen Flanagan, Horizons, doi:10.1017/S0360966900000311

As for using generative AI: every single claim in the text must be carefully checked against the sources by a human. AI is known for misrepresentations or in extreme cases making things up from nothing. We cannot allow that in a biography of a living person. There is nothing preventing you from using AI-generated text, but go through it with a fine-toothed comb to make double sure that everything is an accurate summary of its source. The other issue with generative AI is that often it will be a close paraphrase of material elsewhere and it won't tell you where it got the text it is paraphrasing. As well as checking for accuracy, make sure that nothing is too closely copied, neither from the source used nor from any other sources. With all of this necessary checking, it may be easier just to write things by hand yourself; then you know you're not making things up and not copying. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Another aspect of the article is that the single independent source used so far is a chapter of a book (link here) informed specifically by the struggles of Wikipedia editors for the 1000 Women in Religion Wikipedia Project. The chapter itself is largely sourced to oral history interviews with the subject. According to the preface With her passion and biases exposed, her [Hinton's] biography about Stephanie Y. Mitchem functions as a challenge to perspectives that insist a universal, neutral, disinterested point of view creates superior scholarship. TSventon (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

So it explicitly disclaims its own reliability as a source? That's unhelpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it challenges Wikipedia's idea of neutrality. There are 23 pages of the preface, Creating Inclusive Biographical Narratives A Disruptive Use of Sources and Writing Conventions and I have only extracted one and a bit sentences. TSventon (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Is draft:Angela Fisher notable? FloridaArmy (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

At a glance I would say yes. Theroadislong (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It would help to find at least one more good independent source.--Ipigott (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with both. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Africanceremonies should disclose their paid editing status first though. Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with everyone. Curious to see one of my (mediocre) snapshots getting used in an article about a proper photographer. Edwardx (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm very confused on the lack of sources in this article. There are so, so many available, dozens spanning years. Look, here's a just a few massive articles:

• Two Women With Vision Take On a Continent by Rick Vanderknyff (Page 2) (Page 3)
• African Ceremonies by Katherine Roth (Page 2)
• Explorers of everyday life ... in Africa by Mary Daniels (Page 2)
• Capturing a vanishing world of African ritual by Laurence Chollet (Page 2)

And those are, like, just the first four results on Newspapers.com when you search both their names together. And there's over 500 results. Some will be duplicates, sure, but still. Silverseren^C 17:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, this may be an example of where a dual article of Angela Fisher and Carol Beckwith (or vice-versa) is called for, since they'd be so similar to each other if kept as separate articles. Silverseren^C 17:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

A cautionary tale. A theatre group whose article I have worked on quite a bit decided to revamp their website with a trendy new design. So the content was moved around from page to page, and quite a lot of it has just disappeared - details about previous year's shows etc. I've managed to track down archived copies of most, but not all, of the refs, on the Internet Archive, but some of the links are just going to be dead. Very sad.

So: if you are linking to any website which isn't just a copy of a print medium, my advice is to include an archive link in your reference. Look it up at https://web.archive.org/ and see if there's a recent copy already archived which has the text you need. If not, or if in any doubt, request that the page be archived right now. It takes a couple of minutes, but is worth it.

I think there's a bot or gadget which can do this for you so that having created an article with current links you can ask the bot to archive them and upgrade the references, but I haven't got a note of it in my "useful stuff" list. Can anyone advise?

But in the meantime, if your source might possibly disappear, or rearrange its website on a whim (OK, on the advice of a PR team and design gurus!), then archive your refs as you go along, to future-proof the encyclopedia.

I suspect that a frightening number of the refs in the encyclopedia are probably dead links, including a lot of "Official website"s for people who have retired or died, or organisations or companies which no longer exist but are still notable.

Perhaps this is an idea for "Tip of the month":

To future-proof your website sources, find or create an archived copy at https://web.archive.org/ or elsewhere, and add "|archive-url= xxxx | archive-date= xxxx" to your reference. Then your references will survive even if the source website is rearranged or disappears.

PamD 09:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Aaaaamazing. Thank you, I was confused about why/how people were finding archive links. This makes a lot more sense now. AdaWoolf (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The important part is to make sure it is archived by going to archive.org, looking for the url there, and if it doesn't have an archived copy then following the instructions to make one. Retaining a copy of the link here is secondary. As long as it actually is archived, it can be found again from the old url. But many of our sources aren't, and then when they go stale it becomes much more difficult or impossible to replace them. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It's the policy of WikiProject Figure Skating to archive all sources. I know the project isn't connected with WIR, except for the fact that most figure skaters are women, but we've chosen to automatically archive any and all sources because all of the sources we use tend to be web sources. Depending on the article or list, some archived sources are listed in the citation, while others are not and a template stating that all sources are archived is added to their talk pages. I agree and highly recommend that the sources used in articles about women should always be archived. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan that sounds like something that WiR should consider copying, is WikiProject Figure Skating's policy or process for archiving written down somewhere? TSventon (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein Good point. But having checked that there's an archive, one might as well add it to the reference. I've just been reminded that User:InternetArchiveBot is the bot I was thinking of. You need to tick the box saying "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)" if that's what you want to do. @Figureskatingfan, is that what the Figure Skating project uses? PamD 19:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding the archive link to the article itself sometimes faces pushback, because then the visible archive link distracts from or even supplants the live link (depending on how it is linked), effectively freezing the reference in time when you might prefer readers to always see the current version of the reference (at least, unless it ever becomes dead). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I've now found Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Figure_skating#Sources with its recommendation to check that everything is archived and then add a notice to the talk page to confirm that as at YYMM all refs were archived.

This seems such a general point that I'm surprised that (as far as I know) there is no general guidance in WP:MOS or elsewhere about archiving sources. I've looked at a couple of recent Featured Articles, but their sources tend to be mostly books, where this doesn't arise - though the couple of website refs in today's FA Order of Brothelyngham, the sources "MED2023", don't show archive links (but were archived in 2023). Maybe it's not good style to clutter an article's reflist with archive links, as long as one has checked the existence of the links.

Is anyone aware of any general discussion, or existing guidance, on this (apart from at the one WikiProject which Figureskatingfan helpfully pointed out)? It's only going to become more and more of a problem, as websites disappear or get revamped over the years. PamD 19:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit conflict above, hadn't read David's when posting. Yes, sometimes a page is archived and detracts from the value of the link.

The contrary situation, of course, is when you need to archive a page because you know it will change and you want to source the current version. An example being https://bloodyscotland.com/bloody-scotland-scottish-debut-of-the-year/ which today is announcing the 2023 winner but in a year's time will presumably be talking about the 2024 winner - I archived as I added the link to Bloody Scotland recently.

There ought to be some central guidance on this! PamD 19:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

There's an active discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources § Talk:Donald Trump and using WP:LOCALCON to disallow citation archives, specifically about the editors of one article developing a local consensus not to include the archive links on the article itself. (I think this should not be interpreted as disallowing archiving itself.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein Thanks, that's a fascinating, if mind-boggling, discussion. Too late at night to digest it, I'll have another go tomorrow.

I've also now read up about the "url-status=" parameter, which I now see makes a lot of difference: I didn't understand it before. All good learning. PamD 23:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a good idea for WIR to adapt. @PamD, I'm glad you found the FS Style sheet, since I now realize I should have linked it as a possible model. Here's an example of a FS list that archives within the in-line citations: List of highest scores in figure skating; and here's one that denotes that it's been done on its talk page: Demise and revival of compulsory figures. (Yes, I've significantly contributed to both.) Sorry, I don't know of any other project that's following the same procedure. WP FS is doing it because we've learned that the nature of the articles and lists we work on often require it, for many of the reasons brought up in this discussion. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I take back that suggestion as a "tip of the month", pending further thought, discussion, and investigation as to whether there are any centralised recommendations!

Perhaps something more on the lines of: "If you are citing a website, remember that sites can change or disappear, and check that there is a recent archived copy at the Internet Archive or similar, archiving it now if it isn't already there." But not until further discussion! PamD 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I would also add that if you have the Wayback Machine's Google Chrome extension installed, you can set it to automatically archive any webpages you visit that haven't been archived in x time (with blacklist options, of course). Curbon7 (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

If you're comfortable telling a third party your entire browsing history, that could be quite useful. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I am late to the discussion. Yes great idea! Sometime in the last few years the Smithsonian rewrote the interface to its database for Smithsonian American Art Museum. All old links go to the main search page, but not the artist's page. Seems like biographical databases often change the front end. I think Alexander Street changed its front end recently too.

Has anyone found the widget that will easily make the archive links? I strongly believe there is some sort of automated way to do this as I have had editors "archive" the references to some of the pages I have created. I'll be looking through my watchlist to see if I can find an example. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Have I misunderstood something or is it the case that sources needing to be archived are handled automatically by Archivebot? If so, in most cases we will not need to take any further action. It might nevertheless be useful to prepare a WiR page on archiving for those who are not technically minded, clearly explaining when it is necessary to undertake any additional archiving steps and how these can be implemented. Perhaps David Eppstein could prepare a draft.--Ipigott (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that bot looks for dead links to revive, not live links that should be archived. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know much about how Archivebot works. I only know how to access archive.org manually on a one-link-at-a-time basis. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many of our participants are interested in statistics but some might like to know that our Metrics page shows that in March over 1,960 biographies of women were created. Not since March 2022 have there been so many. It's also good to see how many new members have been signing up: 22 in March, 18 in February and 21 in January. It all looks very encouraging.--Ipigott (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is great news, Ipigott! Thank you for bringing it up here. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting on these figures, @Ipigott. It's very good to see growth in both numbers – new members and articles created. Oronsay (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Metrics wow reporting 2,005 new articles for March. This may partly be a result of Meta initiatives in Africa and Asia in connection with biographies of women.--Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi all

I've just finished writing TikTok-A-Thon for Trans Healthcare, if anyone could take a look and make some improvements I'd really appreciate it :)

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The core contest is back and ... since the 2012 contest, we've not improved a single biography of a woman. I was hoping somebody here would be willing to correct that record.

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most fun contest—runs from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Members way wish to comment at this discussion. All opinions welcome. Any help with finding sources to improve the article would be appreciated as well. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I was looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Number of links, and several of the listed items now have enwiki articles associated with them. Is there a reason why the list hasn't been updated since May 2023? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

ListeriaBot tends to struggle with managing large redlists, though this is an odd case as that one is not insanely large. Curbon7 (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

ListeriaBot especially struggles with list cells that themselves link to other complicated or heavily linked wikidata items. In this case, that would be the occupation and citizenship columns. Removing them from the table might help it proceed. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi all! Wikimedia Serbia is once again hosting an international edit-a-thon in honour of International Roma Day this year. This year though it lasts two weeks. In addition, English Wikiquote is included and there are at least six local editathons if any of us speak those languages! If you notice any Roma topics or people missing from the edit-a-thon lists, please feel free to add them! -Yupik (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this @Yupik - I really enjoyed it last year! Lajmmoore (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

My pleasure, @Lajmmoore! I hope as many people as possible can participate this year, since I won't be able to to the extent I want to. Will you be participating? - Yupik (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Yupik - I've only had time to add one article, but here it is Philomena Franz. What an amazing woman Lajmmoore (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore You don't seem to have added it on the results page. Mine seems to be the only new en.wiki article listed, plus two Improved articles. PamD 19:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that! Ooops! Thank you Lajmmoore (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Inspired by @Lajmmoore: and by the fact that tomorrow is the last day, I've created Melanie Spitta: I looked at the "People" list from the editathon to find someone (a) not in en:Wiki, (b) present in a language I can at least partly understand, (c) female, and (d) initial S-T (if there was one), and found her! PamD 12:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much Lajmmoore and PamD! <3 -Yupik (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Yupik Is there a talk page banner for the editathon? I added a manual note, but wondered whether I was missing something! PamD 16:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Not that I know of. But that's a good suggestion for next year! - Yupik (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Would it be okay if someone was bold, and created it (talkpage banner), and we started adding it to applicable talkpages? Seems like a good idea for tracking, branding, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should probably come from the editathon organisers? Though it would need to be in lots of different languages. I don't think we need a WiR-specific version (actually en.wiki isn't even listed as one of the "Supported by" wikis on the participants page. Odd. PamD 19:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear Friends.

I see that English Wikipedia has no articles on two ladies that were leaders of Campaing Against Homophobia (KPH). However, the Polish WIkipedia has such articles. Do you wish for me to translate them? I suppose they are encyclopedic, right?

Best wishes --Kaworu1992 (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia has it's own inclusion criteria, so just because Polish Wikipedia has an article it doesn't necessarily follow that we can have one here, best to use the WP:AFC process when in doubt. Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm in the right place so kindly re-direct me if necessary.

I have been trying to submit an article (my very first from scratch!) about Michèle Hayeur Smith, a Canadian archeologist. I submitted a draft last September & it was immediately declined for 'lack of notability'. I have since tried to add more references etc. but I am nervous about submitting it again. Would one of you more seasoned editors be willing to look it over & suggest improvements?

I was a bit surprised that this researcher was considered 'not notable enough'. When I compare the work of M. Hayeur Smith to that of another archeologist (e.g. Kirsten Bos) or of a male athlete (e.g. Ivan Belfiore), Hayeur Smith seems at least as worthy of a WP article.

Thanks for any help or advice you can provide. Redwidgeon (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Her status as an independent scholar should not be problematic: notability comes from recognition of accomplishments, not so much from job titles. I wasn't able to find enough citations to her work (for instance by searching for her name as an author on Google Scholar and looking at the citation counts in the search results) to pass WP:PROF#C1, and the other WP:PROF criteria look out of reach. For WP:GNG notability, you would need multiple in-depth published works by other people about Smith herself, published by other organizations than her employers, and I didn't see anything like that in the references of the draft. Grants are not prizes that can generate notability. So the likeliest option for notability seems to me to be WP:AUTHOR, and multiple published reviews each of multiple books. I did find two books by her, but only with reviews of one of them:

• Draupnir's Sweat and Mardöll's Tears: An Archaeology of Jewellery, Gender and Identity in Viking Age Iceland (BAR International, 2004): No reviews found.
• The Valkyries’ Loom: The Archaeology of Cloth Production and Female Power in the North Atlantic (University Press of Florida, 2020). Reviews: Douglas J. Bolender, American Antiquity, doi:10.1017/aaq.2021.75; Shannon Lewis-Simpson, Antiquity, doi:10.15184/aqy.2021.139

So if there is a third book I am missing, with multiple reviews, or if you can find multiple reliably published reviews of Draupnir's Sweat and Mardöll's Tears where I failed to do so, then I think there might be a good case for notability that way.

When comparing to others, it might not be obvious to you why those others are considered notable, but in the case of Kirsten Bos, her Google Scholar profile shows heavy citations to her work , a couple dozen publications with triple-digit citation counts and an h-index of 40. Smith doesn't have that, and should not be expected to have that, because she works in a field where book publication is more important than journal publications and citations. So comparing one to the other is like apples and oranges. For sportspeople the comparison is even more strained. The people you should be comparing to are book-publishing archaeologists. Usually the notable ones have multiple books with multiple reviews of each book, and their notability is supported by WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, David Eppstein; this is very helpful & informative. Redwidgeon (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's what I was able to dig up, Redwidgeon, David Eppstein. For her first book, I agree that there seems to be no reviews to find, but I did find some coverage and usage of the book.

• McGuire, Erin-Lee Halstad (2005). "Archaeology in Iceland: Recent Developments". Scandinavian-Canadian Studies. 16: 10–26. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
• Ježek, Martin; Hansen, Sigrid Cecilie Juel (2019). "Symbols missing a cause: the testimony of touchstones from Viking Age Iceland". Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. 11 (7): 3423–3434. doi:10.1007/s12520-018-0764-x. Retrieved April 10, 2024.

As for the second book, in addition to the two reviews you found, I found these.

• Steinberg, John M. (Fall 2022). "The Valkyries' Loom: The Archaeology of Cloth Production and Female Power in the North Atlantic. Michèle Hayeur Smith". Journal of Anthropological Research. 78 (3): 403–404. doi:10.1086/720691. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
• "The Valkyries' Loom: The Archaeology of Cloth Production and Female Power in the North Atlantic". Anthropology Book Forum. 7. August 23, 2021. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
• Koos, Cathy. "The Valkyries' Loom: The Archaeology of Cloth Production and Female Power in the North Atlantic, by Michele Hayeur Smith". cnch.org. Conference of Northern California Handweavers. Retrieved April 10, 2024.

And finally there's just coverage of Smith herself and her work.

• Russo, Francine (October 1, 2022). "Viking Textiles Show Women Had Tremendous Power". Scientific American. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
• Weber, Bob (July 22, 2018). "Spin yarn unspun: Research upends theory that Vikings taught Inuit fibre skills". National Post. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
• Rundkvist, Martin (August 2020). "Jane Kershaw & Gareth Williams (ed.). 2019. Silver, butter, cloth: monetary and social economies in the Viking Age". Antiquity. 94 (376): 1106–1108. doi:10.15184/aqy.2020.114. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
• Cresswell, Peterjon (February 23, 2023). "Textiles, trade, and female power – retelling Viking history through cloth". The Viking Herald. Retrieved April 10, 2024.

No idea on if any of this is enough to pass notability requirements, since it still seems on the line. But you can at least buff up the draft with these sources. Silverseren^C 01:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Silverseren, this information definitely gives me more to work with. Maybe the article still won't get published but no doubt I will learn a lot along the way. Redwidgeon (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I do think, Redwidgeon, that if you add the sources I and David Eppstein found to the article and re-submit to AfC, there's a much better likelihood of it being accepted. Silverseren^C 23:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I tidied this draft up, which had been started and then deleted. Would someone mind accepting it through? Lajmmoore (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a longer Portuguese article at pt:Dodi Leal, written by the same editor who started the en draft. TSventon (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Lajmmoore: Thanks for bringing this up to standard. Now in mainspace, added to #303 and to List of women's and gender studies academics. As already noted, it could be significantly expanded from the Portuguese biography.--Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both - I agree, but I didn't have the energy! Lajmmoore (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I recently have been slowly editing the page Catherine Emihovich by myself. I have a conflict of interest however so if someone could help by suggesting or making changes it would be greatly appreciated. I also am fairly new to editing as well. Thank you for any help you could do! Shane emihovich (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Shane emihovich I've replied on your talk page and done quite a bit of work on the article. PamD 15:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Note to other editors: the article concerned was created in 2008, so although the current editor has a COI, as declared, the article has established notability - Dean of a college. PamD 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Dean of a college is not a notability criterion. Looking at it more, only ne source is independent and secondary, so the article currently violates WP:PRIMARY and fails WP:N. She could potentially meet NAUTHOR if multiple of her books have had multiple academic reviews, or GNG if there are more SIGCOV profiles of her in different, non-local newspapers from different times. But she does not appear to meet NPROF unless she's been cited enough for C1. JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The position of dean should meet the requirements of WP:NACADEMIC#6 ("highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution"). —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

No it would not. That criterion refers to the position of president of the university, not dean of a particular school in the university. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Something a little bit different, but I'd like to mention it now so that people who are interested can have a little time to prepare.

My choir, the Capitol Hill Chorale, has a particular interest in various strands of American folk music; to that end, our last concert of this season will be featuring works by, and inspired by, the Shakers, especially Shaker women. 2024 marks the 250th anniversary of the arrival of Shakers to the United States, and our concert will be dedicated especially to the memory of Mother Ann Lee, their founder.

We'll be hosting an edit-a-thon on the subject of Shaker women on Saturday, May 11. It's just gone live today, and I don't yet have a link to anything other than the Eventbrite registration, which is here. I have a list of thirty or forty notable Shaker women that I've developed over the years, and we'll be looking to create articles on a number of them, plus updating a number of other articles.

I will be crossposting this with Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Religion; it would be nice if some folks would be able to join virtually. Or live, even, if you're in the DC area.--Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Marvelous to hear what your choir will be doing! I registered for the event, but there wasn't a way to indicate that I would be a virtual attendee (and no Zoom link was provided). If the registration is supposed to be only for people who will be attending in person, would you please cancel my registration as I don't want to reserve a seat and be a no-show. That said, I'm looking forward to participating remotely! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Thanks for letting me know about that. We do want to make virtual attendance possible, so I'm glad to know that there wasn't a way to indicate. I'll raise it with Wikimedia DC and make sure it's rectified if need be. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao yes, thanks for the cross post at WiR. I'll get the word out, too, during our monthly planning zoom session next Thursday. If I'm available, I'd like to jump in virtually, too. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Figureskatingfan: Excellent - the more the merrier, as far as I'm concerned. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)