Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

Hi editors, I wrote a draft for OnlyFans CEO Keily Blair that may be of interest to the folks here. I have a COI so I cannot create the article directly, but would love it if someone here could take a look and offer their feedback, even move it to being a full article if you think it merits that. I appreciate any insight you have. You can find the draft here. Cheers AG at OnlyFans (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It looks pretty balanced to me, and I made a few edits. It might be good to get one more editor's opinion on moving it to mainspace. Nick Number (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Nick Number: Thanks for taking a look and making those changes. I'll let this sit here for a few more days. If no one else responds, mind if I ping you to see if there is anywhere else we might attract another reviewer? AG at OnlyFans (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@AG at OnlyFans Ok. Also, if you want to upload a better photo than the one I found on Flickr, there are some guidelines here. The Wikimedia Commons method is easiest if you have an image you can license appropriately. Nick Number (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Nick Number: Good tip, thanks. I will take a look at what photos we may be able to donate. Did you have any thoughts on where we might find another reviewer? AG at OnlyFans (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@AG at OnlyFans: In the absence of other input, I went ahead and moved it to mainspace. Nick Number (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

For anyone interested, Clementine Ford (2016). Fight Like a Girl. Allen & Unwin. ISBN 978-1-76029-236-2. OL 19763225W. Wikidata Q126947622. and Clementine Ford (2018). Boys Will Be Boys. Oneworld Publications. ISBN 978-1-76087-862-7. OL 21337917W. Wikidata Q126947742. could potentially be split off as individual book articles here in en.Wikipedia if enough sources were found to establish notability. My impression is that both are individually notable independent of Clementine Ford (writer) herself, but that would have to be checked. They're both now on Wikidata. Boud (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

We'll need to do some clever titling for the latter, since we already have Boys Will Be Boys (book)byMyriam Miedzian. Silverseren^C 17:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Boys Will Be Boys (Ford book) according to WP:BOOKDAB. It would still need sources to establish notability. TSventon (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that will be a problem, TSventon.

• Boy Will Be Boys

• "Clementine Ford reveals the fragility behind ‘toxic masculinity’ in Boys Will Be Boys", The Conversation
• "Boys Will Be Boys", Foreword Magazine
• "‘Boys Will Be Boys’: Book review", BroadAgenda
• "Boys Will Be Boys: Power, Patriarchy, and Toxic Masculinity", Booklist
• "Boys Will Be Boys by Clementine Ford", Australian Book Review
• "Gender Warriors: Boys Will Be Boys", Virginia Quarterly Review
• "Boys Will Be Boys review: Clementine Ford on how boys should really behave", The Sydney Morning Herald
• "Boys Will Be Boys: Why Clementine Ford wants to talk about men", Australian Broadcasting Corporation
• "Boys Will Be Boys: Power, Patriarchy and Toxic Masculinity", Publishers Weekly
• "Boys Will Be Boys: Clementine Ford on toxic masculinity", Radio New Zealand
• "Misogyny, patriarchy and toxic masculinity: A review of Boys Will Be Boys", Right Now Magazine
• "Feminism for men and women: Alex Casey on the furious, phenomenal Clementine Ford", The Spinoff

• Fight Like a Girl

• "First Person Feminism: Fight Like A Girl by Clementine Ford", Sydney Review of Books
• "Fight like a girl: A conversation with Clementine Ford", The Spinoff
• "Fight Like a Girl review: Clementine Ford's snapshot of contemporary feminism", The Sydney Morning Herald
• "Clementine Ford’s ‘Fight Like a Girl’ Set as TV Series at Aquarius Films", Variety
• ""Fight Like A Girl" Author Clementine Ford", KATU
• "Clem Ford: Why you should fight like a girl", Australian Broadcasting Corporation
• "Fight Like A Girl By Clementine Ford", Sydney Mechanics' School of Arts
• "Book review: Fight Like a Girl", Fashion Journal
• "Clementine Ford Tells All About Her Upcoming Debut Book, ‘Fight Like A Girl’", Pedestrian
• "Feminism in the troll space: Clementine Ford’s Fight Like a Girl, social media, and the networked book", Feminist Media Studies

I unfortunately, Boud, do not have the time to work on articles for these due to my prior commitment. But I do hope that these references prove helpful for you or anyone else that wants to take a stab at making some book articles. Silverseren^C 23:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for those references:   Done Fight Like a Girl (book) + Boys Will Be Boys (Ford book). Boud (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not exactly a woman, but all the reports here call her she. Rather than answering individual queries, I'm posting here and if y'all think it's inappropriate, feel free to remove it. Beryl arrived in Mexico as a Category 2 hurricane just north of Tulum, early this morning. Around 11, she will be just south of Valladoid. It's been difficult for them to project where she was headed. Originally maps showed south of Campeche, but she has steadily pushed northward and is now likely to pass around 8-10 km/5-6 miles north of Mérida. She is likely to be downgraded to a tropical storm by the time she hits here. To this point, we have experienced only minimal rains, but they are telling us to expect 5 to 10 inches of rain. I live in the city in a concrete house and we've had days to prepare. We are safe, but we may well lose electricity and internet service. (We prepared, have battery-operated fans, clocks, phone chargers at the ready.) Please keep all the villagers, who live in low areas surrounding Mérida in your thoughts today. I'll be on-line as I can be. SusunW (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please be safe, my friend. You are ever in my thoughts. --ARoseWolf 16:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sending you lots of safe wishes @SusunW Lajmmoore (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

How are things? The news has moved on to talking about Texas. For WiR's Texan editors: stay safe! -- asilvering (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

asilvering, after weeks of preparations and stress, we were very lucky. Although it passed within 15 miles of us, we had just a light rain and we did not lose either power or internet until Sunday. Then there was no internet all day Sunday and Monday, but functions are normal today thankfully. My heart aches for those who were not so fortunate in the Caribbean and now in Texas. SusunW (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The 2024 Summer Olympics start soon, with the first competitions taking place on July 24 and the majority of qualifications having wrapped up. For anyone who's looking for sportswomen to turn blue, there are a lot of qualified athletes missing articles, including for nearly every sport and country, a large number of which likely pass GNG (though should not be assumed without proof). Below I've listed the number of qualified women Olympians who are redlinks by sport, with links to the lists:

Just thought I'd share the statistics I recorded. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Don't forget the Paralympic Games... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

^ For those interested in writing bios of female athletes who have qualified for the 2024 Paralympics, here are some pages with easily accessible redlinks: track and field athletes, badminton players, powerlifters, shooters, and table tennis players. ForsythiaJo (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for sharing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, BeanieFan11! Sports is a little out of my usual topic areas, and the only one of these events that I have any particular interest in and knowledge of is sport climbing, but I've already added two (Piper Kelly and Jenya Kazbekova). There's more of a language barrier for some, and I think for Beatrice Colli most of the in-depth sources are unfortunately in video rather than text, but I'll see what more I can do. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks like Newspapers.com has been made completely unavailable now (with the button even being removed from The Wikipedia Library, replaced with "Temporarily unavailabe") and no explanation forthcoming thus far. A lot of threads on Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library and Wikipedia talk:Newspapers.com, but no answers. I'm not even sure if there's a Phabricator ticket open on it (or would this be rolled into the several prior tickets covering the many issues we've been having with Newspapers.com access?)

It leaves me kind of at a loss on how to do proper research though. The vast majority of biographical subjects I have to write on require access to that one directory (and Newspaper Archive is a very poor substitute). Not sure what to do at this point. Silverseren^C 18:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a Phabricator ticket T322916. Click on "Temporarily unavailable" for a link.

Searching for clippings at https://www.newspapers.com/clippings/ may be better than nothing. TSventon (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I didn't realize they had turned that into a link. I see I was right though on this being added on to the same issues we've been having for nearly two years now. And no response on the ticket for three days or even really the week prior to that. That's concerning. Silverseren^C 19:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Most of the articles that I start are biographies and this is so frustrating. I don't have the money to sign up for a membership either. SL93 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Super janky workaround: if you have a free account, you can search, but you'll be prompted to pay (or start a free trial) to actually see the articles associated with the results. But, as far as I can tell, only search is broken in the WP Library proxy. So search using your free account, click on a search result, then edit the URL to replace "www.newspapers.com" with "www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org". e.g. this link is paywalled: https://www.newspapers.com/image/124073618/?match=1&terms=%22gordon%20simpson%22%20%22le%20mans%22, but this one works: https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/124073618/?match=1&terms=%22gordon%20simpson%22%20%22le%20mans%22. It's slow and clunky, but better than nothing. pburka (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

pburka Thank you for that. It works great! SusunW (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This old school hack made me laugh . Love this page and I will leave you to your fantastic work ❤️ Bunions Nonsenseses (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• It seems newspapers.com still works for me (just was able to do everything and make a clipping just fine: [1]). @Silver seren: What specifically is not working for you? Are you logged-in and at this url?BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  This is the same problem I was having, that I mentioned to you in that recent AfD. I wonder why you're still unaffected. I was able to read only two of your clippings, but not the others. -- asilvering (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Take a look at this rather interesting article...Gauthier, Maude; Sawchuk, Kim (2 October 2017). "Not notable enough: feminism and expertise in Wikipedia". Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. 14 (4): 385–402. doi:10.1080/14791420.2017.1386321. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

£39 - no thanks! Looks like moaning about notability. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why they gave it this title, because from my reading it's more about how wikipedia privileges certain kinds of "facts" over others. Their main complaint is that topics related to aging on wikipedia are treated almost entirely biomedically, ignoring other kinds of academic work on the subject. They run into some trouble getting things through WP:NCORP, which is really harsh for the kinds of topics they want to write on (academic institutes, etc - very difficult to get fully "independent" sourcing). They are frustrated by wikipedia's inconsistent standards (ie, that we don't let trash through AfC but that trash can persist eternally in mainspace if no one bothers to nominate it for deletion). That's a pretty legitimate concern imo, especially since there's no really honest statement like "we know wikipedia is full of crap that doesn't meet our guidelines, and we want to get rid of it but it's a gargantuan task" anywhere. Any newbie who brings it up just gets told "other stuff exists" and dismissed. -- asilvering (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This page is titled "Women in Red." The second sentence says, "Welcome to Women in Red (WiR)! We are a group of volunteer (unpaid) editors of all genders..."

The disagreement makes absolutely no sense.

96.244.11.84 (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

What does not make sense? It seems to make complete sense to me DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The name of this project references the topic it focuses on. The second sentence describes the people who work on the project. pburka (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi all. I disclosed a COI on the Joey Wat page about a female CEO and requested an expansion of the career section a few weeks ago. I'm trying to comply with WP:COI by not making any edits myself. I was hoping editors here could evaluate the proposed expansion and collaborate on other improvements. Coreyhcooper (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to express my absolute momentary joy. I've been working on User:Silver seren/Lisa M. Corrigan for this week's biography article. And I haven't been finding too much. Some, sure, but ProQuest and Newspapers.com (as much as I can make that work, thanks for the help though, Pburka!) haven't really been coming up with much, nor were the initial Google search results looking too helpful.

I was worried I was going to have to rely on book reviews to wring out what scant biographical info I can, which I've mostly done just last week with Grace Lavery. But, lo, what did I find? On the 10th page of Google search results? Could it be? The perfect source? Indeed, my prayers have been answered.

Just wanted to share that with you all. May you also find the perfect sources you need! Silverseren^C 03:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Love that feeling, it's so satisfying! :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello everyone, WikiProject Figure Skating has just started doing A-class assessments. Our first article submitted for review is Yuna Kim, and we're in need of a third reviewer. Here's the link to the assessment: Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Assessment/Yuna Kim. While figure skating isn't a completely women's sport, most of its athletes are female, and as you might expect, is a neglected topic, especially skaters' biographies. The assistance of any member of this project would be muchly appreciated. You don't have to necessarily be a figure skating expert (although that would help, of course), but you should at least be knowledgeable about editing and contributing to Wikipedia. Even those who only watch figure skating every four years during the Winter Olympics (a group I call "the uninitiated figure skating fan", haha) are welcome! Thanks to all and best. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello folks, looking for something else, I came across the Kato Mikeladze Award which is given to a women's rights activist from Georgia each year since 2013. All the names (bar one) on the list are red. I've not had a chance to check whether sources are available for them all, but if anyone feels like a challenge the list is there (& on Wikidata), hopefully making them more visible! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi everyone. I caught a statistics bug today and wanted to look at our progress in increasing the number of women's biographies on English Wikipedia. I don't know if anyone's done something like this recently, but thought I'd have a look over. As it says on the project front page, this project was created almost a decade ago, when it was discovered that women's biographies numbered roughly 15.53% of biographies on the platform. As of 1 July 2024, we have gotten this up to 19.86% (accounting for 399,180 biographies), which is a 4.33% difference. We're currently keeping track of this number using Humaniki, but its data doesn't go back as far as 2015; it started collecting data in December 2020/January 2021, so this is the data I had to work with.

On 28 December 2020, there were 331,934 biographies about women, accounting for 18.689% of all biographies on English Wikipedia. This means that over the past three and a half years, we have created at least 67,246 new biographies, accounting for a 1.17% increase in the proportion of women's biographies. On average, this means we create roughly 19,645 new biographies each year, increasing the proportion of women's biographies by roughly 0.342% each year. (Judging by this, we can expect a 1% increase roughly every three years)

I was pleasantly surprised to find out that it is a rarity that the number of biographies or the total percentage decreases. The last week that these numbers decreased was two years ago, on 11 July 2022, when the total number of women's biographies dropped by 187 over the preceding week. In fact, in the past three and a half years, we have only seen five weeks where the percentage of women's biographies dropped (of which two weeks saw an increase in total women's biographies, but not enough to increase the percentage figure).

All this has led to a very steady increase in both the total number and proportional representation of women's biographies. If we keep on track with this, then according to my projections, we should hit 400,000 biographies by the end of the month and we might even hit the fabled 20% figure by the end of 2024! This will definitely be something to be celebrated and might justify a big edit-a-thon towards the end of the year in order to get us over the line. Projections of when we might get to 50% are quite a bit more distant; at current rates, we won't hit gender parity until the year 2111. What Wikipedia, the internet and the wider world will even look like by that point would be anyone's guess.

It also seems like some of our progress might be slowing. While we increased the percentage figure by 0.415% in 2021 (accounting for over 24,000 new biographies), the percentage increased by 0.329% in 2022 and 0.296% in 2023 (each accounting for slightly over 17,000 new biographies). We're still improving things, but this does indicate a need for further outreach and onboarding if we're to keep going in the longer term.

In any case, I hope everyone here is getting on well and enjoying the summer. All the best --Grnrchst (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this! One thing I'd say is that if only because of history, we are most unlikely ever to get to 50%, nor should this be an aim of the project (this used to be often seen as an aim, but I think most people have now realized this). That's unless some new predominately female type of person starts being regarded as notable in large numbers. I won't labour the point, but think about large all-notable jobs with easily-found statistical data, like politicians elected to national legislatures, top-level team sports and so on. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh aye, I didn't mean to say we should have it as a hard goal; it's the direction, not the destination. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, my thanks too! I pulled out some similar figures at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics#Summary of Women in Red statistics from main page following a discussion here. I used figures from the WiR main page edit history as they go back a bit further plus a figure for September 2015. TSventon (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Adding my thanks! Also, for transparency, clarifying that, in 2015, Roger and I never mentioned a particular numerical goal, rather, the goal was to "move the needle", e.g., improve on the abysmal 15.53% statistic. That said, I'm guessing that most of us will be ecstatic upon reaching that elusive 20%. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

20% would be great (50% would require us to delete history). There is evidence that the new additions of biogs are much more equal but the figure is likely to settle at about 28%. The effect of additional biogs is ever decreasing - but still very important. "Moving the needle" was indeed the aim. (There were paper encyclopedias with the percentage of 3-7% women). Truly terrible - and it hurts to know that a future edition of "famous modern women of Afghanistan" is destined for an even lower target. On the other hand the figures are very skewed by an obsession with blokes who can kick a ball ... and it looks as if that is reducing. Seeing stadia filled with ppl watching women play football is marvellous. I think that if we work really hard then Rosie, and my, granddaughters (who recently met) might think that gender/racial/European bias was a "thing of history". Lets keep moving the needle. Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

and Happy Birthday Women in Red you are eight today! ... and we are close to 400,000 biographies... did you realise @Rosiestep: that you and I have written over 1% of them! Victuallers (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Happy Birthday, Women in Red!!! I did not know that you and I wrote >1% of them, Roger... so, WOW! What I do know is that it's been quite a journey, and I'm glad that that journey included your fam and mine, including your granddaughter and mine, meeting up last month. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Happy Birthday, Women in Red! As of 15 July, there are now over 400,000 (19.874%) women's bios on English Wikipedia. Well done everyone!. Onwards and upwards. Oronsay (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Helen Hunt Jackson was the author of Ramona and I worked on her biography in July 2017. Then I promptly forgot about her. Today, I got a pleasant surprise. Adam Cuerden has restored her image. Thank you, Adam, for your gorgeous work. So grateful that you dedicate some of your time and skills to improving photos of notable women. -- Rosiestep (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I posted a wish about a tool to reduce a gap at least a little bit more but it seems it doesn't look at least somehow important. I wrote my request from my own perspective but know that this problem appears not only in Russian and in the description of this project it's said that there are people from different countries here; please, take a look, and if the problem of gender marking in job titles is valid for your language, let the Community Wishlist team know about it on the talk page. Thank you in advance. Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello folks! Next month as part of National Allotment Week in the UK, I've been invited to speak on a panel about women and vegetable gardening. Its come about because I told a friend about the event on Plants & Gardens (which started as an idea in my head), and like lots of others here try to regularly edit about women in botany/biology/etc. I have a ten minute slot & I wondered a) if there are key things you'd like me to mention and b) if any of the stats wranglers had any figures for how green-fingered professions might have improved (or not) while the project has been running. (I bet Women in Science has also done a lot of contributing too) Lajmmoore (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know the history, but Category:Women horticulturists and gardeners currently has 63 members. TSventon (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lajmmoore, I checked the contents of Category:Women horticulturists and gardeners and only 23 of the articles existed when Women in Red started in 2015 (marked x below), so 40 have been added since, including some by yourself. TSventon (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Guardian article by Susanna Rustin, published today, resonated with me regarding what we're doing here. -- Rosiestep (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link. Very interesting article. Balance person (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I want to add an image to the article Helen Saunders. I found an image here. The credit in that article for the photo of Helen Saunders states "Image credit: Wikimedia Commons (public domain)". I can NOT find this image on the commons. Any help appreciated. Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have found that image in other articles but with the credit line "The Estate of Helen Saunders", for example [2] from studio international.14GTR (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks 14GTR! I shall use the image as "fair use". I think it may have been mistakenly uploaded to the commons awhile ago and then deleted as still in copyright --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

New WikiProject, in case any WiR members are interested:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Kamala Harris

---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Aren't you supposed to get clearance somewhere before doing this, including showing a number of editors claiming to be committed to working on the subject? User:Joe Roe will know. WP is littered with inactive projects. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was bold! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. But what if she a) doesn't end up as the Dem candidate, or b) loses to Trump? Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Another Believer: Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Creating a WikiProject for why being bold in creating WikiProjects probably isn't helpful. A wikiproject is a group of editors. Creating the project before you have the group is putting the cart before the horse. – Joe (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents also exists (and explicitly covers VP's). I T B F 💬 10:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok! I came here to recruit participation and promote collaboration, not to be told I'm in the wrong. If you don't want to join this new WikiProject, then don't join this new WikiProject. Thanks, --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

We're expressing doubt that this is an effective way to promote collaboration and concern that it will exacerbate an existing problem (profusion of inactive wikiprojects) that other editors are trying to deal with. Please do consider whether you could achieve your goal by working within the framework of an existing wikiproject. – Joe (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

We're just boldly telling you you probably jumped the gun. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK! I have nothing else to say here. I am not going to seek page deletion, but do what you must. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I mean, you created Wikipedia:WikiProject Joe Biden four years ago and were told exactly the same thing, this can't be a huge surprise? – Joe (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

I just extended the article about Barbara Bartuś basing upon the Polish article. Could you please look and check my grammar and other stuff? ;-)

Best wishes! -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this. In English Wikipedia we don't link years, and we format numbers with commas for thousands, not spaces - so 12,345, rather than 12 345. I've corrected those.

You haven't given a source for her birth date: is it in one of the refs? It needs to be clearly sourced. For the benefit of non-Polish readers, it is helpful to use the "trans-title" field in your references to show the title of the sources, so that we can get an idea what kind of source they are. The lead paragraph is a bit confusing for those who don't know what "Sejm" means: could you clarify it? Or maybe just give the dates that she was in parliament, as more meaningful?

I'm not sure what "She was a councillady of Gmina Lipinki during its 2nd tenure." means. Because "MP" is pronounced "Empee", it takes "an" rather than "a". I've added a few missing "the"s. Remember that punctuation goes before references.

Thanks for the article, anyway, and Happy Editing. PamD 08:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great new article by WMF's Chief Comm's Officer, AAlikhan (WMF) shining a light on Wikipedia's content gender gap, which mentions Women in Red. Thanks, Anusha! -- Rosiestep (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Smart to get that in while the headline is still true (see sections above). Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the headline is about the cross Wikipedia female percentage, which is currently 18.843%, but I agree that it is smart for leaders to set themselves attainable targets. TSventon (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've just created Mary Hastings, a 16th century Englishwoman who was proposed as wife of Ivan the Terrible. Can the project have a look at it and see if they could assist with any improvements? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply