Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

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

Humaniki updates

I see from our main page that Humaniki has not updated since 23 June. Perhaps Maximilianklein and/or The Earwig can identify the problem.--Ipigott (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Oronsay mentioned this a month ago here. TSventon (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I left a message on the Wiki GenderGap Telegram group seeking assistance. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

has anyone heard anything more? Dsp13 (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I've been in touch with Max Klein by email. He tells me he is aware of the problem but is completely tied up with moving house and professional assignments. He might not be able to attend to the problem for weeks or even months. It seems to me that we need some kind of backup on problems with Humaniki. It might even be useful to develop an alternative option which provides results on the percentage of women's biographies on the EN wiki. Any offers?--Ipigott (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Oronsay, Rosiestep, Ipigott, and Dsp13: does anyone know how difficult it is to run a Wikidata query of number of male human bios and number of female human bios on en Wikipedia? That could be a stopgap while Humaniki is out of action and even monthly or quarterly updates would be better than nothing. TSventon (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Querying for anything of that magnitude would time out. That's why Humaniki uses the weekly Wikidata dump to produce statistics for a large number of Wikipedias and other Wiki platforms. Oronsay (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

In addition to Humaniki and its predecessor, there have been other successful projects which drew on the Wikidata dump to provide stats on the proportion of women covered. One which ran for three or four years a few years ago was WDCM statistics on women's biographies on Wikimedia projects. Further info and perhaps interest in support can be found here. I don't see why dealing with the data dump should be such a problem.--Ipigott (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

QLever

Hello, My name is Swad, a PhD student. In my recent study on the gender gap in Wikipedia’s Articles for Deletion, I used the QLever endpoint to collect Wikidata entries of men and women. I have documented the process in detail on GitHub (see Step 3). According to the QLever platform, the data dump is up to date, and I found the system to be very smooth and fast, even when running queries without a data limit. Please feel free to reuse the query I developed, and I would greatly welcome any feedback, as this work forms part of my PhD project. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you’d like to discuss further. Swad Tasnim (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Oronsay, Rosiestep, Ipigott, and Dsp13: did you see this? I had a look at the links and was able to run the quarry report in 1.1 in about 40 minutes. However it gave me 2116893 rows and the first few were mostly bands, not not biographies: 0.8Syooogeki, 0%Mercury, 0DFx, 1_Called_Manders, 1_Giant_Leap, 1_Life_2_Live. Also the results were too big to save as csv, so I stopped there. TSventon (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I clicked on the QLever link, it was taking too long to open, so I didn't wait, and moved on to doing other things. As I'm not very technically proficient, I am not a good candidate to test out something that takes 40 minutes to run and returns 2116893 rows, which include items not related to what I perceive as intended information. That's not to say that this isn't a good alternate reporting format to Humaniki ... just that I'm not the right person to address it. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

This looks like useful avenue to explore. Maybe it should be brought to wider attention. While Humaniki is probably the best all-round solution for monitoring progress on women's biographies, a more modest alternative for the EN wiki would be a useful fallback.--Ipigott (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for reviewing the queries and sharing feedback. Allow me to provide some clarification. As outlined in the documentation I shared earlier, the Quarry “WP-Bio” set (Wikipedia biographies, from QUARRY) and the Wikidata “Q5” set (humans, from Qlever, mentioned in step 3 in the documentation) are different: WP-Bio includes pages tagged as biographies on English Wikipedia and indexed in WikiProject: Biography, but this set is not limited strictly to biographies and can include non-biographical entries (such as bands). Q5, on the other hand, contains all human entries in Wikidata. My current QLever query specifically restricts results to Q5 items that have an English Wikipedia article, meaning the results correspond to actual biographies in Wikipedia. I have also developed a faster query that retrieves the count of Wikidata items grouped by gender, limited to biographies in Wikipedia, available here: (Qlever Results, please click on the Execute button to see the results. ). Please feel free to share any feedback — I’d be happy to engage further and help work toward a solution. Swad Tasnim (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Swad Tasnim. I have updated the WIR home page using QLever figures and will provide weekly updates using this tool and an offline spreadsheet until Humaniki comes back into service, whenever that should be. Oronsay (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@Swad Tasnim. Thank you for providing a customised solution for us. (As you saw I wasn't able to follow your original notes, which shows I am not an expert in data reporting.) The figures seem consistent with what Humaniki produced. Is the report using Wikidata or a dump? I tagged a Wikidata item with an en article as female and the female line on the report remained unchanged at 421,901. TSventon (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m glad I could provide a solution, and I really appreciate that you took the time to review it and share feedback. For context, QLever is a SPARQL engine developed by a research team at the University of Freiburg led by Hannah Bast. Like Humaniki, it relies on Wikidata’s data and can therefore be used to generate similar gender-gap statistics for biographies. This makes QLever a useful additional or fallback option alongside Humaniki. According to the documentation on their website, QLever depends on Wikidata dumps that are updated periodically. At present, it uses the latest dump version updated on 2025.09.17 (https://dumps.wikimedia.org/wikidatawiki/entities: latest-all.ttl.bz2 and latest-lexemes.ttl.bz2, version 17.09.2025). So, it does not reflect live, real-time edits on Wikidata. Nonetheless, I would be glad to help further in developing queries with QLever that can generate statistics similar to those provided by Humaniki. Swad Tasnim (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, our French sister project, fr:Projet:Les sans pagEs also uses Humaniki on their front page. Could you produce a fr version for them? I have tried copying the en code and changing en to fr and that works, but I don't know how to save the code for future use. TSventon (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Swad Tasnim, thank you for creating this tool! JFYI, I left a message regarding QLever in 3 "women/gender" Telegram groups, including a link here, encouraging others to join the conversation. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

TSventon Oronsay, thanks for adding today's % update on the WiR mainpage: 20.20% ... w00t! Next month, will be 11 years since we've had a measurement regarding % of biographies about women. Then, it was 15.53%. Let's see what Oct 2025 brings. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Rosiestep, I fixed the credit for you. TSventon (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Allow me to guide you through the steps: First, update and execute the query. Then, click the Share button (located next to the Execute button). A permanent URL link will appear at the top, labeled “URL to this query in the QLever UI (short, with query hash)”. You can copy and save this link for future use or to share with others. I hope this helps. Swad Tasnim (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Swad Tasnim Also, our Catalan project, ca:Viquiprojecte:Viquidones, uses Humaniki. How could we produce a version in "ca"?Tiputini (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Tiputini for now you could click on Qlever Results, change two instances of en to ca then click execute. I got femení 43,103. TSventon (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @TSventon. @Tiputini, To save the query and further use, click the Share button (located next to the Execute button). A permanent URL link will appear at the top, labeled “URL to this query in the QLever UI (short, with query hash)”. You can copy and save this link for future use or to share with others. I hope this helps. Swad Tasnim (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Swad Tasnim:, thank you, I have posted on the fr:Projet:Les sans pagEs talk page. @Rosiestep:, is there anywhere central to inform sister projects, or does information just spread of its own accord? TSventon (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

TSventon, the daily conversations take place on Telegram. If you're a wikiwoman* and wish to participate in those conversations, please email me to get connected. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Rosiestep, I don't want to sign up for Telegram at the moment, can you share (or have you shared) a link to this conversation there? TSventon (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

TSventon, Yes, I shared on 24 September. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at what we did on the French Wikipedia (we were not really using Humaniki anymore as what we need are more precise statistics on occupation and birth date). Here is what we did : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Les_sans_pagEs/Denelezh_2.0. Clicking on the wikidata label for each occupation gives you a list of articles to translate in French see here for warrior https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Les_sans_pagEs/Denelezh_2.0/Q1414937 Natacha LSP (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Natacha LSP We use Humaniki on our main page to track progress on en Wikipedia over time. I left a message for LSP because I saw that fr:Projet:Les sans pagEs mentions June 2025 figures from Humaniki. (Hopefully Googke translate's French was not too terrible.) TSventon (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Dear @TSventon I came here after seeing your message on the discussion page of les sans pagEs . We do the same, I only meant that on operational and strategical level, Denelezeh is much better. We have been asking for a complete tool for years, we obtained Humaniki, lost Denelezeh which was ment to merge with Humaniki and now it's broken. Anyway thank you for the new tool (I just wanted to run a comparison for different languages but the Qlever server is down on my side) Natacha LSP (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Input needed

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ROSA (organisation) and ROSA International Socialist Feminist Movement. No opinion on this topic, but may be worth rescuing if sources can be located. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The AfD result was no consensus. 4meter4 identified some further sources and I have done some work on the article. TSventon (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for putting in the work. Looks good.4meter4 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Article's Notability Being questioned.

Hello, I helped create an article for writer Liz Brown. Recently someone has flagged it for "notability" i.e. questioning whether this public figure who has both published publicly and been written about in major media sources is "notable".

When there can be vast, individual wikipedia articles dedicated to singular episodes of television, it seems this person's work is equally "noteable".

I am wondering if part of this is gender bias? of course it couldn't be proven.

Is there a good place to put a list of figures/potential entries of noteable/significant women to suggest for other people to work on? Or if an article like this is flagged, to suggest for others who have time to "go deeper" to have a list of articles that need additional support.

Thank you for any resouces or leads you can provide. Novitchka2000 (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi there,

I have taken a look at the page and done some reformatting/added an infobox. I do think the flagging was likely in good faith, as there weren't many references that were independent or in-depth. Since it looks like her main claim to notability is her 2021 book, I added two additional reviews of her book. If we have any other external write-ups of her, or analysis/reviews of her other written work, that could also strengthen the page. :)

Also, as to your question about lists - yes! In the Redlist index, any lists with a (CS) link are crowd sourced and can be freely edited to add new women. I have seen folks also use those lists to note stub articles/articles that need more work, although I'm not sure how much traffic those lists get. ForsythiaJo (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

that was a helpful response as I wanted to know the same. ArianeArcadia (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Barbara Gogan - Sources Advice / Support

Hello! I’ve compiled additional sources on post-punk and electronic musician Barbara Gogan. Feedback or assistance verifying or expanding the content by any noninvolved editors would be very welcome. I aim to expand and improve this AfD article. Thank you for any guidance or assistance you can provide!

— Adrian

Newly identified possible key sources:

• Women Make Noise: Girl Bands from Motown to the Modern, Julia Downes et al., 2015
• Real Life Rock: The Complete Top Ten Columns, 1986–2014, Greil Marcus, 2015, p. 504
• Post Punk Diary: 1980–1982, George Gimarc, 1997, p. 36
• Season of the Witch: The Book of Goth, Cathi Unsworth, 2024
• The England’s Dreaming Tapes, Jon Savage, 2010, p. 736

Newly identified possible additional sources for reference:

• New Women in Rock, Liz Thomson, 1982, p. 46
• Signed, Sealed, and Delivered: True Life Stories of Women in Pop, Sue Steward & Sheryl Garratt, 1984
• The Trouser Press Record Guide, Ira Robbins, 1991, p. 492
• Billboard, 4 Oct 1997, p. 30
• The Virgin Encyclopedia of 80s Music, Colin Larkin, 2003, p. 377
• The Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music, Colin Larkin, 1992 & 1995
• Complete UK Hit Albums 1956–2005, Graham Betts, 2005, p. 309
• Collins Complete UK Hit Singles 1952–2004, Graham Betts, 2004, p. 586
• The Peel Sessions, Ken Garner, 2010
• BBC Music Magazine, Vol. 6, 1998, p. 62
• The Wire, Vols. 173–178, 1998, p. 33
• The Nation, Vol. 238, 1984, p. 697
• Enciclopedia rock anni ’80, Riccardo Bertoncelli, 1989, p. 529
• The Literature of Rock II, 1979–1983, Frank W. Hoffmann, B. Lee Cooper & Lee Ann Hoffmann, 1986
• The Great British Mistake: Post Punk Fanzines: 1979–84, Tom Vague, 2017

Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Adrian.stewart.music. I see that your account is only 4 days old, so welcome to Wikipedia! I recommend placing these "Newly identified possible key sources" and "Newly identified possible additional sources for reference" on Barbara Gogan's talkpage... and, to the extent possible, including URLs. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! So it is seen as okay to put these into the AfD talk page and no breach of policy then, correct? Sorry for so many questions! Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Adrian.stewart.music and I should add: welcome to Wikipedia as I see that your account is only 4 days old! I also just noticed that UndercoverClassicist has been mentoring you regarding the Barbara Grogan article so pinging them to this conversation.

To answer your direct question: no; not on the AfD talk page. Add the potential sources with URLs to the Barbara Gogan talkpage. Without the URLs, editors cannot verify that the potential references have a connection to the subject. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that clarification! I'm still clearly green :) . That is fantastic. Will do! And thank you for the welcome! All the best,

- Adrian Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Adrian.stewart.music. To be clear: only add confirmed sources to the Barbara Gogan talkpage; don't add possible sources. It falls on editors to do our research before adding "potential" information to an article or its talkpage. Still better: once you've confirmed a source, add the information from that source into the article, along with the reference. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, ok! Will fix this! Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I’ve polished the article taking this advice and just awaiting the Afd decision. On another note: How does someone join this group? Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Adrian.stewart.music: to join, you can go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members#New registrations. TSventon (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon I registered. Thank you! Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Candela Sierra

Today I created the Spanish Wikipedia article about Candela Sierra, after she became the fifth woman to win the National Comic Award in Spain. I wanted to share her biography here in case anyone would be interested in translating it. In case anyone is interested, here is the original article: es:Candela Sierra --Peridotito (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Peridotito. I've handled the translation and created Candela Sierra on English Wikipedia. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Rosiestep, I really appreciate it, and I'm glad that English Wikipedia can feature information about a new female comic book author, especially after winning an award that, while not well-known in the English-speaking world, is very important to Spanish readers, so thanks again!--Peridotito (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

My generative AI case study focused on historical women writers' articles with short leads

Hi all. I want to inform you about a research project I'm starting after having written and tagged the articles as within the scope of Women in Red: (Experimenting and evaluating the use of generative AI for enhancing Wikipedia biographies. A case study of short leads on historical women writers' articles.). Questions, comments, and feedback are welcome. -- Rosiestep (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Really interesting idea. You could replace the current high quality leads of your GA-class or FA-class with a very short one to compare the enhanced AI generated one with an accepted high quality lead. That would also address your concern about possible bias in evaluating the quality of AI generated leads.MerielGJones (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

MerielGJones, thanks! The replacement option you describe could indeed lend a nuance to the research. I'll add it to the project page as a V2.0. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

As the project progresses, it might be useful to compile a list of leads before and after the AI-assisted improvements. This might facilitate further comment and possible recognition of support. The introduction of new technologies in support of improvements to existing articles may not immediately attract objective analysis. Personally, I'm prepared to bet that experience gained along these lines will be useful not only for women's biographies but far more generally. It would be interesting to know if there are any similar initiatives.--Ipigott (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I know there’s funding in gen AI, but surely the only conclusion will be “AI made the leads too promotional or essay like in tone, at least, and the time spent creating this model could have been better spent simply reading the articles and summarising them into a lead ourselves, sorry we damaged the environment to see this is a pointless idea”. I don’t support this and am disappointed it has been posted here as seemingly a positive for this project. Kingsif (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Kingsif. I'm not done with my research, so at this time, I will only address one point you made to ensure there's no confusion. Regarding "there’s funding in gen AI": while that may be true, I am not now nor have I ever received any funding for Gen AI research or my Wikipedia Visiting Scholar work that it's based on or any other edit ever made on Wikipedia or any Sister Project. My COI/paid editing disclosure is here. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

[1] Kingsif (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the tone of this response is conducive to a productive discussion. "I know there's funding in gen AI" indicates to me a potential lack of good faith, but this response is over the line. Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not supportive of it either. It's almost as bad as those pro-AI forums that the ALA holds all the time (I'm a member of that organization for now) which are just as disconcerting. Pushing more A.I. into these spaces is not a good idea. It should be wholeheartedly opposed. Historyday01 (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, especially with something like WiR. This feels like a slippery slope that could lead to using gen AI to scour the internet for information about people in order to write bios. Not only would that contribute to something like dead internet theory occurring (AI writing bios that only get read by AI summarising them), but is so fundamentally counter-intuitive to the point of WiR, where we deliberately have a bit more lee-way to interpreting RS for historical women who are underrepresented in traditional sources. You can't tell me an AI model using only internet-readable sources and trained on RS criteria is going to be able to apply that kind of nuance, so not only would we be getting fewer real people researching (and re-discovering and passionately sharing) about notable women, we would also be getting fewer bios of historical women because of the very reasons this project was created to counter. As you suggest, I believe any concessions to AI in these kind of info spaces is too much (whether it will always lead to more or not), and should be actively discouraged. Kingsif (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I don’t want to belabor the point but I am with Kingsif and Historyday01. Most of all for an underrepresented topic like this, I wish we’d steer clear of applying a tool with such abundantly documented failures and harms. Women’s biographies deserve better. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Women in Green's 9th edit-a-thon

Hello WikiProject Women in Red: WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2025!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2025, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event with the theme What Women Do! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 different occupations or professions (or broader roles in society) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Female Polymaths: a Wikipedia editathon

Hi everyone. The Polymath Festival is under way here in the UK and as part of it there will be an editathon on the theme of female polymaths on Wednesday 24 September at 13:00 local time (UTC+1). All are welcome to this free online event, at any level of wiki experience. Register on Eventbrite. Lucy Crompton-Reid of Wikimedia UK and Shama Rahman will be taking part. The topic is potentially very broad and we welcome suggestions for articles about women or their achievements. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Next year, they could also have more female key speakers than they do this year. 5 women out of 25 key speakers is not stellar. 1 of the 5 we don't have an article for: Samantha Tauber, artist name VNCCII. We do have articles for Herminia Ibarra, Merritt Moore, Shama Rahman, and Jasmine Pradissitto, the latter of which is currently flagged for sounding like a résumé. A good place to take a look at is the list of examples in the Polymath article here on enwiki; at a quick glance, there looks to be 3? women on the list. I hope as many of us as possible will join in the editathon! Thanks for organizing it! - Yupik (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

My Choice (2015 film)

Greetings, Requesting some draft article expansion and c/e help in the draft User:Bookku/My Choice (2015 film) article if you find above topic interested in. Bookku (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Marian Cox

Surprised to notice we don't yet have the American writer, feminist and socialite Marian Cox / Marian Cox Logan (1882?-1970s).[2][3][4] Dsp13 (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Question about Translation

Hi, everyone. I am writing because I am currently working on an article translated from Basque (Ane Legarreta) and I have a small question about the translation of the article. I visited Wikipedia:Translation, but I am not clear on which specific template I should use. Would it be sufficient to simply place the {{translated page}} template on the article's talk page? Or should I add any other information regarding the translation? Thank you very much, first of all. Dicomus (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dicomus: Hi, that is explained at Help:Translation § Licensing, rather than on the main translation page. You need to use an edit summary, which you can do retrospectively and the translated page template is optional, but helpful. Obviously the guidance is a bit hard to find, so it is not always followed. TSventon (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @TSventon:. Thank you very much for the clarification. I didn't know that, that is is why I didn't included it in the edit summary. I saw the template, but I was unsure if I needed to do anything else (as the edit summary). Thank you very much! Dicomus (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dicomus: I see that another editor added an edit summary yesterday, so the translation of Ane Legarreta has been fully disclosed. TSventon (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @TSventon: That's great. Now I know how to do it next time. Thank you! Dicomus (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Improving JoAnna Cochenet - Advice

Hi, everyone. I would like to ask for advice and help in improving JoAnna Cochenet article, woman conductor, member of the International Alliance for Women in Music. It was nominated to AfD by a vandalistic user with multiple SPA accounts (the story is very long). Regardless of that, I don't know how to improve the article and I would appreciate another opinion on how to improve it, what aspects need improvement, finding more references... (By the way, I don't know if it's possible to continue editing or improving an article while an AfD discussion is ongoing.) Thank you very much, first of all. Dicomus (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dicomus: Hi, I will look at the AfD, but I would advise you to avoid calling users vandals. Wikipedia:Vandalism means someone deliberately damaging Wikipedia and we are expected to Wikipedia:assume good faith and avoid the term, except in clear cut cases. Also don't accuse editors of using multiple accounts talk pages, if you think they are, go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and follow the instructions there. I am afraid that is a lot of jargon, but it will help you get your arguments heard at AfD and in other places. TSventon (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon: Hi, TSventon. Thank you for your reply and thank you very much for offering to help me with the article! :D Regarding the "vandalism" tag, I think in this case it's not entirely incorrect (maybe I'm wrong). This is a person whose edits have been reverted several times, who has been adding templates nonsense and who has been using a LLM tool to request the deletion of the article... There have even been harassment and insults from this person directed at both editors and the people of the articles (see Karljoos talk#JoAnna Cochenet). This person harassed anyone who reverted their edits or objected to the deletion. (The whole story is a bit long). That's why I used the "vandalism" word (otherwise, I would have been more cautious in using it). If you look at the AfD, it's an absolute mess all what this person did (fortunately, some people voted "Keep"). (P.S. Please be careful with this person, it doesn't seem like this person will stop their personal campaign against this specific article...). Thank you very much for your help in improving the article :DD Dicomus (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dicomus:, did you check Cochenet's Wikipedia:Notability before translating the article? That is important as it reduces the risk of writing an article, only to see it deleted. Other versions of Wikipedia have their own rules and translated articles may not be suitable for en Wikipedia. Generally significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject is needed (the Wikipedia:General notability guideline, more jargon, I am afraid). I have looked at the list of references and at first sight none of them look independent. For example websites for universities where she studied and venues where she has performed are not independent. I couldn't access the PhD thesis, but that is only used to confirm the name of her husband.

On vandalism, I would advise you as a new editor to avoid the word. Nominating an article for deletion, when the nominator believes it is not notable is not vandalism. TSventon (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I omitted to say that you can edit the article, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#General advice, but I would suggest looking for independent sources is more important in this case. TSventon (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon: Thank you very much for taking a look. (Regarding that word, as a rookie, I understand, I will avoid it,, I'm still green with jargon). Regarding notability, to be honest, at first glance I thought it met the criteria. From what I'd read before tanslating, I thought it had significant coverage regarding notability. Seeing that the article had a huge variety of references, I thought it had sufficient coverage. I might have been swayed by the amount, rather than by each individual of them. I saw that she had been nominated to appear on the main page of the Spanish Wikipedia and I maybe I was swayed by it. So how could I improve it? What advice would you give me? Dicomus (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dicomus: my advice at this stage is to look at what has happened and learn for the future. English Wikipedia notability is usually based on coverage in independent sources. (There are special cases in Wikipedia:Notability (people) but I don't think they apply here.) I suggest looking at the references for Cochenet one by one and deciding if they are independent. Often that is quite quick, for example if the website is from her university or a performance venue. Unfortunately looking at the amount alone can be misleading. Being on a main page, even the English one, also does not prove notability. You could also do the same for her husband. The problem with looking for more sources is that performers have a lot of mentions in non-independent sources, which makes finding independent sources difficult, even if they exist. TSventon (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon: So it isn't worth continuing to search for sources.. But sometimes there must be some source, otherwise, no performer would have any sources, but of course, as you rightly say, in perfomers' cases it's more difficult. I will try to keep seeking (even though against the clocke). In any case, thank you very much for taking the time to look into it and for giving me your advice. Dicomus (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dicomus: I suggest looking at the sources you already have to understand whether they contribute to notability, which need not take long. Then you could look for more sources, it is up to you how long you spend on that.

My strong advice is that next time you write an article, look at the sources to decide whether they establish notability. Also look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) to see the detailed guideline. It is a lot less painful than looking for sources during an AfD discussion. TSventon (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon:, Thank you so much for all your advice. I'll try first to look at the sources carefully (the mistake I made) to learn for next time. As you rightly pointed out, in some cases (such as perfomers) the sources are more difficult to choose. I'll try to remember that. Also she's a conductor just starting out, so I'm sure there will be more reliable sources to add in a couple of years. Thank you, TSventon! Dicomus (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

A "trifecta" for October

I know there are other folks who enjoy finding new article topics that fit several of the monthly WiR themes. We used to highlight some of them when we had an active Twitter presence, but since then not so much. Which is fine! But I have one for October to share: A scientist whose name starts with T whose work was Halloween-worthy, as she studied the brains of ants and termites: Caroline Burling Thompson taught zoology at Wellesley College from 1901 to 1921, and she was one of the first two women to earn a Bachelor of Science degree at the University of Pennsylvania. She was also the first woman to publish research on ribbon worms.Penny Richards (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Congrats on the trifecta, Penny Richards! Way to go! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Penny Richards you could try a DYK nomination for Halloween, only the article would need to have 1,500 characters of prose first.

Yes! I had a Halloween DYK last year. It's a fun day for it. Penny Richards (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Barbara Gogan, Irish-born post-punk musician - page passed AfD, now C-Rank

Added to the Women in Red outcomes for the Women in Music Initiative September 2025. I will continue to improve it. Any improvements welcomed.Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Sylvia Rexach page: Puerto Rican bolero composer, television comedy writer

I've (barely) started to help improve this Starter-ranked article: Sylvia Rexach, which has been in need of improvement for many years, it seems. If any editors would wish to join me, that would be lovely for the 2025 initiative. Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Adrian.stewart.music. I think you are referring to this biography: Sylvia Rexach? A friendly FYI: It's common practice on Wikipedia talkpages to provide a wikilink to the article you wish to discuss so that other editors can quickly access it vs. searching for it ourselves. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thanks @Rosiestep. Links added to my topic entries. Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Adrian.stewart.music. If you check out other headers on this talkpage (plenty more in the Women in Red archives), you'll notice that, commonly, editors don't include wikilinks in talkpage headers ('Subject" lines). Rather, wikilinks are placed within the message. I'm sorry I forgot to mention that earlier, and no worries about including a wikilink in the Subject line this time. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

OK to link this video?

Just wondering if it is appropriate to link the performance video I placed in External links? Draft:Sophie Becker (actor and ventriloquist) Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10

Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10, Nos. 326, 327, 350, 351, 352 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run S & T | Women in STEM | Halloween Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Sister wikiproject Women in Green October 2025 Good Article Edit-a-thon focuses on What Women Do Tip of the Month: Notable does not always mean admirable; you don't have to like an article's subject to make the article a useful contribution to Wikipedia. Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 6,283 articles during this period: 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women) 24 September 2025: 20.20% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,088,533 biographies; 421,901 women) Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Help Needed on Improving An Article Moved From Mainspace to Draftspace

Hi everyone,

I am a new editor on Wikipedia and am currently working on an article about Annie Minogue, a female singer/songwriter from America, who fronts the Annie Minogue Band. I have previously had my article about the AMB deleted, due to lack of sources and notability, and was advised by another editor to try create an article on Annie Minogue herself for now, which I have done - but it has now been moved into draftspace due to lack of notable sources, and seen as promotional content.

I would love some help improving it. Could anyone take a look and share feedback on references, tone, or structure? OR make edits directly to the draft. Here’s the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Annie_Minogue

Thanks so much for your time and any suggestions! Van1985 (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The main problem is establishing WP:Notability, which generally means finding significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. I don't know whether the sources you have found are reliable, but music isn't my area. You could list the best three or four sources to establish notability on the talk page and ask here for feedback.

Improving the tone is a secondary problem, but I would look at a similar article as an example. I randomly found Becca (musician), which has sections on Early life, Career and Discography. TSventon (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Anyone able to assist with Japanese language sources?

I just created an article on Japanese soprano Maki Mori (soprano). I did what I could with English language materials. The article could benefit with the addition of Japanese language materials as she has primarily worked in Japan in more recent years. I'm not great with working with Japanese source, so if anyone with those skills is able to assist in expanding the article further I would appreciate it. Best wishes.4meter4 (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@4meter4, this might be a strange and ultimately useless suggestion, but you might want to contact the editors of the series of articles about Yuzuru Hanyu, the Japanese figure skater. Their work on those articles are very impressive, including how they successfully and adroitly dealt with Japanese sources. I know Hanyu doesn't fit into the scope of WiR, but they might be of some assistance to you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I have linked the article to ja and ru articles via Wikidata. The ja article is tagged as lacking reliable sources. TSventon (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Assist protecting page credibility on female accolades

I am referring to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Pickering

The page was supported in 2019 with your red women mark up. Since then, all sources confirm substantial and notable career as a playwright (not only an actor) that is fully evident in major theatre news and Google.

A recent editor is saying the page is suspicious as conflict of editors and therefore disputing facts despite the sources.

The page has now been discredited and the academic background in STEM and math degree (prior the arts) is under question despite plenty articles in press (sources listed below as proof) requesting neutral clean up.

Further the “academia” citation is being dismissed as not reliable or independent but wiki stance is its highly reliable (see edit history) and is verified by the universities.

The extra sources have now been added but the editor keeps reversing back to discredit and the page needs neutral clean up.

Please could you check/help the page to make sure the factual accolades are retained, are all sourced from the press sources (updated recently). and cited properly without any conflict/neutral and then remove the suspicious banner asap that undermines all the page and person.

Please can you keep an eye on the page so it retains facts without diminishing accolades and track page onwards from further potential harm or undermining, while rectify any suspicion or conflict.

Everything on the page is full cited in press as accurate and all sources provided.

Thank you very much for help to secure this page.

• https://screencraft.org/blog/interview-with-writer-joanna-pickering/#:~:text=I%20first%20studied%20a%20degree%20in%20mathematics,making%20my%20way%20to%20New%20York%20City.
• https://whitehotmagazine.com/articles/transcendental-life-actress-joanna-pickering/3742#:~:text=With%20a%20degree%20in%20mathematics%2C%20Pickering's%20more,in%20finance%20to%20be%20a%20bohemian%20artist.
• https://independent-magazine.org/2018/08/07/women-film-portraits-joanna-pickering/

2603:7000:2BF0:BBF0:8C30:5A64:CC32:31AE (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

For transparency, this person emailed me requesting help with this article, and I recommended that she makes her request here instead. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)