Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 126

Slightly silly question but: am I making some mistake or has have refs created on Newspapers.com stopped importing correctly? Previously most of the details autofilled for me (or pretty close) and now none but the title do. Anyone else encountered this? Any tips? Innisfree987 (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It's still working fine for me. Curbon7 (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, ok thank you—hm will have to sort out what I’m doing wrong. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

In case anyone else can spot the issue, here’s a recent example of how it now autofills for me in source code—visual editor is same but it comes up as a web ref not news.^[1] Innisfree987 (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I usually get the title of the newspaper and the date autofilled. For some reason, my clip urls look different from yours and spit out different auto-filled fields. I reclipped the same paper and page as you did and got this.^[2] Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, this happened to me this week; finally worked out that the clipping's URL used to begin "www.newspapers.com/clip/" and now begins "www.newspapers.com/article/" If you edit the URL to make it say "clip" again, it works fine for autofill.

One extra step, but it's easy enough once you know what's happening. Penny Richards (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You are a genius! Thank you @Penny Richards, I would never have gotten there on my own. And thank you to all the kind souls who weighed in to help narrow this down! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I used Newspapers.com over the weekend and autofill worked normally for me; note, I edit using wiki markup, not visual editor. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

What is this autofill? I usually fill in citation templates manually, but would be happy to learn of a better way. pburka (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Autofill is part of your tool bar when you're in the edit window. Do you see something at the top that says "Cite"? Make sure that is clicked. Then at the top you should see a Templates option (on the left of mine). Click on that and select the option you need. A template will come up that should include a space for the URL. Copy the URL there and then click on the little "Autofill" magnifying class to the right of it (on mine, anyway). — Maile (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, cool! I did not have "Enable the editing toolbar" enabled in my user preferences, so I'd never seen that toolbar before. pburka (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Great! — Maile (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pburka It also works for books: choose the "Book" template and put the ISBN into the box and click the magnifying glass. I was using that citation box for years, just inputting fields manually and using it to save typing the field names, before I realised what the magnifying glasses were for! It also does a bit of proof-reading for you: if you get the date wrong, perhaps missing a space in "10April 2023", or with a typo which leads to an impossible date like "10 April 2024", it notices and tells you so that you can fix it on the spot. Very helpful. PamD 18:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

For newspapers.com, if you title the clipping "Article title/First Name Last Name" (like so), it will be able to pull the article title and the author's name automatically. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

We're almost half way through April and our annual editathon on the academics/activists who pressed for the inclusion of women and their activities in the historic record and as subjects for academic study. Happily, we are averaging an article each day. @Lajmmoore, Innisfree987, PamD, and TJMSmith:, thank you! Rosie tweeted about it but since I don't use twitter, I cannot see or make note of any suggestions made to add to our redlists. (Maybe someone else can check?) Just wanted to remind everyone that as women's studies is interdisciplinary, whatever your interests are, there is probably someone who pioneered writing about or analyzing women in that field. For example while working on a Romanian teacher, I ran across Mary Zirin an American specializing in Russian studies who has a prize and chair named after her.,,,. I encourage participation in the annual editathon because without the work of these scholars, writing about women would be impossible. SusunW (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Credit goes right back to you @SusunW - to be honest I'd never really thought about pioneers of gender studies before I started editing here, and I really appreciate your advocacy! I did Mileva Filipović because Montenegro was a country on my to do list, but then I thought "ooh SusunW will like this one" :) Lajmmoore (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Lajmmoore, I've been reading all of them – so much to learn, and my favorite part of writing. I loved that her story is so representative of all the academics who tried, but failed to convince universities that women should be studied. I also love that while I have been winding through Latin America, you have been working on Central Europe. SusunW (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for raising awareness of this month's edit-a-thon! TJMSmith (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm hoping to create one as part of this editathon during my *first ever* in person edit-a-thon I'm attending this weekend with art + feminism! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@TJMSmith and Eddie891: Thanks for writing articles. I think it is so important that we recognize the work of and write about these scholars. Without their work, history books would still be telling us that there were only a handful of notable women in history and the paltry number of sources available even now would be miniscule. Hope you enjoy the in-person event Eddie. I am 99% sure no such thing has ever occurred here. SusunW (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but looks interesting. Michael Mandiberg, Wikipedia's Race and Ethnicity Gap and the Unverifiability of Whiteness Social Text (2023) 41 (1 (154)): 21–46.

Abstract: Although Wikipedia has a widely studied gender gap, almost no research has attempted to discover if it has a comparable race and ethnicity gap among its editors or its articles. No such comprehensive analysis of Wikipedia's editors exists because legal, cultural, and social structures complicate surveying them about race and ethnicity. Nor is it possible to precisely measure how many of Wikipedia's biographies are about people from indigenous and nondominant ethnic groups, because most articles lack ethnicity information. While it seems that many of these uncategorized biographies are about white people, these biographies are not categorized by ethnicity because policies require reliable sources to do so. These sources do not exist for white people because whiteness is a social construct that has historically been treated as a transparent default. Thus, these biographies cannot be categorized as white because whiteness is unverifiable in Wikipedia's white epistemology. In the absence of a precise analysis of the gaps in its editors or its articles, I present a quantitative and qualitative analysis of these structures that prevent such an analysis. I examine policy discussions about categorization by race and ethnicity, demonstrating persistent anti-Black racism. Turning to Wikidata, I reveal how the ontology of whiteness shifts as it enters the database, functioning differently than existing theories of whiteness account for. While the data does point toward a significant race and ethnicity gap, the data cannot definitively reveal meaning beyond its inability to reveal quantitative meaning. Yet the unverifiability of whiteness is itself an undeniable verification of Wikipedia's whiteness.

--Tagishsimon (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised the paper does not acknowledge MOS:ETHNICITY at all. I haven't dug into the meat yet, but that really struck me from a first quick read-through. Curbon7 (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like another "report" about Wikipedia that built an argument around its conclusion and has no desire to understand or engage with Wikipedia. I feel pretty comfortable dismissing anything that this guy has to say out of hand. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether on not the article is well founded, I think it is useful that someone has raised the problem of ethnicity. Even in the case of notable non-Whites, especially indigenous people, the "ethnic group" (Q41710) statement on Wikidata is rarely completed. Perhaps we should be paying more attention to ethnicity in general rather than delving into the ethnicity of the White population.--Ipigott (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• The same journal which brought us the Sokal affair, and even then somewhat disappointing since the author apparently has been studying Wikipedia for some time. I would take this article with a heavy grain of salt (and if it is kosher salt you prefer, Mandiberg appears to suggest that the best course of action is for us to promptly Jew-tag it, and no, I do not mean to attack the background of the author, I point to what I bleeive a flaw in their reaosning). For the record, the exploration of a potential "significant race and ethnicity gap" on Wikipedia is certainly worthy of study, and I'm sure no one would be surprised if one exists (I think other studies have mostly affirmed this in the past, no?).

Firstly, of the fact that gender would be more readably quantifiable than ethnicity, I would argue that that has to do with how pronouns in English work more than anything else. It is extremely hard to avoid implying someone's gender in any English language biographical article at least two paragraphs long without using their name repetitively, whereas ethnic category is typically ignored unless immediately relevant to their life story as laid out by RS, in our case. Criticise that as a failing of the English language if you must, but that's just how it works.

Secondly, the abstract implies an American bias which casts the racial category of "white" as an ethnic group, and thus I fear this has been applied as a filter by the author across a global encyclopedia. The author notes that ethnic categories vary across the world but do not seem to account for it well. Having written numerous biographies on (black) African subjects, mostly political leaders, I must say ethnicity is not defined as white vs. black/latino/South Asian/people of color/BIPOC/[insert term here] in many parts of the world, especially ones where skin color is not as diverse. I wrote an article on Sylvie Kinigi, the first woman to serve as Prime Minister of Burundi and basically the second woman to serve as president of any African country, and nowhere in the article do I mention she is "black". The sources instead label her meaningful ethnic category in Burundi as "Tutsi". This is because there is probably a SKYISBLUE assumption on the part of authors on Burundian affairs (who themselves may be Burundian or non-Burundian) that if a person is Burundian we can probably assume they have dark skin, unless we need to specifically point out something to the contrary. Being "black" in an overwhelmingly "black" country such as Burundi is not seen by most sources I've encountered as a meaningful category. What mattered—especially during Kingi's time in government in the 1990s—was if you were Hutu, Tutsi, or Twa. So I guess, assuming Mandiberg's POV, we should accuse the Burundian media and academic community and then the external observers of promoting an "ontology of whiteness" because how dare they? Similarly, my featured article on Burundian independence hero Louis Rwagasore does not call him "black", but instead labels him as the more socially and politically salient "Ganwa", per the guidance of the best sources. Similarly more specific ethnic labels—not American racial categories—are used in my articles on pioneering Congolese jurist Marcel Lihau, Congolese nationalist Jean Bolikango, Congolese Prime Minister Évariste Kimba, and Burkinabe President Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo. My articles on pioneering Congolese writer Antoine-Roger Bolamba, Ghanaian economist Robert K. A. Gardiner, and Central African Republic founding father Barthélemy Boganda at best only imply their American racial category of "black".

In summary, I tend to agree with idea that a dominant ethnic/racial group in a society will somewhat determine how labels of its members of such are offered in RS. But, assuming that this is some "whiteness" bias has more to do with the Western character of English Wikipedia where more Western people are represented (most of whom are white) than it has to do with all articles. E.G. bias, such as it exists, is specific to each place, and some places are indeed better represented than others on English Wikipedia. The claim "the unverifiability of whiteness is itself an undeniable verification of Wikipedia's whiteness" is as scientifically sound as "We have no definitive proof that God does not exist, therefore God must exist". I get the gut reaction, but if you really want to prove that claim, more research needs to be done. And that research is what might actually be useful. I think Mandiberg has done an excellent job at achieving access to more prestigious cocktail parties on the Upper West Side, but there is sadly very little takeaway for the average Wikipedian. I welcome any different view if you think I'm being too harsh. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding a few bits:

• I'm a bit concerned that the author has misunderstood how categories work: "Much of the content in Wikidata comes from Wikipedia's categories, which are the metadata that appears at the bottom of articles." That isn't my experience of how they work!?
• Conflation of ethnicity and the WikiData category "ethnic group" - which I don't think really have the same meaning.
• I do think it's good that there's more written on topic of race
• I hadn't seen that article on tagging @Indy beetle - really interesting how race/religion can be weaponised
• I think the point about knowing how many editors are *insert quality* would be nice to know, but people do also have a right to privacy. I wasn't explicit about my gender for ages (because of sexism) and I imagine you've have to be braver if you've experienced other discriminations. Like what Jess Wade experienced when someone deleted lots of her articles, I can imagine situations where an editor who was explicit about their ethnicity, might have their contributions targeted.

Very complicated! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Our main WiR page regularly updates the statistics from Humaniki on the proportion of biographies of women, now 19.52%. As we also devote effort to attaching images to our biographies, it might be of interest to see that Humaniki reports that as of 10 April the proportion of media about women in connection with biographies on Commons is 20.82% (166,014 of women out of a total of 797,417). It should be mentioned that this is for all language versions of Wikipedia.

Those interested in further background on images on Wikipedia may like to look through "A large scale study of reader interactions with images on Wikipedia" by Danele Rama et al, which reports: "Biographies, making up 30% of the articles on Wikipedia, also contain around 15% of the images." From the accompanying table, it appears that about two thirds of these are images of faces.--Ipigott (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Britney Schmidt was included on the Time 100 this year. I've created a stub, but there's probably some room for expansion, if anyone feels so inclined. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I've expanded somewhat, but would benefit from a more scientifically minded person, if anyone cares to take a look. Perhaps Femke would be interested? I've sure I've messed some stuff up here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention! I started articles on two other recipients: RowVaughn Wells and María Herrera Magdaleno. TJMSmith (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The biography on Lois K. Alexander Lane came to my attention while researching for the commentary mentioned above. I noticed some copyvio, from a source that is now offline and had to be dug out of an archive. Further checking for copying/overly close paraphrasing is probably warranted. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I'm hoping one of the more experienced members of the group can help me with questions I've had for quite some time now. When I was granted "autopatrolled" permission back in September 2018, my understanding was that new articles I was creating for Women in Red and other WikiProjects would be "automatically marked as 'reviewed' and 'patrolled' in the system," and couldn't figure out why, often within less than 10 minutes of my having posted a new article for WIR, that someone on New Page Patrol would start editing that article, even though the article was a cleanly written profile of a clearly notable subject that was formatted correctly and was well sourced with more than adequate inline citations (C-class or better). I finally just figured out, today, how to access the New Pages feed that New Page Patrollers use to review articles, and see that the two most recent articles that I created for WIR, Lucille C. Gunning and Irene Jakab, are both listed there. Of concern, the article for Lucille Gunning was incorrectly labeled as an "orphan," which it isn't; I've linked her to at least three different Wikipedia articles.

With apologies for the length of this post, my questions are: Should my newly-created articles still even be ending up on the New Page Patrol feed if I have the autopatrolled permission? If so, are they being marked correctly as already patrolled and already reviewed so that NPPs know not to waste time focusing their attention on them when there are other articles that truly do need their attention? (Or to phrase it another way, do all of our Women in Red articles end up on this NPP feed and, if so, is my experience common to what you experience as successful, experienced WIR article creators, or is something not working properly with my permissions setting for autopatrolled?) Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated. - 47thPennVols (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure that you see Gunning and Jakab listed in the new pages feed? Looking at those days, I can't see them in the log. You can modify the settings on the new pages feed to include those created by "autopatrolled" users, but they shouldn't appear in the default feed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back with me so quickly, Eddie. I saw them listed here. The heading at the top of that page says "New pages feed." So, I think I'm looking at the correct page (but maybe I'm not)? I just refreshed that page and both of the articles are still listed (although Lucille is no longer still showing as an orphan, thankfully), and both appear to be checked off as autopatrolled (I think?). So, my next question is, how do I modify the settings on the new pages feed as you advise? (I'm better at using Wikipedia's various functions than I used to be, but this autopatrolled/new page patrol thing has had me confused for awhile now, and I don't want to do anything that would cause any glitch that might make things worse.) - 47thPennVols (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, so you should see a spot in the gray bar near the top of the page saying something like: "Showing: Namespace (Article), State (Unreviewed), Type (All others)". Below that, you can click 'set filters', which will give you a number of options. The two options which will control whether you see content by autopatrolled users are under "state", where you can check or un check 'unreviewed pages' (autopatrolled pages should be reviewed), and under the "that" section, namely "were created by" "autopatrolled users". I can screenshot in a second to clarify. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, thanks for getting back with me so quickly. I don't know if this will change your response or not, but I was posting an update when you responded: "I just found the New pages list, and Lucille's article is also showing there. (I pulled up the list of the first 500 articles, and she's in the first 500. Irene isn't shown, I suspect, because she's no longer in the first 500 because I posted her article back on 4.8.23.) Are my new articles supposed to be showing up on that feed if I'm autopatrolled, and if so, are they being marked correctly as autopatrolled?" Thanks in advance for your responses, guidance and the screenshot. - 47thPennVols (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I am a reviewer and Lucille shows up for me as autopatrolled. Pretty sure what you’re encountering is that all new pages go in the new pages feed. As Eddie is indicating, it’s not the same as being unreviewed, and some reviewers go through reviewed pages to audit reviews. There’s nothing you need or even could change in your settings to affect it. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

See the image I just uploaded on the left, which hopefully helps. Let me know if it does not. The link you just found is an old version of the new pages feed. It includes all articles created, with the unreviewed ones marked in yellow. You can see that Gunning is not marked in yellow, so it is working as it should. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both so much! All of this information (text and visual) has been very helpful and reassuring. So, one last question, Eddie, do I need to change anything in my settings as you mentioned above? (The lefthand fields, in the gray box you mentioned, that have checkmarks next to them are: Unreviewed pages, Reviewed pages, Nominated for deletion, Redirects, All others.) - 47thPennVols (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't change whether your articles are marked as reviewed (or not), it just changes what articles you see when you look at the new pages feed. So it depends on what types of articles you want to see there (if you're planning on looking at the feed regularly). You certainly don't need to change anything, and I would suggest just leaving the settings as they are. If you don't want to see your articles in the new pages feed, you could simply un-check the 'reviewed pages' field. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Eddie. (Thank you, too, Innisfree!) Once again, very helpful. This discussion has been very reassuring. I'm off to research another new potential bio subject for WIR! - 47thPennVols (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Hi there, 47thPennVols, and thanks for letting us know about your concerns. I've been autopatrolled for years and have never encountered the problems you raise, although I always welcome constructive improvements to my articles by other editors. I've just been looking through the list of articles you have created and see that the majority are B-class, most of the others being assessed as C-class. What surprises me is that any page reviewer should question your additions as I see that in nearly all cases you do not post a new article until it has been really well developed. If you continue to encounter problems, please let me know and I'll try to contact the reviewers in question. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for sharing your insights, for your positive feedback and for your offer of support. It means a great deal. Happy editing to you, as well! - 47thPennVols (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@47thPennVols Thanks for your work on these articles. It's a good idea also to create redirects from plausible alternative versions of the biographee's name: quite often there are incoming links from the full version of someone's name, perhaps in the winners of an award or something like that, and it's very satisfying to turn those red links blue. In this case Lucille Gunning and Lucille Constance Gunning, which I've just created, were only linked from the one same, backstage, place (User:Keilana/Female_scientist_list#Gu), but it's always potentially useful and can also prevent some careless future editor starting to create a duplicate article. I've added her to Gunning, too, as she needs to be included in the list of surname-holders. There wasn't a Jakab article, but it seemed useful so I've created it - a couple of non-surname entries which seem good valid dab page entries, as well as the dozen surname-holders and a "look-from" link to let people find the given-name-holders. Incoming navigation makes it easier for readers to find your articles, and adding women to surname lists raises their visibility as a group too, continuing to fight the perception that "almost anyone who matters is/was male"! PamD 07:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• I genuinely appreciate the positive feedback; respectfully, though, I found it hard to follow what you're asking me to do, and am feeling overwhelmed and a bit hopeless right now (as if my Gunning and Jakab articles weren't good enough, despite the amount of time and effort that I put into both). - 47thPennVols (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  If it's too complicated for you (and I understand that! Parts of Wikipedia can be and are confusing to everyone), don't worry about doing what PamD is mentioning. It's just something people can do in addition to creating articles. The hard and more important thing (and what we need people to keep doing) is the actual researching and writing of the articles, which you do a fantastic job of. Other users will come through and handle the more nuanced aspects that PamD wrote about. Your Gunning and Jakav articles are absolutely good enough, and important encyclopedic additions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for the morale boost, Eddie. I was feeling down, and was debating about taking another extended Wikipedia break, but feel a bit more upbeat now, and genuinely appreciate your kind words. I'm going to work on stub sorting for a short while, but will hopefully feel like returning to new bio research and creation next month. - 47thPennVols (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  @47thPennVols Apologies if I confused matters and contributed to your overwhelmedness by harping on about redirects! They are just a way of helping make sure (a) that readers find the article even if they're using a different version of the name, and (b) that no future careless editor creates a duplicate article because they didn't find the original one because they searched on a different version of the name (and assumed we hadn't got an article because Lucille Gunning was a red link, for example!) But, as Eddie says, creating the articles is the most important thing. Various WikiGnomes like me spend a lot of their time creating redirects, tweaking disambiguation pages, and so on, rather than contributing substantial articles. Each to their own! PamD 18:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi all. I've been creating content on opera singers in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Opera singers list. I tried finding sources on the opera singer Nadzyeya Grade-Kulikovich and have come up with nothing in English, Russian, or Belarusian. The Wikidata is taken from the Belarusian wikipedia article at be:Надзея Мікалаеўна Градэ-Куліковіч which is not promising when it comes to sourcing or getting details about her life and alleged career. Everything on the internet appears to be a mirror of wikipedia. She apparently was the wife of Mikalay Shchahlou-Kulikovich. I'm fairly good at researching opera singers, and the lack of literature on this singer (particularly since she is supposed to have been active in Chicago and English language sources should be readily available) is making question whether she even existed let alone if she had a singing career. She is not in the Lyric Opera of Chicago performance archives, and I can't find any source connecting her with the only other professional opera company in Chicago, the Chicago Opera Theatre. I would like some other people to take a crack at finding at sources, and help me determine whether or not we should remove her from the index. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@4meter4: We have a Soviet-era theatrical encyclopedia downstairs - I will look in there later today to see if she's in there. No promises. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Just a heads up, but I think one of the potential sourcing problems might be varied spellings of her name. I tried lots of spelling combinations without much luck. I did find one source which mentioned her in passing where she was referred to as Nadia Grade - Kulikovich.4meter4 (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@4meter4: That's something that always worries me about researching Belarusians and others from that area of Europe - I have no way of knowing which transliterations I might be missing. Anyhow: you say she had a career in Chicago, which suggests to me that she won't be in this book, or that there won't be much about her, but I'll have a look anyway and see what turns up. I wonder if maybe she had a career in the US under a completely different name? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That's what I am wondering too. I am only basing the Chicago career fact on the text from be:Надзея Мікалаеўна Градэ-Куліковіч. I have no verification of whether that is accurate or not, but that's what the Belarusian wiki page states.4meter4 (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@4meter4: My mother, who can read Cyrillic, looked into the encyclopedia just now and reports nothing, for either spouse. His article indicates he left Minsk with the departing German army during World War II; that and his exile in the United States might explain why sources are so thin on the ground, at least in Russian.

Thanks for this, incidentally - I may have discovered a new choral composer towards whom I can point my choir director. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I found another passing mention of here with the name Nadzeia Grade - Kulikovich.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

4meter4 P 82 starts a discussion on Belorussians in the US and she is mentioned. Methinks her husband is the same as Mikola Kulikovich? See here, here, here and wow!. I tried by just searching the last name Kulikovich and it seems possible that you might be able to back in to bits about her from studying him? SusunW (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this SusunW. Yes, the article on her husband (Mikalay Shchahlou-Kulikovich) mentions Mikola as another spelling of his name. I imagine other spellings may exist in other sources as is the tendency with Belorussian names in English. Some of these would come in handy in improving the article on him. I agree that she gets mentioned in sources about her husband. Sadly so far she just gets a vague, 'and she was important too' without saying why or what specifically she did. I suspect that she starred in the operas and possibly plays her husband was involved in staging with a theatre company he ran in the USA (and possibly she too had a part in producing), but I can't prove that. It would make sense though given their relationship and her consistent name drop along with his. Sadly, these sources are from the era of when women's contributions were often overlooked, particularly when they were working in partnership with a spouse.4meter4 (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the train of thought I was on and of course the transliteration of the name creates yet another set of issues. I'm working on a Romanian educator right now and half of her biography I gleaned from sources about her husband o.0 SusunW (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm also willing to wager that she was likely a major singer at the national opera or some such similar organization, which would convey a certain notability; I suspect that any sources dealing with that are, for the moment, undigitized. (I'd be willing to bet that the rolls of the National Opera show that she performed with them at least up until the war, and that it would be possible to find a few newspaper reviews of her performances somewhere in the local archive.) I believe I saw a source - on mobile, so I forgot to make note of it - which calls her one of the pioneers of the lyric art in Belarus, or something similar, in conjunction with a number of other artists. A list of names, nothing more, but still. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for an article that could use expansion...Regina Morantz-Sanchez is a longtime stub. It falls under both the WIR-262 (Gender Studies) and WIR-263 (Health)! She is a historian specializing in the history of women physicians in U.S. medicine. TJMSmith (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I've just finished a short stub on Audrey Sabol. Her birth date is listed as 1922 in two sources.^[1][2] One source (Philadelphia Museum of Art)^[3] lists her birth date as 1937 (which just happens to be the same birth year as Edward Ruscha0.

She is either 101 years old, or has no obituary, or was born in 1937. Any ideas welcome. Thanks WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I just had a similar situation crop up with a bio I was recently working on (Lucille C. Gunning). I was able to find obits for her husband and mother, but nothing for her. She used her maiden surname, Gunning, throughout her professional life, but her husband's surname was Blackwood. After fruitless searching on newspapers.com, I finally found Lucille's obit on Legacy.com, but it was under "Blackwood, Lucille." (Apparently, either the funeral home got it wrong, which is probably unlikely, or she used her married surname for her personal/later life and her maiden surname for her professional life, which is probably more likely.) She definitely died before reaching 100, though; so my hunch would be that your subject, Audrey Sabol, may also have already died. Not sure if any of this information is helpful or not, but you might try looking for obits of her family members to see if they provide any clues. (Obits of parents or siblings who died before or after her might give you clues for an approximate death date to help you narrow down your death year search, and might also give you other possible surnames under which Audrey's obit might have been listed.) - 47thPennVols (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks 47thPennVols! From what I've read, she was widely known as Mrs. Edward Sabol, or Audrey Sabol. I can't even find her maiden name. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I created a redirect from Lucille Blackwood yesterday. PamD 07:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

97th birthday, Thursday July 4, 2019, according to https://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/getting-a-break-from-the-madding-crowd/ --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tagishsimon! Still with us as a centenarian :) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Definitely was born in 1922 and married Sabol in 1941. Her maiden name was Audrey Hope Siegel if that helps. SusunW (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. While adding lists from Category:Women in Red redlink lists (by dictionary) to the Redlist index, I found a couple of duplicate Wikidata redlists. There are 2 lists for A Cyclopaedia of Female Biography. There are also 2 lists for Biographical Dictionary of Swedish Women. I was wondering if they could be merged together. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, MrLinkinPark333, for adding several items to our redlist index. It¨s good to have someone keeping an eye on things.--Ipigott (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi MrLinkinPark333 and thanks for what you're doing, particularly in noticing duplicates. I see what you mean.

1. Regarding Biographical Dictionary of Swedish Women, both Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/BDSW (11 columns) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Biographical Dictionary of Swedish Women (7 columns) do draw from d:Q50395049. I think we should delete the one with fewer columns. Afterward, I'd favor renaming the "BDSW" redlist with the full dictionary name. Let's see what others think.

• 11 column list now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Biographical Dictionary of Swedish Women. It's having 'killed by OS for overloading memory' issues, so it'll need some more work. The two lists found their subjects using different approaches (described by source; having an BDSW ID); I've combined both approaches into the redlist going forward. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

1. Regarding A Cyclopaedia of Female Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/A Cyclopaedia of Female Biography (10 columns) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/A Cyclopaedia of Female Biography (1857) (9 columns), both do draw from d:Q114693785. I think we should delete the one with fewer columns. Let's see what others think. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/A Cyclopaedia of Female Biography (1857) (9 columns) redirected to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/A Cyclopaedia of Female Biography (10 columns, including a direct link to the cyclopedia entry). --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• As I pointed out when the Swedish listing was first added, I think we should give it its correct Swedish title: "Svenskt kvinnobiografiskt lexikon". As for which of the two should be deleted, I agree with Rosie that if neither presents updating difficulties, then the one with more columns should be maintained. But perhaps Tagishsimin has more experience with this kind of thing.--Ipigott (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Ipigott, I think your recommendation to move it to the Swedish title makes sense: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Svenskt kvinnobiografiskt lexikon. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Tagishsimon, thank you for sorting all this out; appreciate it. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello all. There is a discussion about Valentina Bodrug-Lungu and their DYK nomination here. Posted for information Lajmmoore (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• The subject has now been nominated for deletion Lajmmoore (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Please evaluate possibility for merging of Draft:Feminism, Divorce: Challenging Nigeria's Breadwinner Role in to the article Breadwinner model. Bookku (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

None of the references in the draft give sufficient information to trace the sources, so it would be difficult to justify merging any of the content. PamD 07:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Which kind of information you would look for? I can see citations there, am I missing on some thing?

Verification and encyclopedic writing can be time consuming agreed.

I seek inputs here cause draft seem to contain citations but write up looking on lines of a research paper. Bookku (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

On 19/20 April, French news media including Bourse Direct, La Croix and TV5 Monde carried an extensive article by AFP's Anna Cuenca on Jess Wade titled "Sur Wikipédia, sortir les femmes scientifiques de l'ombre, page après page" (On Wikipedia, bringing women scientists out of the shade, page after page).--Ipigott (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Just seen that titled "The British physicist making women scientists visible online", the article was published on 20 April in English on sites including Phys Org and Yahoo News.--Ipigott (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

And while we're at it, on 19 April there was a long interview with Jess Wade in French on Indigo, titled "Rencontrez la personne qui a ajouté 1 767 scientifiques sous-représentés à Wikipédia" (Meet the woman who has added 1,767 under-represented scientists to Wikipedia).--Ipigott (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I started Draft:Kathy Ceceri, an interesting author and educator. I would be happy to have help in adding newspaper coverage of her and her books. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we have seen something along these lines before but much of this is new to me. Headed "Facts about the gender gap and how you can help close it", the presentation contains information added as recently as March 2023. Some of the "facts" are nevertheless rather strange, for example, under "Who is contributing to Wikimedia projects?" we read "... there was a modest increase in women contributors between 2019 (11.5%) and 2020 (15.0%)". Perhaps there is a case for working on this?--Ipigott (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I doubt this would be welcomed. It's clearly a well-polished recruitment drive ad rather than any serious attempt at analysis. The 18.5% figure of female/all humans on Wikidata is interesting though - en:wp is ahead, but not all that much. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I was pleased to see SusunW, who has done more than any of us to write top quality articles in connection with the gender gap, was specifically mentioned under "Project Rewrite checklist", "Read inspiring stories", as "SusunW is on a mission to write women into history with Wikipedia".--Ipigott (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

As our Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Needs improvement is linked to the presentation, we should perhaps check it through, add more info together with sources, etc., and remove names which have already received attention.--Ipigott (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This has now been updated. New additions welcome.--Ipigott (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Women in Guam History. Any help would be appreciated. I did give an answer on the article's talk page, but a little support over there might help. As a woman, I am deeply offended that the nominator doesn't think these Guam women are notable. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that neutrally-worded notifications of deletion discussions to the discussion pages of affected Wikigroups are normal and ok, but that requests that encourage contributors to take one side or the other of a deletion discussion violate WP:CANVASS. Fortunately, this is not yet a deletion discussion, just an already-removed prod. So the help that is currently needed is to strengthen the article, either to ward off a full deletion discussion or to make the case for keeping the article if it comes to a full discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reminder. Freedom4U has just mentioned on the talk page that he is now taking this to AFD. What he doesn't seem to like is the style or format of it, or you'll have to read on the talk page. It isn't specifically Guam, apparently. He doesn't like these lists. Or something like that. — Maile (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, as a friendly reminder, I use they/it pronouns (which you can see in my signature). Again, my deletion nomination has nothing to do with the style/format of the article, but the fact that there are no reliable secondary sourcing discussing the list in question. :3 F4U (they/it) 23:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women in Guam History. Whatever ... — Maile (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• The AFD has now closed as a Keep. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Despite the closure of the AfD, there are still plenty of redlinks on the list of women featured in this book, many of whom are likely notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks to me like a job for Women in Red. — Maile (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Co-founder of one of the more important WikiProjects

Victuallers

Editor of the Week for the week beginning April 2, 2023

Victuallers' article creation efforts at WP:WIRED are a tour de force. He has created nearly 3,000 articles in total, personally tipping the imbalance of gender biographies towards equity. As a helpful collaborator, Victuallers provides advice to others (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red). In 2020, Victuallers created a biographical article about one woman every day for 360 days straight. Amazing!

Recognized for

WikiProject Women in Red

Submit a nomination

Congratulations to @Victuallers, Wikipedia's Editor of the Week. CT55555(talk) 13:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yay! I added the infobox Mujinga (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! --Rosiestep (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

wobbly curtsey Victuallers (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hooray! EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Congrats! <3 -Yupik (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Like Congrats! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 11:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Like Nice! Well-deserved. Penny Richards (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hurray @Victuallers Lajmmoore (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Slow to the party, but well deserved, Roger! Congrats! SusunW (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Good show, Victuallers! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Congratulations Roger, but I can't believe it's taken so long for you to be recognized here. Long before Women in Red, you were making hugely innovative progress when you introduced QRpedia (which has just enjoyed its 12th anniversary) and before that you contributed so much to Wikipedia in the UK. Those of us interested in the development of WiR remember you as the one who came up with that effective original idea of "Picking up more women". And today you seem to be more active than ever. Your efforts will not be forgotten.--Ipigott (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all and thankyou for the summary Ian. QRpedia seems to continue ticking. I'm thrilled that the Doomsday book, Bishop Tu Tus house, Nelson Mandelas house and Mahatma Gandhi's house all had QRpedia codes on them. Making Wikimedia UK into a charity and raising a million quid was cool, but to have co-started this project however is, I believe, going to make more of a lasting change. I'm still creating an article and keeping twitter fresh each day. This is a good cause. Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi all. I just created an article on the Italian opera singer Maria Giustina Turcotti. Sadly much of the RS focuses on her weight during the latter part of the year; probably because of a well known caricature of her now in the Royal Collection which emphasizes her size (see here; it's also available in Commons) and the many nasty comments made about her weight in published criticism and in private letters by colleagues and employers. For example, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians doesn't mention a single opera she performed in but spends half the article quoting people on her weight. I wanted to smack the authors; particularly because she was one of the highest paid opera singers in Italy at the time and was a well known singer of her day. Therefore, I'd like to also include a more positive image of her for balance sake also found in the royal collection, see here. I am not savvy with copyright and loading images. Given the age of the work, I think it probably is no longer copyrighted. If anyone can help upload it to the English wiki or commons who knows the right copyright language I would appreciate it. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Working on it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!4meter4 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@4meter4: now uploaded. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again. It is now in the article.4meter4 (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I see this has now developed into an interesting and detailed biography.--Ipigott (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ipigott Thank you so much for the nice compliment. I've enjoyed writing it. I still have a few more resources I want to read through, and I may expand it a little bit more.4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of updating the lead image to the highest resolution one available. also exists. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 10:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. I was wondering what happens to completed redlists. Are they deleted or marked historical? The ones I'm wondering about are Afro-American encyclopaedia and Afro-American women in journalism. I found them at Category:Women in Red redlink lists (by dictionary). They were not completed by me. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Good question. I would suggest the Afro-American encyclopaedia could be deleted as a redlist, especially as it is linked to the article on James T. Haley where there is access to the online version. As for Afro-American women in journalism, if there are new articles in other language versions of Wikipedia or simply new entries on Wikidata, the list could again become useful.--Ipigott (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd recommend keeping the Afro-American encyclopaedia redlist for two reasons: (a) it's linked on the #36 meetup page, e.g., it serves a historical purpose; and (b) somebody from another language Wikipedia might review the category that you're reviewing, MrLinkinPark333, see that we had such a redlist, and then recreate it in their language Wikipedia. Agree that it should be marked as being retained for historical purposes. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd love to see a list of completed lists. Its what of the things that drives me. Victuallers (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)