Deletion discussion started regarding the article Shawn Lonsdale. Cirt (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that multiple biography Articles will be categorized as follows due to lack of date information:

• Category:Year of birth missing, e.g., for deceased persons whose birth records were nonexistent or damaged beyond recognition;
• Category:Year of death missing, e.g., for deceased persons whose remains are discovered some years after death, or whose death records are nonexistent or damaged beyond recognition;
• Category:Year of birth missing (living people), for living persons whose birth records are private and/or destroyed and therefore unavailable to the Wikipedia^® editor body.

I have proposed an Amendment to Template:WPBiography for a function to be added for categorizing the Article Talk to which it is attached in Category:Articles missing birth or death information, including ListAs data when available, using the folllowing syntax:

{{WPBiogrphy
| ...
| needs-dob-dod =  <!- "yes" categorizes to CAT:Articles missing birth or death information ->
| ...
}}

As of this post, however, the demand for this feature is uncertain. How do we proceed with a discussion for a go-no go decision on inclusion of this new function? B. C. Schmerker (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've already previously commented on the template's talk page; what do you believe this function will achieve as opposed to the existing categories you mention above? Unless this feature will provide additional benefit, I really don't see the point. PC78 (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understand things, Category:Articles missing birth or death information is specific to Talk pages, as is already the case with all subcats of Category:Biography articles by quality. Does any function currently exist for inclusion of Talk pages for Articles in Category:Year of birth missing, Category:Year of birth missing (living people), and Category:Year of death missing? B. C. Schmerker (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to let everyone here know, Wikipedia:Spotlight is going to be working on the article Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette, which, per a talk page template, falls under this Wikiproject; while we will certainly not be the only ones editing the article during this time, if anyone here is interested in the article and would like to join our effort, we use the IRC room #wikipedia-spotlight. Thanks!--danielfolsom 18:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Single sentence dispute.[1] Is the use of a quotation in the opening graphic of a movie, a notable/significant event in his life? What criteria does it belong/not belong under? Please advise. -- Quiddity 00:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't particularly a notable event in his life, but it appears to be a notable use of his work. Although the quote used is noted, there isn't a citation for the actual use, which needs to be corrected. A Google search shows its mention in numerous reviews that more than establish the notability of the appearance in Apocalypto. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Gah! Sigh. That's depressing. -- Quiddity 17:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There remain many, many biographies that need to be brought up to Good Article status. Daisykc (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing a consensus develop at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Raw Story. Please comment there. Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

John Marshall Harlan II has been nominated at WP:GAR. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John Marshall Harlan II/1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Ernest Hemingway/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This question arises because of the use of Template:DEFAULTSORT which sorts names in categories. What is the English convention for alphabetization of names with a single letter following a given name? Some examples are Stevie B, Marga T, Eric B., and Schooly D. My contention is that, since these single letters are not legal surnames and, in some cases are not even derived from the surname initial (Stevie B and Schooly D), they should not be used for alphabetization. So, Stevie B would be sorted under Stevie, not B, Marga T under Marga, not T. If you have some input, please discuss it at WT:MOSBIO. — AjaxSmack 01:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Following the Olympics, it might be worthwhile to gets some bots to target the numerous categories for Olympians to tag new articles. I've seen a lot of new articles for athletes for this year's Olympiad.↔NMajdan•talk 14:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've taken this article from this to this, in preps for filing it for FAC. I could you some help now with:

1. finding a free image of Hanna
2. some good copyediting
3. expanding the lead

and when that's done I'll unlink the repetitive links (things can change during ce, so I don't want to do now), then file for FAC.

Any help is greatly appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Any comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Leonardo da Vinci/archive3 would be most appreciated. It's a vital article, so it would be nice to get as many views as possible. Thanks. Papa November (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Is undergoing a Featured Article review, please feel free to come and help bring this article up to current Featured Article standards! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a policy on this? Specifically, I wanted to include information in Joe Connor about his post-baseball life. The 1920 and 1930 U.S. censuses state that he is a salesman. Is there a standard way to cite this? Does it come too close to original research? --Coemgenus 14:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Henry Moore has a discussion page at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Henry Moore.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not using the official notification before. Henry Moore has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date-autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional, after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages of using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors, and the consensus for change is overwhelming. I seek in-principle consensus here for the removal of date autoformatting from the main text of articles related to this WikiProject, using a script; such a move would also be sensitive to local objections on any article talk page. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links.

You may wish to peruse the following capped text to compare two examples, with and without date autoformatting. The DA is set at international style—the one pertaining in this particular article—to show all WPians how the blue dates are displayed to visitors. MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted, analogous to our highly successful guidelines for the use of varieties of English. The choice of style is audited during the running of the script to ensure that it is appropriate to the article (i.e., consistent, and country-related where appropriate).

Tony (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed a merger of Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies (two projects under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography umbrella - discussion here). I'm posting this notice here as I wasn't sure if I need "permission", and also to see if anyone else wants to comment. Craigy (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

...fair enough, I'll go ahead. Craigy (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As a part of Sweeps I reviewed this article and put it on hold. If my concerns are addressed I will keep this article in the GA list. Ruslik (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Whilst going thru stubs, I came across this article Thomas Grove (died 1692). I don't really think that's the best name for the article and I wanted to rename it Thomas Grove (member of parliament). However, the disamb page for Thomas Grove shows that all three people with that name were Members of Parliament, so my preferred rename may not be all that helpful!

Any ideas on the best thing to do in this case? Sassf (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You could perhaps move Thomas Grove to Thomas Grove (disambiguation), and then Thomas Grove (died 1692) to Thomas Grove. PC78 (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Decided to do that as seemed a good solution - thanks for the advice :-) Sassf (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently, I see 199 core articles. Might I suggest Wayne Gretzky.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone help me suggest that at least a few athletes be added to Wikipedia:Vital_articles#People_.28115_articles.29. I don't know who to suggest removing. I have suggested adding Jackie Robinson, Jesse Owens, Muhammad Ali, and Pelé--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me know what you think. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Just an F.Y.I.

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#GENERAL preference for person-descriptive not field-descriptive disambiguators is an ongoing dispute/discussion that is of relevance to regular editors here (it starts out a little noisy but has a subsection for hopefully more substantive discussion).

The issue: Under discussion is whether to retain at least general, default guidance that bio articles be disambiguated by a human-descriptor rather than a field/topic-descriptor - "Jane Doe (chemist)" as opposed to "Jane Doe (chemistry)" - while allowing for exceptions (perhaps especially in sports), where this may not be practical under Wikipedia:Disambiguation's guidance to use short disambiguators - "John Doe (baseball)" vs. "John Doe (baseball player and coach)". Detractors suggest that there was never any consensus for such advice to begin with, while the counterargument is that the advice codifies actual general WP practice, and that that is the proper role of guidelines to begin with.

Current status: The advice has been removed from WP:DAB, as a quick way to settle an earlier dispute about whether to move articles like "John Doe (baseball)" to "John Doe (baseball player)", and the addition of a better-worded version of the advice (that accounts for such exceptions) to WP:NCP where it arguably belongs has been the subject of revert-warring. This necessites a solid and broad discussion to gain consensus on whether to have such a passage at all, and if so where, and what it should say. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for imput from the project regarding this article. Without going into a huge amount of detail, which is outlined on the article's talk page, the article, in my view had, and still has, some major issues regarding content, sourcing and relevance. I addressed this in late July and was assured that an effort would be made to bring it into guidelines, which was less than forthcoming. I then made revisions, which included removing a large amount of apparently irrelevant and out of context trivial lists of "facts." Anonymous IPs have since reverted it, claiming it borders on vandalism. Please look at this version, prior to my recent changes, and this version after I had done some work on it. The latter version isn't perfect, but seems to be an improvement to me. The IPs that reverted my changes said These deletions are far too extensive and betray an unfamiliarity, to put it most kindly, with Burgess’s work and This axeing of large sections of the Anthony Burgess page is inappropriate, misconceived and borders on vandalism. I removed lists of personal habits (like flatulence??), places of residence (which are already discussed in the body of the article), health trivia (he had cysts on his back and had chicken pox?), and a listing of his pets. My issue on those points rests both on relevance and sourcing, and asked that this be put into context as to why this was essential to the article. The IPs seem to think that unless the reader knows these things, they can't possibly comprehend an Anthony Burgess work. My question would then be "Why?" Does the article not need to outline the why of this? A newcomer to the article would require that education and not just be confronted with such overtly trivial facts. Please, PLEASE, take a moment to look this over and comment. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the place to put this, but shouldn't the Barry Barclay Biography page include something about Fourth Cinema, seeing as it was he who coined the term? I might have a go at it when i finish my assignment on it, but if anyone else wants to dabble, feel free! 122.57.150.132 (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

George Brown, Baron George-Brown has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty is currently a featured list candidate. However, without supports or at least comments from editors, its nomination will probably fail. Therefore, anyone who's interested is welcome to leave his comments here. Regards. BomBom (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Olsen, Dawn. "Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, Marc Headley, Tom Cruise". BlogTalkRadio. www.blogtalkradio.com. Retrieved 2008-08-30.

There is a question about usage of the above audio interview source in the biographical article David Miscavige, because that audio interview is hosted on BlogTalkRadio. A Request for Comment has been opened to assess community viewpoints on this. Please weigh in at Talk:David Miscavige#Request for Comment. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I've nominated the List of Governors of Delaware for Featured List removal. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)