Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

A few months back, a number of Wikipedia users went on a witch hunt which resulted in most magazine covers being removed from the encyclopedia, even those illustrating fashion models. I just noticed that another user is presently removing screen captures of actors and actresses (see Kate Winslet). Pretty soon we're going to be restricted to running low-quality images people happen to get on their digital cameras at movie premieres. For my part, I feel screencaptures are perfectly acceptable under Fair Use as the wikipedia policy states the images must be used in articles describing "the film or the film's contents". As far as I'm concerned, an actor or actress featured in the film qualifies as "a content". 23skidoo 15:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As a followup to my above comment (but listed here as a separate thread), I've just been made aware of a comment by Wikipedia head Jimbo Wales here which in my opinion spells the death knell for images on Wikipedia in toto. He basically is saying we can't even use publicity photos unless Wikipedia has arranged a free licence for them, and that he'd rather see no images at all. 23skidoo 15:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

...one man's opinion. A powerful man around here, certainly (too powerful if you ask me), but just his opinion at the present time. And, hey, the great thing about this free content is we can always take it somewhere else if we don't like the rules further down the road :) --kingboyk 20:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

About two weeks are left for general nominations. Maurreen 06:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Friends: Martin Luther has just been promoted to GA Status. We're also in something of an informal improvement drive. Would someone swing by and assess it again and share any improvement suggestions on its talk page? Thanks! --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried, but all of my suggestions were dismissed. Kaldari 22:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to kingboyk, we now have the assessments split into work groups to make things easier to digest! What does this mean? Well, now we have a nice work list that shows not only the quality scale, but also any comments left in the project banner template. Also, you'll notice we now have stats for each workgroup displayed on the workgroup page, and we also now have our own log of changes to quality and importance for each group... :-) plange 05:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is our gameplan for collaborating with the version 1.0 project? Right now, for example, our Core Biographies page says that it has no relation to the 1.0 project. Also, we have zero articles listed under the WP Biography section of the v1.0 Humanities collabaration page. This gives me the impression that we are not participating in the v1.0 project whatsoever. I would like to motion that we officially endorse the 1.0 project and come up with an official plan for collaboration. As part of this plan, I would also like to motion that we officially make our core biographies list a v1.0 worklist (with the approval of the v1.0 team). What say thee? Kaldari 20:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

1. The Core Biographies page does not say it has no relation to the 1.0 project. It says, "It has no one-to-one correlation with any current plans for a release version."
   • I have no idea what that means. Why don't we change it to say "This list is being used as a worklist for the version 1.0 project."?
2. It is already a work list -- "It is essentially a work list for people who choose to use it."
   • Yes, but are we choosing to use it for version 1.0? If so, we should state that on the page. If not, why not?
3. Version 0.5 will be out before 1.0. Version 0.5 is now accepting nominations. I've listed some below that are not included. Maurreen 21:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
   • Thanks for doing that. Kaldari 22:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

OK with me. Maurreen 22:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have created a Core Biographies worklist at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biographies based on the WP Biography core list. Kaldari 23:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

We are now accepting nominations for selected articles - add your nomination now or vote on nominations that have been added. Only FA, A or GA articles should be nominated plange 07:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if some experienced editors could keep their eye on this one and help with editing where appropriate. There's been some extremely nasty stuff on the talk page, which ended up on Google and was seen by the subject. The reaction was as one might expect. There are also a couple of legal incidents in the article, which I have removed, one about a court case, where there was no final judgement handed down. They have references and are a judgement call, but as per BLP one might err on the side of caution anyway, and, after recent events, there is an even greater need to tread carefully. Because of this the article and talk page histories have been deleted. OFFICE are aware of this situation, but are leaving it to admins to see through (4 admins are watching the article at the moment). Thanks. Tyrenius 09:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved this to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biographies. Maurreen 23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty serious WP:BLP violation. I hope this group knows who is dealing with BLP stuff. Some very critical statements are not referenced, and although the article appears well referenced, almost every reference points to the same source (one book, or websites about that book). Sandy 22:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that anything that comes from Fred Phelps or his organization is more-than-likely not going to be useable as it is too extremist and suspect. You can't quote Al-Queda on Al-Queda except for mundane trivia. Same applies here. Wjhonson 01:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I tagged Talk:Jake Gyllenhaal with the standard templates to indicate it's part of the project but now I've having problems with another editor who keeps removing them. What's the best way to proceed - I think they are very useful, especially in terms of giving new editors a handy reference point about what is expected in such articles.

Advice please!

--Charlesknight 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a bit of unsightly space between the two boxes, I agree with the complainant... we'll have to try and trim that.

The upper box is Wikipedia policy (the {{blp}} template). I'm not sure how the folks over at Template talk:Blp would feel about people removing that message - it might be considered vandalism, restoring it probably wouldn't have 3RR applied. I don't know though, you'd have to ask them.

The rest of the text, i.e. this WikiProject's template... well, I think at the end of the day we can't do anything about it if somebody decides to remove it. I'd hope we'd also be willing to listen to complaints and suggestions to try and ensure that was a rare occurence. If it became such an issue that project templates were being removed in large numbers, it would need to be discussed centrally as the WikiProjects need these templates for the Wikipedia 1.0 article assessment. But, in this case, I'm not too bothered because, as your complainant says, we have plenty of articles still to assess anyway :) And, of course, my bot will probably put it back again eventually anyway. --kingboyk 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

At times I thought it would never get finished, but Kingbotk (talk · contribs) has finished tagging all 115,000 or so articles in Category:Living people (articles in that category as of a couple of days ago). Please keep up the assessing, folks!

I'll give it another run through that cat to make sure we're fully up to date, and then - if I can write suitable regular expressions - I'm going to start tagging by theme, starting with Category:Military biographical stubs. --kingboyk 08:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

(clapping hands) Thanks kingboyk!! I've started using the manual AWB tentatively yesterday and used your brilliant idea with the Stubclass thing and tagged some Virginia politician stubs :-) plange 15:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Looks like you didn't do it quite right: use the auto=yes parameter, the article then gets put into auto-assessed categories for both it's work-group and general biography (hopefully!). I'll update one now at random to see if it works... and give you the diff... Aye it works! :) [1] --kingboyk 15:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, cool! Doing things in small chunks like this for this very reason-- was afraid I'd do something wrong! plange 15:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's no big deal, not enough to go back and retag them! Just more concise code and an extra category :) --kingboyk 15:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

At my request AWB is now supporting plugins. This means I'll be able (in theory) to write some complicated parameter building/replacing code in Visual Studio .NET and have it work in AWB. I'm just feeling my way at the moment, as until today I didn't know anything at all about AWB internals and I don't know much about dotnet regular expression objects either :)

Anyway, I think this could get quite advanced. It ought to be possible to load the article, see what categories it's in, and then automatically tag the talk page with the correct parameters based on those categories (or, at the very least, if it's in military stubs we already know it's class=Stub, auto=yes, military...=yes; by checking the article for Cat:Living people we can add living=yes too); avoid tagging talk pages of deleted and articles; and to keep a database/running list of what articles have been tagged and which haven't. For a more modest start, though, I'll be trying to make a plugin which loads the talk page of a living persons bio and sees if it has no WPBio template, or one without living=yes, and save the correct parameters. WIth my current AWB-only setup I completely skip talk pages which have {{WPBiography}} even if the person is living and it's not tagged living=yes. I'll keep yall posted on how it's going... I'm not in much of a coding mood at the moment but hopefully my mojo will return soon :) --kingboyk 22:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

New categories added! Now when you mark an article with needs-infobox=yes and it is also in a work group, the article will appear in a subcategory for that work group! Makes it easier now to help do these. Word of caution! I've found that certain biography articles have opposition camps on infoboxes. I think with the work groups we have, it's generally safe, but, for instance, I've noticed that scientist articles can have some heated debates on these. I would say that if you are tagging a scientist or academic, first ask on the Talk page. Does anyone know of any other category where it's generally not liked? I know actors and musicians and military people and royalty it's normal to have them.... Also note that each work group has a section that lists infoboxes... plange 06:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have just done an infobox for Michael Gonzi. Can someone indicate how remove the "image" thing as we do not have an image of this important bishop at present. Can you help?Maltesedog 08:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this the right place to ask this?

Regarding the article on Richard Maybury. Would it be fair to classify him as a paleoliberterian. He does not use this label for himself. However it seems fairly accurate. And much more accurate than simply liberterian— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.44.185 (talk • contribs)

Uh no, you usually don't place an unsigned, "unheadinged" comment on a page completely unrelated to the topic you are asking about, particularly in the middle of an important poll. As for your question, just be honest on the page: "Richard Maybury is considered by most to be a paleolibererian, though he has not used that label for himself..." Make sure that you have sources to back that claim up. 24.126.199.129 01:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I come across biographies for scientist, mathematicians, historians, etc., a never have a workgroup category to put them in. If there isn't a group for these people, one must be created. 24.126.199.129 22:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd love too-- we didn't get much interest in our initial straw poll, but now that we have more people here, I'd like to open this up to new nominations. 23:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If philosophers aren't included in this group, the name should be changed to Science & Academia. 24.126.199.129 01:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think philosphers should be part of this, as otherwise I'm not sure what other umbrella they could fit under.... plange 02:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're considering new workgroups to add, here are some more suggestions 24.126.199.129 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC):

• Warriors & Explorers - The Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military workgroup could be renamed and expanded to include Frontiersmen, astronauts, colonialists, etc., as well as (more properly describe that it includes) the likes of Genghis Khan
• Athletes - Considering other workgroups, this might be a bit "narrow" of a category. Perhaps it could be moved into Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment which would be renamed Arts & Athletics.
• Saints & Sinners - For serial killers, murderers, etc. and saints, philanthropists, and the likes of Mother Teresa. You'll probably have to rename it :)
• Business & Practical - For businessmen, entrepreneur, lawyers, engineers, etc.
• Religion & Occult - For popes, preachers, etc. and magicians, cult leaders, etc. If philosophers are to be included in this category, it should be renamed Philosophy & Theology
  • Comment - I was wondering if maybe we could call it "Belief Systems", that might cover a wider swath. For example it could include activists like Cindy Sheehan (spelling?) who isn't exactly a politician. Or do you all think "activists" left and right should go under politics? If so we need a new template there for these type of people who are well-known but never elected, and don't *campaign* for office Wjhonson 19:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Activists should definitely go with politics. You've got these categories too narrow. I also think the phrase "Belief Systems" is a bit too vague, as activists shouldn't be placed in the same category as religious figures. 24.126.199.129 20:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't even understand what a workgroup... isWjhonson 01:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

well, we already voted on Sports as one (which would not only include athletes, but sports announcers, and coaches, etc... and also Religious Figures as another, but what does everyone think of the combination of philosophy and theology instead? I don't like combining "saints and sinners" though and the saints would fit well under philosphy and theology (religion)

to answer the other question, best way to see what a work group is, is to visit the ones already created and you'll see that one of the main functions is to put in one sport categories, infoboxes and templates that you would use a lot. Plus it's a place to find support on articles from other editors, post missing articles, find to-do lists in the work group you'd like to help out and lend a hand in doing some of the tasks, etc etc. Really it's what we make it. Think of it as a project within a project, so really the question is - what does a project do and that will hopefully answer your question ;-) plange 02:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Sports group: Where's their page? Why don't they have an option on the Template:WPBiography? Also, are there any other groups that exist that don't have items on the Template:WPBiography? If so, why don't they?

Regarding Saints & Sinners, where would we put philanthropists and non-religious people famed for their selflessness? And where would we list criminals?

Also, what about my other suggestions? 24.126.199.129 03:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sports hasn't been created yet-- it's a lot of work to create and I just got done creating the military one, so I'll get to Sports soon. When they're created I add them to our menu, so what you see there is what we have live. Also, not every bio needs to have a corresponding work group, so it's not vital we find someplace to put criminals etc. (just like every article doesn't have to be a part of a project)-- it's more of seeing if there's enough members who are willing to put the time and energy into a workgroup in deciding if one is created and also if there's a large body of articles for it. Which leads to your next question: let's see what others respond with. You've proposed them, so let's see if there's any interest. Also, take a look at Archive 2 and 3 to see previous discussions and straw polls for the work groups... plange 03:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd just assume put sports in Arts & Entertainment. You can always have subcategories within the work groups, can't you? 24.126.199.129 20:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You guys have had the perfect organization all along in Wikipedia:Core biographies (additional categories added in italics):

Arts and entertainment

Athletes and related

Artists and architects

Music

Performing arts misc.

Writers

Leaders and public figures

Politicians and leaders

Religious figures

Revolutionaries and activists

Military

Thinkers and explorers

Explorers

Inventors and scientists

Mathematicians

Philosophers

Social scientists

Other

Criminals and victims

People of questionable existence

I know it'd be a bit of a bitch to change, but why don't you base the work groups and their subcategories on these? 24.126.199.129 03:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with putting athletes in Arts and Entertainment, but I wonder if others like that idea? I guess in a way it is entertainment.... I think Religious figures should probably be on its own since there's issues very specific to them that others in that group don't need to worry about. I like Thinkers and Explorers... Don't like a work group called "Other" though :-) plange 03:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Same with military (which includes activists and warriors and revolutionaries), it needs to be on its own. We work very closely with WP:MILHIST and that relationship needs to be made very clear at the top, etc. The categorization made sense for categorizing 200 articles, but not when dealing with 200,000+ plange 04:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Grumble. I don't want to think about this. Categories are Wikipedia's weakpoint: lots of people with lots of ideas may be good for editing, but it's a real train wreck when it comes to organizing things. If you want to keep special little groups for military and nobility, be my guest, but all I know is that there needs to be another category in which people can put biographies. In keeping with the "keep-it-simple-and-smart" categorization I had espoused, we might as well make it Thinkers and Explorers - covering explorers, inventors, scientists, mathematicians, historians, philosophers, teachers, etc. Ignoring my aforesaid dedication to keeping it simple, however, I think we probably still should have a separate category for Business & Practical. 24.126.199.129 03:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Frank Klepacki is the article. He's a video game music composer, but there isn't a CVG biography infobox available. I glanced at the templates, but music artist doesn't quite cover it. Is there anything for musical composition? By the way, suggestions are welcome on the article, as I will eventually nominate it for featured status. --Zeality 18:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:People infobox templates has a list of all infoboxes-- if you don't see one you can use, perhaps we can make one for composers? plange 23:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a concern about the way living bios are being tagged in terms of importance. First of all, who is making these judgments? More importantly, it's arguably a violation of BLP for us to put a big tag on someone's talk page saying they're of "low" importance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're no longer judging importance, and for those that are using it, nothing but Top gets displayed, so even if someone is tagged with Low, it doesn't display. plange 02:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, plange. I saw a bio tagged with it yesterday and it did show up as "low," which is what brought me here. Now that I look again, I see it's no longer visible. Can I ask what the point is of categorizing in terms of importance, and who is still doing it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who's still using it, but I imagine it's very helpful to the work groups to prioritize work... plange 05:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you say a bit more about how it would be helpful, or direct me to where I could find out more? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic importance of the subject for Wikipedia 1.0 - surprised you don't know about this! Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index is a good starting point. We have discussed removing importance= and replacing it with core=yes for the top 200 bios only, the thread ought to be knocking around here somewhere. --kingboyk 08:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The importance ranking is something of an anachronism. It's supposed to be a ranking of how important the article is for that particular WikiProject. For example, Harrison Ford may rank Top for WikiProject Films, but would rank Mid for WikiProject Biographies. Officially, we are no longer doing rankings actively. All of the core biographies have been ranked Top, and that's all we're interested in for now. There may be some people still ranking importance on their own however. Personally, I would like to see importance dropped in favor of core=yes, but there is the matter of what to do about all the existing rankings. Some people think it would be a waste to erase the 20,000+ existing rankings. Personally, I think it would be a much needed purge. Kaldari 17:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw a page categorized as "low" importance yesterday (the category was visible on the page but the tag not) even though I believe Kingboy said this was no longer being done. It feel it's important to stop this, because the people judging may not be in a position to know who is of "low" importance (what are their criteria? what if it's simply that they, personally, are not familiar with that person?), and it's arguably a violation of the BLP policy to have that tag or category visible on the talk page. I know that Jimbo has deleted AfDs because they involved discussions about how "unimportant" certain people were. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be fairly trivial (code-wise) to simply disable the category output for anything not "Top-Class", so this wouldn't be a problem in practical terms. Given that there are only about 4,000 importance ratings so far (not 20,000+), it would probably be better to do this sooner rather than later, if it's to be done at all; otherwise, the amount of "information" removed by this will only increase. Kirill Lokshin 18:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not aware I'd ever said it wasn't being done (I still do it on occassion) Slim, you've probably mixed me up with someone else :). What I actually said was to propose this idea of core=yes - just tagging the 200 or so most important figures in history. I don't see any need to remove importance= from all projects (WPTrains for example, or WP:KLF), but I think it's of limited use here (we have too many articles to fairly rank them) and if it's going to cause problems for the foundation it would be best to quietly withdraw it. --kingboyk 18:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, kingboy, I meant to say plange. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A few other points now I've had time to think about this a little more:

• Importance was originally considered to be a crucial part of the WP1.0 process. The idea was that importance * WikiProject importance = encyclopedic importance which, with the article assessment classification, would be used to determine what articles get into WP1. This idea has faded somewhat due to some other projects abandonding or not implementing importance (notably MilHist) but, nonetheless, if the proposal is to scrap this for all Projects the WP1 team ought to be consulted.
• If there's no consensus to drop this for WPBiography as a bad idea for this particular project (I think it's something of a bad idea myself, because of our scope, and have been arguing for core=yes instead), the Foundation ought to be consulted. Jimbo is very interested in Wikipedia 1.0, and I don't think we should be forced into dropping this because it might be a problem. (Again, this is not my POV, this is about fair play and not being too rash - I personally am happy to drop the importance param).
• Jimbo is certainly aware of the Wikipedia 1.0 assessments for Biographies (see Category talk:Biography articles by quality where he questioned the A-grade given to Jimmy Wales), I imagine he's aware of the importance parameter too but he didn't question it.
• If we did keep importance, or if WPBiography dropped it but some other Projects retained it, the WikiProject Council could perhaps send out a note to the Projects advising them to reword their banners. We're really not talking about a person's importance here, we're talking about their (encyclopedic) priority to that particular WikiProject. --kingboyk 19:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)
  • Core=Yes would surely be better than having importance=top and ignoring importance=anything else, as is being done now. Personally I liked both categorizing and displaying all importances, although I admit that labeling someone of a certain importance is subjective, although I haven't seen any I disagreed with so far, and I've seen a lot. If someone disagrees with an importance rating they can always change it, and if two people disagree they could just bring it to the talk page or perhaps another page specifically for coming to concensus on disputed importance pages, which there probably wouldn't be too many of. VegaDark 09:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I just modified the WPBiography template so that non-top importance categories are not included. The way I changed it, I left the default value "Category:Unknown-importance biography articles". It seems to me that that might better be changed to something like "Category:Non-top biographies", or maybe just no importance cat at all. But I've done what seems like the least intrusive change. If someone thinks we should change it further, either feel free to or ask me to. LotLE×talk 19:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You've not taken them all out, but let's not be hasty anyway. I've got my eye on this and can sort it all out in a flash if need be :) --kingboyk 19:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)

I would suggest not having a particular category for articles of unranked importance, i.e. "not Top". Such a category would have thousands of articles and would be of little use. Kaldari 19:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. --kingboyk 19:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, Kingboyk, about "not taken them all out". Could you be looking at a cached page still or something? Or if you still see a non-top bio categorized, could you point me to it to try to figure out. Btw. per Kingboyk and Kaldari, I have simply made non-top not have any category at all.

Btw. Just to be clear: What I changed was the WPBiography template. So the uses of it on individual talk pages still have the 'importance=blah' field, it just doesn't affect anything in the rendered page if it is non-top. That allows editors to continue flagging importance if they wish, it just won't be visible to readers unless they go to "edit article". So, in principle, it's a simple change to start using the data for something again later... no data was harmed in the making of this template. In fact, if you look at my template change, I simply comment out the inactive parts so that editors can easily see what was formerly being done. LotLE×talk 20:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it being changed on the top-level, but let's reach a consensus here first before making any more changes to the Template (I've been at work today so am just now being able to weigh in). I agree that it's pointless to have importance project-wide, but I do see the value for ranking importance for the work groups so that they can see things that have higher priority to work on (i.e., Start-Class article that is High importance and on 0.5 release, visible via their worklist) so that they can work to get it FA. Incidentally the categories for importance are still showing for the workgroups on the Talk page and that's why I bring this up. plange 21:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think at the very least we ought to bring this thread to the attention of the WP1 folks and lobby for a change of name from "importance" to "priority". Templates would need to be changed, and bots could probably take care of renaming/moving the categories. --kingboyk 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, sure I see now. I'm pretty sure that changing the template won't change what the bot does when it generates that project TO-DO page. This actually means my change is a great solution all around, since editors who want to can continue to use the 'importance' field in a way that is "invisible" to general reades. LotLE×talk

You only took out the main project importance categories, not the workgroup ones. See e.g. Talk:Bill Clinton which still has Category:Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles at the bottom. --kingboyk 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

True. Do you think of that as a bug or a feature? LotLE×talk 22:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

kingboyk, if those are removed for the workgroup will importance still get added to the workgroup worklists? Doesn't mathbot trawl the categories to populate the worklist? plange 00:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Mathbot trawls the categories. I was thinking about this overnight, and here's what I propose:

• Let's remove importance from the main lists (as Lulu has already done). We should get up to 200,000 articles or more and importance is just impossible to assess over that many articles anyway.
• Retain importance= for now but have that only work for the workgroups
• Have a core=yes parameter for the core articles
• Rename "importance" to priority in all the documentation
• Have our AWB runs remove any empty importance= parameters we find
• Optionally, we could add a priority= parameter and replace any importance= params as our bots find them (but I'm not going to do another run over all 115,000+ instances replacing the word). Because the template conditional code doesn't allow variable assignment we'd have to copy the importance parameter code when implementing priotity.

Comments? --kingboyk 08:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think all (including option of priority= replaced when run across) sounds good! plange 15:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. VegaDark 20:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. If there's no objections by tommorow I'll make the required changes to the template and report back. --kingboyk 20:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Had some computer problems today so it'll have to wait until tommorow. It would also be a good idea to check with Oleg (author of Mathbot) if he'd be happy to support "Articles by priority" categories instead of importance. More bot work is also having to wait for a while I'm afraid; next few runs involve coding and I haven't got it done yet. --kingboyk 22:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've notified Wikipedia 1.0 and WP:COUNCIL about this thread, so hopefully we'll get some further input soon. --kingboyk 09:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The tags and their details are optional and the choice of the wikiprojects. Maurreen 10:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started work on Wikipedia:Academic and artistic biographies. For now it's an essay, and I've got a number of helpful suggestions and contributions. But if it tightens up sufficiently, I believe something along these lines would be appropriate as a guideline. This is only one class of biographies, but one which has a somewhat special class of concerns (and the type of bio I've personally worked on, which is obviously my motivation). LotLE×talk 17:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you've found the workgroup chat further up the page :) Probably this is something which could be integrated with one of those. No doubt Plange will have more to say on the subject... --kingboyk 17:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Victoria of the United Kingdom is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mary II of England is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 16:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, this was added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/to do plange 15:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone help me edit these?? I'm new to this project! --TheM62Manchester 09:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you contacted me, i personally dislike them and don't find them interesting, project wise i'd say nom that article for "Good article" status, which perhaps may be helpful to your cause.--I'll bring the food 09:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm new to this project and how it works, that's the problem... --TheM62Manchester 09:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The article wouldn't be part of this project. You might try contacting Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians or some other project that deals with bands? An article on the individual members would be, but first you need to make sure they pass the notability test. plange 15:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

They do. By a country mile. --kingboyk 15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I guess I'm really out of it as I'd never heard of Girls Aloud! LOL! plange 15:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)TheM62Manchester, what kind of help are you asking for? Are you wanting the biographies assessed? Do you want a peer review? plange 15:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We've gotten some more interest in work group creation, so thought I'd throw up this straw poll. One thing I've been using as a guideline are how WP:FA and WP:GA lists are divided. I think they're too narrow, but it does help with ideas.

1. Support plange 23:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support 24.126.199.129 01:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Wjhonson 01:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support LotLE×talk 17:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
5. kingboyk 05:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Which would contain: Explorers, Inventors and scientists, Mathematicians, Philosophers, Social scientists. This way I think medical personnel and astronauts can be included too. Plus it's in keeping with naming convention of other workgroups.

Actually, I only had suggested using "academia" if you weren't going to include philosophers. And while you're right that this is consistent with previous naming convention, neither "science", "academia", or "scholars" technically covers "Explorers" (which by extension includes astronauts). ("Medical personnel", however, could easily be considered to go under the term "science".) 24.126.199.129 19:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

1. plange 00:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
2. kingboyk 05:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Morphh 16:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We also had an alternative proposal for (the only difference with the above being the addition of explorers, which would include astronauts and cosmonauts). I'm torn, as we do need a place for explorers, but the below doesn't really make it clear it includes scientists in the title and we need a place for scientists. Would medical people be included? It was proposed to contain: Explorers, Inventors and scientists, Mathematicians, Philosophers, Social scientists

I suppose you're right. How 'bout we compromise and just name it "Science, exploration, and acadmia" and have the option be called "thinkers-work-group"? Or naming it "Science and Academia" and have the option be called "thinkers&explorers-work-group." 24.126.199.129 19:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

3 votes were given in support of creating Athletes earlier, and while not overwhelming was more than some. I propose renaming it to Sports and games (in keeping with WP:GA category), so it can include biographies of people involved in the sports industry (agents, coaches, owners, announcers). An alternative proposal was put forth to merge these with Arts and Entertainment.

1. plange 00:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
2. -- Lost^(talk) 08:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
3. 24.126.199.129 19:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

1. plange 00:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
2. -- Lost^(talk) 08:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
3. (Sigh... fine.) 24.126.199.129 19:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
4. kingboyk 20:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Morphh 16:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We had garnered enough support for this to be its own work group, (more than Royalty), but I just hadn't taken the time to create this yet. Unless I hear any major objections, I'll proceed with this.

1. I Support this, but make sure that it a) includes occult figures/mystics/etc. and cult leaders, b) does not include philosophers, nontheists, and people who just happen to be religious but are known for something else. Suggested name: Religion & Occult. But whatever you do, DO NOT name it something like "Belief systems" or anything else that opens it up to possibly including political figures, philosophers, activists, etc. 24.126.199.129 19:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This was proposed to include businessmen, entrepreneur, lawyers, engineers, etc.., but I'm thinking engineers would go with science...

Engineers would probably go under both, as they don't necessarily have any theoretical training. It could even be argued that some engineers would go under artists. Hooray for overlaps. 24.126.199.129 19:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

1. 24.126.199.129 19:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have listed new articles created by me here. I hope that was the right way to do it. There was no precedent to go by -- Lost^(talk) 08:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being the first person! I like that you added the DYK info too. Only thing I would add would be the UTC date time stamp of when article was created? Thanks for being brave and bold! plange 15:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies. Can anyone here spare the time to pop over and answer them? The project page is currently unclear on whether changes can be made and/or discussed (front page says yes, talk page implies no). Carcharoth 22:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many, many articles that could be brought under the aegis of this WIkiProject by adding the WikiProject Biography template to their talk pages, but I'm not clear if just adding the template does anything useful. Taking the examples given in the link in the post above (the suggested additions listed at the Core Biographies page), Marie Curie and J. R. R. Tolkien are currently "under the care" of other WikiProjects (History of Science and Middle-earth respectively), but not this one. In this sort of case, what is the etiquette here? Should the WikiProject Biography template be liberally applied to any articles about people at all? Or only to those that the WikiProject Biography are actively involved in and maintaining? Lope de Vega is an example of a biographical article without a WikiProject to look after it. Would this WikiProject want to adopt it? Carcharoth 22:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I have seen, any biography may be under WikiProject Bio. While most of those most famous are covered, there are many instances in which lesser-known people are, too. Michael 22:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Arc is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 23:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I tried to get this author to Good Article status, but I think I am having trouble understanding what proper Biography format is. Could someone take a look at it and give some suggestions for improvement? It's short! :) Judgesurreal777 03:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Best place to get help would be to request a Peer review plange 22:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is a user box for people participasting in this project available? Maltesedog 08:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is - {{User WPBiography}}. --kingboyk 22:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Currently Daniel Webster is up for Featured article status and I was hoping that some people from the project would be willing to come and review it here (it is rated A-Class by this project) as it hasn't gotten a single vote either way. I'm starting to worry that basically nothing will come from this nomination. Thanks, TonyJoe 19:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I added this to our main to-do list and to the Politics and government to-do list-- everyone, please feel free to add these yourselves :-) plange 22:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I mentioned them here was I needed them to be assessed so I can get them as Featured Articles. --TheM62Manchester 22:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest you do the Peer review then :-) plange 22:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone here be willing to help me?? --TheM62Manchester 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they would, but the place to do that and solicit help would be by adding it to the peer review request page. plange 22:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel that there ought to be category or category tree containing nothing but biographies. A category where every article and subcategory is within this Project's scope; a category where I can go if I want to browse bios and nothing else.

Category:People is currently a bit of a mess, a mighty category tree full of all sorts of articles. Perhaps this could be cleaned up, or perhaps we need a new category? (Category:Biographies is already taken I see; it contains biographical books). Category:Living people is great - and could be a subcategory, to save tagging 100,000 articles - but finding dead people's bios is not so straightforward. --kingboyk 20:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else ... "Biography articles" ... Maurreen 08:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Which we already have, Category:WikiProject Biography articles plange 16:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That's talk pages, and they get into that category by being tagged with {{WPBiography}}. My ulterior motive is - of course - to have an easy way of finding biography articles so I can get them bot-tagged and into that category! :) I think it would be useful for humans, too, though. --kingboyk 17:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha! hmmm....So, then the people one sounds like a good candidate, what makes it messy? Perhaps we can make an ad hoc committee to hash out what needs to be done to make it not messy... plange 17:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Last time I looked it contained biographical and non-biographical subcategories. It's also a very deep category tree. I suppose what I'll have to do if I have the time and inclination is trawl through the categories and subcategories right down to the bottom level (and tag their talk pages), coming up with a list of which categories beneath it aren't biographical. Or, better still, if someone else wants to do that and give me a list of "good" categories (or articles) and present the others here for consideration about what to do with them I'd be more inclined to do a bot run. At the moment I'm not sure I fancy a massive category trawl followed by another hurculean bot run. (I still have 20,000 living person bios to do, AWB keeps freezing up on me or crashing so it's not going as fast as I would like at the moment). --kingboyk 17:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I went through a lot of the trees copying them to the work group category lists, and I remember that some had categories for fictional versions, argh! For instance, if we were in a category of Kings, there'd be a bunch of very relevant categories and then one of "fictional kings". What to do? Do they really belong in a People category? Do we need to get permission to move them to some other uber-category like Fictional People? I can tackle this if you want, but I'm kind of a WP noob, so not sure of procedures. Do I just leave comments on the Talk pages of categories I think shouldn't be there? plange 04:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) Just found one that should be nice and clean Category:Burials plange 17:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You're doing well for a newbie! Have long have you been with us?

Generally if there's only a minor categorisation issue at stake, editors can just be bold and fix it on the spot. Wholesale reorganisation should be discussed somewhere - perhaps category talk of the parent cat, perhaps at the Wikipedia categorisation page, perhaps here...

Anyway, I have some tagging jobs queued up for albums and songs, plus the last 15-20% of living people, so I won't be doing anything just yet. I'm thinking of tagging by subject next - so I can tag with workgroup params - in which case I'd build and examine the category tree manually. --kingboyk 18:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There's this guideline: Wikipedia:Categorization of people. I've added it to our category; I wonder if we ought to lobby to move it into Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/ space? --kingboyk 09:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

James Bulger is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 23:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP states "Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule." So, in removing such material from talk pages, the result is a hole in the discussion and can lead to misunderstandings due to lack of context. Is there a tag we can use to replace such comments that are removed to indicate to other editors/readers that something has been removed in accordance with WP:BLP? --HResearcher 02:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would ask on the WP:BLP Talk page as they're the ones that have created this policy -- we're just the messenger :-) plange 02:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response :) Good suggestion, I'll do that now. --HResearcher 02:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:BLPrefactor seems to do that job but I know nothing about it.

Also, a general point for reference, there's a new noticeboard for BLP incidents - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It's not part of this WikiProject and AFAIC shouldn't be, because imho our remit doesn't include dispute resolution or quasi-legal decision making :) --kingboyk 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This article had a peer-review (not really) for FA. I'm assuming it should have been reviewed for GA first, because it certainly would qualify. 24.126.199.129 19:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically, it doesn't need to be listed as GA to qualify for FA, but it does help. Michael 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As per the thread above I've implemented the changes that were proposed. We have a new core=yes parameter. priority= replaces importance=, and is now for workgroups only. importance= will still work as an interrim measure but adds the talk page to Category:Biography articles needing priority parameter replacement which will need to be checked periodically - perhaps with a bot - and the importance= params replaced with priority=.

There's a slight bug in the interrim importance=/priority= code (see e.g. Talk:Attalus I) which is causing importance-assessed workgroup articles to erroneously appear in e.g. Category:Unknown-priority biography (military) articles. It's not a major issue and I'm sure it's fixable (to do with the placement of the priority and importance conditional blocks I think) but frankly I'm too worn out now to think about it. If nobody fixes it before tommorow - and it's not a major issue - I'll attend to it then.

Some cleanup jobs need to be done if Plange or anyone would care to help - see Template_talk:WPBiography#Major_change.

Note to self: Todo: WPBeatles biocore=yes, priority a&e workgroup only categories; same categories for KLF (no need for core). --kingboyk 20:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the bug, this diff should show clearly what the problem was. Have added a couple more tweaks, and I think we're good to go now. Just need to make the new categories blue and delete the old ones. I'll fix the other 2 templates now. --kingboyk 12:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a bot to clean up Category:Biography articles needing priority parameter replacement? If not, can't we just keep the term as "importance"? Because, let's be honest: What's more important, semantics or several thousand articles that won't need to be changed because they('ll) have a defunct parameter? 24.126.199.129 08:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

After a lot of work, I've now got a plugin which will allow me to continue tagging the living persons bios - see User:Kingbotk/Living persons biography plugin.

Basically, AWB facilitates the prepending of a template to a talk page, but it has no conditional code for when that prepending happens. The only way round this for an automated bot was to skip the talk page if it already contains a {{WPBiography}}. That meant that talk pages with an empty Bio template on them weren't getting the living=yes parameter.

My new plugin will prepend if the template is missing, and ensure it has living=yes if the template isn't missing. It will clean up template calls (including removing template:, indiscriminate spacing and line breaks, and the old {{BioWikiProject}} name), remove {{Blp}} and replace it with living=yes, and rename importance= to priority=. Most of this could already be done with AWB (apart from the conditional prepend, except perhaps with advanced find/replace templating rules), but now I have the plugin infrastructure in place it might be possible to have it do even more exciting stuff in the future (also, as I've been careful to use good OOP design, additional plugins for additional jobs will be much simpler to make as they will be able to inherit from the existing classes). For now I'll tag 100 or so pages manually to be fully sure it's working correctly and then get back to tagging.I estimate that there's another 15,000-20,000 living person bios to do before I move on to the people by occupation categories. --kingboyk 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, hit a couple of snags with the latest run. The first was a bug: any page with a&e-work-group= on it would have got an extra WPBio tag, because my regular expression wasn't recognising params with an & in the name as valid parameters. I've fixed that issue but a small number of double tagged talk pages will remain - if any member sees one please just fix it, I don't need to be notified.

The second snag was caused by a talk page with an incorrect needs=infobox=yes parameter. Since this is essentially the same problem, I think I'll make the regular expression less strict but remember... garbage in, garbage out :)

Finally... I'm planning to make my plugin user friendly and fully configurable, so I can distribute it to members. Those of you who are using AWB for tagging Bio articles (at least 2 members) will find it a godsend, I think. I'll work on it today but I'm a bit of a slow programmer so I don't expect it'll be finished today :) --kingboyk 08:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we ought to have a newsletter, perhaps monthly. See e.g. The Beatles Project.

We have lots of news to report, including the template changes. Let's get people using priority= instead of importance=, or not using it all if the article isn't within the scope of a workgroup. --kingboyk 10:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We already do ;-) September would be our 3rd issue, and since that's coming up close, if people want to insert their news or reports in this thread we can get it included! plange 13:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol! It can't have been very entertaining then, bcos I had forgotten! ;) (red faced). Well, anyway, please mention the template changes :) --kingboyk 13:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Time to do that newsletter I think, please see my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Outreach. In particular, next month's issue ought to be created as a skeleton when the current month's issue goes out so that people can add to it during the next 4 weeks. --kingboyk 09:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations all round folks. We now have 130,000 articles tagged as within project scope, and of these a very respectable ~10,000 have been assessed. We're doing great, so let's keep this momentum! --kingboyk 09:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I invite the project's attention to the article on the controversial Ann Coulter, which IMHO is a pretty putrid piece of work. Lots of cruft, lots of negativity, lots of stuff unsuitable for a BLP, etc. (That's only my opinion, of course). I think great benefit might come if it had some sort of analysis and rating by disinterested parties. Lou Sander 09:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me get this straight. We can't use magazine covers. We can't use publicity or promotional photographs. We can't use press photos. Apparently going out and shooting your own photo counts as Original Research. And now I'm told that we can't use screencaptures to illusrate biographical articles (see this). Someone at the link preceding has stated that we can't use a record album cover to illustrate an article on the person who recorded said record. So, asking the project at large -- what is left for us to use as illustrations for just about anybody? I'm serious -- Someone wants to remove the one and only image from Kate Winslet. I would like to see someone provide a fair use image of the actress that is of half-decent quality and can actually be used here. 23skidoo 23:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Shooting your own photo isn't original research. Personally I think that policy is horribly misnamed - it's really aimed at original theories, or original scientific research. The KLF, a featured article I worked on, is full of original research in as much as myself and my co-editor compiled published sources into an article which has never been done before. There's not one original theory though and everything of any substance is cited to a published source.

I'm a little bamboozled that promo shots can't be used. Says who? I don't doubt what you're saying but it sounds crazy to me. Promotional shots are released to the media to be used, aren't they?! --kingboyk 08:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ya, let's complain! That's bunk! 24.126.199.129 08:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You can still use publicity and promo photographs...any photo that's part of a press kit can be used under the official wikipedia interpretation of fair use. See Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags for a list of image copyright tags - click on the tag and it'll show details for how that image type can be used. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 23:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is actually being discussed on the admins noticeboard (incidents) right now - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ed_g2s_orphaning_.7B.7Bpromophoto.7D.7D_images_en_masse. Note that you don't have to be an admin to post there. --kingboyk 23:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

See discussion at Image talk:Two young girls at Camp Christmas Seals2.jpg. Where is this best discussed? Carcharoth 15:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Blp as it's their image. If they change, we probably will too. --kingboyk 19:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've gone over there and suggested an alternative. Carcharoth 00:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday I learned of this man and wrote Alfred T. Goshorn using a few handy resources. (1) Is it useful to call this a stub? While it isn't finished, it is way beyond your typical stub. And I may have finished with it, although I expect to add a precise term as ballclub president someday. (2) I see that Categorization of people is not part of this project but maybe someone here has a word of advice. Category:Businesspeople is full of biographies of people who are notable mainly for their roles in for-profit organizations. So I put this article in Category:People from Cincinnati only! --P64 17:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

After adding more some more detail from one source, I removed the stub tags (bio and Ohio). It remains in "People from Cincinnati" only, while I am generally asking about categorization. I will read some more here and also look for an Ohio project.

I have seen some biographical articles that are clearly resumes, i.e., they are bullet lists of schools and universities, current positions, previous jobs, and awards, with maybe a 1-2 sentence introduction. When the subjects of these articles clearly merit Wikipedia articles, does this resume-style format belong in Wikipedia? Patiwat 19:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

They are not ideal, but should be considered like a stub, something that will be further developed. Maurreen 19:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if this article should be moved to Top priority? It's an article that needs a lot more work for its subject, who has had probably the largest impact on how most of the world studies and knows about the world around us as well as in several other fields. Despite this the article needs a lot of fixing and seems to have been ignored, until I noticed nobody had even rated it on the quality or priority scale. May I have some input? --- Lid 10:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually unless the article is within the scope of a workgroup, the priority= field doesn't do anything :) Of course DA isn't a core biography (200 or so of the most influential figures in history) so he can't be core=yes. However, he's pretty important in his field. You could change it to a&e-workgroup=yes|priority=High or a&e-workgroup=yes|priority=Top; you'd have to be willing to defend your decision if you choose Top but I think it would be OK. As I say, he's pretty major in his field. --kingboyk 10:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this to a discussion at the core talk page to get a closer consensus on the topic rather than simply jumping the gun. –– Lid^(Talk) 16:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify - i'm looking for a consensus on arguments for and against and I am leaning towards giving him Top priority currently. I'm not entirely looking for him becoming a core biography but that supgroup would have the best idea of top biography articles. –– Lid^(Talk) 16:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not a member of WikiProject Biography, but I would like to note this message that I've left at Talk:Amber_MacArthur

--Ampersand2006 ^{( & )} 19:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if we ought to build a list of biography-related WikiProjects (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Biography WikiProjects worklist) and then contact them one by one about becoming official workgroups or child projects of WPBiography. It makes sense to pool resources and share the project template I think, and the successful integration of Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty confirms the point I think. Overnight they acquired a sophisticated template, a parent project infrastructure, and a Wikipedia 1.0 assessments list.

I've been thinking about this because checking the biography log today one of the bold changes was an article within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Porn stars. They already describe themselves as a child project of this one, but as far as I know it's not "official". I was about to write to them and suggest they become a subsidiary of the A&E workgroup and share our template (perhaps in a highly customised way like WP Brit Royalty) but then it occurred to me that there might be tens or hundreds of such WikiProjects and if so we perhaps ought to go about this in a more structured fashion. Thoughts? --kingboyk 09:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I already reached out to all of the active ones back when we first started talking about work groups (even asking them to vote on which work groups to create) and they all turned me down (including BRoy) or ignored the invitation. The porn stars one said they would have to be separate because they deal with such unique issues... I'm tickled that BRoy has now decided to come over, but I'd like to try and and get others to conform even more (I'd rather they had used our template and had a one liner (like our work groups) that says it is supported by such and such project (like the India one does for Indian cinema), but I know we take what we can get, right? I would just like to suggest if others approach us that we try to steer them first to that approach (or we're going to have major code bloat on our template if we make every one have a unique look) and to having a subpage to our page, etc... --plange 15:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. But it's a carrot that can be used if the first approach fails :) Believe me, I'm starting to dislike code bloat too as it's starting to get tricky to change the template without breaking it!

Anyrode, do you fancy asking the porn stars project again about being a child project? And are you saying we don't need that list? --kingboyk 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's their old response, so I don't think they can even be a part of us per Jimbo. Perhaps we could do a page, just so we can keep track of invites and progress on coaxing merges... --plange 16:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah that's nonsense. As a child project they'd have their own working guidelines. They claim to be a child project of ours already anyway! :) But, no bother... Re the page, yes that was what I had in mind. --kingboyk 17:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a template to help describe lineages? Something that would help organize a family tree for me? LordAmeth 13:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I saw one on an article once, I'll see if I can remember which and get back to you. Anyone else know? --plange 15:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How about Template:Familytree? Hemmingsen 16:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

When reviewing articles, I've only been rating (Stub,Start,B). I've been leaving GA & FA for the nomination process. Haven't rated any A-class. My question was with regard to GA. Are we rating this or do you send them through the GA process to move from B to GA. Morphh 17:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely only doing GA if they went through GA process. I have very rarely given A, and definitely not on my own. Speaking of A, do we want to consider doing what WP:MILHIST does which is have A-class be a nom process within our Projet that requires 3 supports? --plange 17:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the GA class, yes, Plange is right, only articles that have been through that process get the GA grade. Remember though that any editor in good standing can assess for GA (and they have a backlog) so if you want to help them out get assessing! (WP:GAN). --kingboyk 17:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Also, if I feel the B could be a GA, I let them know in the comments and encourage them to do that.. --plange 17:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to do that, just place the GA nomination yourself. You don't need to have edited the article to nominate it. --kingboyk 17:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI - We created a new list for the WPBio template for listing recommended infoboxes. Please take a look and add / remove as needed. Morphh 17:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not doing AWB work until I finish my plugin (ETA end of the week I hope!) so if anyone fancies doing a couple of pressing tasks here they are:

• Make sure all the articles on the core bio list have core=yes|priority=Top (and remove importance=)
• Replace any usages of {{BRoy}} on article talk pages only with WPBiography|british-royalty=yes (Use "what transcludes here" on the AWB file menu, and then filter out non-talk.)

--kingboyk 17:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Second job done by Kingbotk. First job needs to be done by a human. --kingboyk 08:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Template:Autobiography tag automatically puts the tagged article into the Category:people. This is inappropriate because it makes the "people" page confusing for persons simply looking for articles about different types of people. The tag is a flag to notify editors to check the article, so it should put them into a cleanup category instead. I looked at Category:Biography articles needing attention. Should the autobiography tag put it's articles into a subcategory of the C:Bana category? Should the Autobiography tag go on the Wikipedia:Cleanup resources page instead? Any other suggestions?--Blainster 17:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the people category, that was a hugely inappropriate categorisation. I notice the template is placing articles into Category:NPOV disputes. My approach would be simply change that to something like Category:NPOV disputes (autobiographies) or "(alleged autobiographies)", make that category a subcat of Category:NPOV disputes, and be done with it. --kingboyk 17:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Thanks for taking immediate action. The NPOV disputes category also seems out of place for this type of article. Don't you think it should be in some type of cleanup category? --Blainster 18:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dunno :) You could make Category:NPOV disputes (autobiographies) (or whatever you call it) a subcat of Category:Biography articles needing attention also, perhaps? --kingboyk 19:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

File:American band Prussian Blue.jpg

Maybe I've been watching to much History Channel but I think the bio logo looks like Hitler. Can we change his haircut? --Gbleem 14:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the most surreal thing I have seen on Wikipedia all week. 23skidoo 06:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was the Olsen Twins at first glance but evidently not! --kingboyk 09:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I found a tendency that I'm not terribly fond of for editors to put "trivia" sections in biographies. Generally the facts listed in these sections are fine in terms of WP:V and WP:NPOV, but they also just seem... well, trivial. That is, they seem not to get at a subjects reason for notability.

There's a particular case that I've encountered recently that seems rather typical. On the article Ward Churchill, several editors (not me) repeatedly added and removed a little blurb about Churchill's (in)famous "little Eichmanns" quotation being parodied by South Park. As far as the biography goes—which is of a controversial figure that attracts lots of POV warriors who want to condemn him—this fact is quite innocuous and banal. I'm really not worried about it from any of the WP:LIVING issues; I just think the fact is too secondary to really merit inclusion—he's parodied because he's notable, not notable because he's parodied.

I also had a brief discussion of basically the same question in the talk page of the essay I started: Wikipedia talk:Academic and artistic biographies#Trivia?. Not related to the South Park bit, but just on the same general theme. Do editors on this project have any insight about these types of "trivial" additions... and about how to handle them. Are there any guidelines I've missed that speak to the matter? LotLE×talk 04:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally, Trivia sections in general are frowned on and you will have trouble getting an article to FA with one. My rule of thumb is that if you can't work it into the prose of the article then it was probably not important enough to be mentioned. What do others think? --plange 05:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree... but an editor who adds it back uses an edit comment of: Placed the Trivia info back in article. Discussion has died out and there does not seem to be any precedent to keep the valid, sourced info out of article. Not really to single out that particular comment, but it's very typical of what the "trivia proponents" tend to comment. LotLE×talk 05:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:AVTRIV and Recommendations_for_handling_Trivia. Morphh 13:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The manual of style for biographies is surprisingly silent on how to enumerate of a person's works. It mentions neither what to include, nor how to write. The Works section of template:biography points to the bio of Charles Darwin, where works have the following format:

* 1842: ''The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs'' [http://digital.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=2690]

Is this format (bullet list item, year, colon, title in italics) a standard, or just one of many variants? How about reusing the {{cite book}} template here? While the enumeration of works is not exactly a citation, I'd like to hear what the arguments for and against could be. --LA2 23:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Using {{cite book}} would result in the author's name being repeated for each bullet item. There seem to be many variants even in featured articles, but most often I've seen the title first followed by the date, and possibly a note or explanation, in parentheses:

• The Phantom Rickshaw (1888)
• The Meaning of Liff (1983, with John Lloyd)

I think putting the date first, as in Charles Darwin, looks cleaner and would probably work better when there are notes -- though perhaps it's better without the colon, as in J. R. R. Tolkien. Some kind of standard would certainly be a good idea, anyway. —Celithemis 00:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You can use the {{cite book}} template without specifying the author, as is clear from the first two examples listed in section 3 of that page. Similar lists of books could also appear in an article about an illustrator, a translator, a publisher, or a "this year in science fiction" article (if such exist), and each list would of course omit the obvious parameter rather than repeating it. Anyway, further down in section 6 the {{cite book}} page there are references to the Chicago Manual of Style and some other guides. I don't know where the cite book template derived its "Author. (year). Title" style. Apparently the linked Chicago Manual uses "Author. Title. year". Are there any official styleguides for author bibliographies? What I'm wondering is if the style could be used that is applied by the cite book template. As a programmer, I see some elegance in being able to reuse the same code/template/subroutine for many purposes. But rather than code elegance, we should be guided by established styleguides. And as you say, various biographic articles follow entirely different patterns. I feel lost at a sea without solid guidelines here. --LA2 07:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree about putting the date first. Normally, since the works section is a part of a biography (i.e. a personal history), it makes sense to arrange it in date order (i.e. historical order), and the only easy way for later editors to understand and stick to this arrangement will be to put the date first.

To be useful, the citation of a work that also has its own article (e.g. The Meaning of Liff in the example above) only needs the date and the title; but the citation of a work that doesn't (and probably never will) have its own article, needs more information to help the reader trace it.

If the "cite book" template is used, it will produce errors, because editors will not use it as intended (they will insert the author's name) and because it won't put the date first. Therefore, I'd say, if we want to get lists of works relatively uniform and consistent, we need a new template, probably a variant of the "cite book" template.

Unfortunately, having said that, I can't volunteer to make one ... Andrew Dalby 09:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Date first is very annoying to my eye. To me, the most sensible is title first, leave off the author, date at the end. As to the order, I've seen both chronological, and alphabetical. To me either way is perfectly acceptable, I don't think we need hard-and-fast rules until we actually have an all-out revert war over the issue ;) Wjhonson 17:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm preparing the September newsletter, so please stop by the page and add any news the project should know! --plange 00:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Joshua A. Norton is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 00:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality, Sandy 00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There has been some disputes with the Matt Tilley article over the fact he shouldn't be on Wikipedia when he clearly deserves his own article because he is a radio show host and well know comedian especially in Melbourne but over Australia. I don't see what their problem is. I would like some opinions on this or if that doesn't help, how can I take action. (I've posted the same comment on WikiProject Melbourne as well to get a wider audience) Lakeyboy 06:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let them nominate it for AFD and have the community decide. Looks like a probable keeper to me. --kingboyk 09:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is often a lot easier to take a biography found in another encyclopedia or copy big sections on a particular individuals from various books and put them onto Wikipedia - rather than creating a biography from scratch.

If the purpose of Wikipedia is to have good biographies to let people read and expand their knowledge, then there should be no problem with this approach. On the other hand, copying something from another encyclopedia or book does not seem right.

What do you do? 209.73.210.21

The problem with using established reference works is that plagiarism can be obvious, and copying and pasting easily found out. This is a problem with conventional publications as much as the web or student essays.

Only use the most fundamental pieces of information (birth-death dates, principle CV information) from reference wotks, which will be replicated across all the works in which a subject will appear. Obviously using several such works will suggest what is not unique to the foibles of the individual writer. Then draw on as many specialist works as you have ready access to, bearing in mind that sources should be cited at least some of the time, and all of the time when citing negative comments on a subject. Philip Cross 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you copy a encyclopedic biography from a Public Domain source, there should be no problem - it may need wikification, but that's just a minor problem and shouldn't stop the article transfer. If you don't have the time or just don't feel up to the task, you can simply add "{{Wikify|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}" to the top of the article. It should be noted that many of the articles on wikipedia came originally from a public domain - 1911, I think - version of the Encyclopædia Britannica. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 23:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)