Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies

message: Where is he? is he included on top importance? JTBX (talk)
:Michael Jackson was suggested early on (see Archive 1) but no one followed up on it. I think there was a reluctance to include living people on the list since their historical importance was hard to judge. Personally, I'm undecided on Jackson, but leaning towards support. He was hugely influential to both the music and popular culture of the 20th century (famously breaking the racial barrier on MTV), but he's not included on any of our published lists. Of course neither are Columba or Michael Jordan. Kaldari (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Jackson 

message: It's been a long time since we've visited this list, but there's no reason it should be set in stone. Now that Michael Jackson has died, I think we should seriously consider his merit for the list. I also think there's a strong case for Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of penicillin. Additionally, I think there are a few people whose inclusion is questionable (per the criteria). I'd like to keep the list at 200 people, so if we have consensus to remove one or two, perhaps some new people can be added.
:When the core list was last discussed (September/October 2006, I think) the project had around 175,000 articles under its scope; at present the total number of articles for this project is in excess of 700,000. 200 articles is a very narrow range of our coverage. PC78 (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but we have fewer active editors now, so collaboratively focusing on more than 200 articles would be even more difficult now. Kaldari (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, the narrower this list is then the narrower its appeal will be. Double its size and you have twice as much for people to take an interst in. PC78 (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that, given the size of the project, having a single list of 200 might itself be a serious part of the problem, although I can see how it is reflective of a lot of other work out there. Maybe a better way to proceed would be to have a breakdown into multiple lists of the most important people in the broad fields of human endeavor: visul arts, politics, religion, atheletics, music, philosophy, performance, etc. Not only would doing so give a bit more for the related subprojects to do, and hopefully lead to an increase in their activity, but would with luck get a few more editors who are specifically knowledgable about the fields being discussed involved, and maybe get a better reflection of the broader opinion. One alternative, which might actually increase discussion and input, would be to make a request of the various subprojects and related projects, if there is no active subproject, to make a list of the individuals they think are most important to their groups, and then use the input from them in making this list. I do think that might not only improve the quality of the list, but attention to the articles as well. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually how this list was originally organized. At some point it was changed to a single list, however. Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Agree Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: . Switched Columba for Alexander Fleming (to maintain our quota of 200). Kaldari (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change proposals 

message: * Add - Hugely important to the music and popular culture of the 20th century (worldwide). Also the first black artist to become "mainstream", breaking through the MTV color barrier (thus important outside his main discipline and across several generations). Kaldari (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Michael Jackson]]

message: * Add - Included in 3 of our 5 published lists. Saved an estimated 200 million lives, possibly influencing the course of WWII. Kaldari (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Alexander Fleming]]

message: * Remove - Seems to be primarily of regional importance to Ireland and Scotland rather than of worldwide importance. Not included in any of our published lists. Kaldari (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: . Switched Columba for Alexander Fleming (to maintain our quota of 200). Kaldari (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Columba]]

message: * Remove - Of huge importance to the world of basketball, but I don't see how he was important outside his main discipline and across several generations. Not included in any of our published lists. Kaldari (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Michael Jordan]]

message: * Add - Ranked #16 in Who's Bigger?: Where Historical Figures Really Rank (which uses quantitative analysis). This is the highest ranking person on that list that isn't on our list. She was also in one of our lists (1000 Years, 1000 People). Has an era named after her. Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Queen Victoria]]

message: A radical suggestion. Instead of discussions for changing a list settled on over three years ago, though admittedly Michael Jackson wasn't dead back then - why not look at what has been improved and how, and apply that to actually improving an existing article. Of the 200 articles selected, 22 are featured now compared to 17 featured back in December 2006 - compare the stats now to then). It would be interesting to see how much overlap there is between the 17 FAs three years ago and the 22 featured now (i.e. how many got delisted and how many are new arrivals).
In my view, any discussion of what should be the core topics should be brief, and work should begin almost immediately on one article (yes, just one article), and the lessons learnt from that one applied to the next article, and so on, until a model for working on broad articles that actually works in practice, emerges.
Even discussion over what should be the article to work on should not be overdone. I would also suggest that looking at which articles are the most popular would help. I would suggest that the article not already featured, in the current 200, that got the most views in December 2009, should be the one worked on. If someone is willing to work out which article that is, could they post the viewing stats and maybe add a column to the project table giving the viewing stats?
Hmm, actually, I had missed that all the articles are C-class or better - that is a real milestone on the road to getting all the articles improved. Looking at the GAs and A-class articles, I would say that effort is better spent getting all the C-class articles to B-class. So pick the C-class article with the most views, and work on that one. I suggest Louis Pasteur. Carcharoth (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure The Beatles have the most views overall, but it just recently became an FA. It's got four times more views than what I believe has the second-most views, Adolf Hitler. That's at B-class, though. For C-class articles, it's harder to tell which one has the most views, but I think it's Thomas Jefferson. Gary King (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: the toolserver shows  the number of hits if you select show external data. Henry VIII of England has easily the highest hits for a c-class article though Jefferson is up there at about 3rd. Hitler and the Beatles do have the highest number of hits for all core articles. May want to make the top priority for the project getting Henry up to B. Tom B (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focusing on actual improvements 

message: Trying to be a little bit more helpful than the section I posted above, I'm going to compare the stats from January 2007 to January 2010, to see what has changed. If the list changes, this sort of "how much did things improve" will be less easy to do, but if the list needs changing, then it needs changing. Please help below if I don't finish, or more can be added. Carcharoth (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the update. Maurreen (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes since 2007 

message: ;January 2007
*Core biography article stats as of 2 January 2007
*17 FA
*14 A
*17 GA
*134 B
*(C-class did not exist)
*18 Start
*0 Stub
;January 2010
*Core biography article stats as of 7 January 2010
*22 FA
*0 A
*21 GA
*64 B
*94 C
*0 Start
*0 Stub
;February 2017
*30 FA
*0 A
*35 GA
*74 B
*61 C
*0 Start
*0 Stub
;October 2017
*30 FA
*0 A
*37 GA
*72 B
*61 C
*0 Start
*0 Stub
;October 2020
*31 FA
*0 A
*43 GA
*74 B
*52 C
*0 Start
*0 Stub
Please update this sub-section as needed. Carcharoth (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Details of changes

message: *Could be compared to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality statistics (the biographical articles as a whole). Carcharoth (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the update. Maurreen (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I'll start this a little more formally.
;Suggested removals
* Akbar the Great -- Maurreen (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible changes 

message: Tom, I saw the note you added about collaboration on Henry VII. But citations are more work than I want to do. Maybe we can find something else to collaborate on ... maybe one of these?
* Isaac Newton
* Jean-Jacques Rousseau
* John Locke
* Mao Zedong
* Sigmund Freud 
These are the ones at the top of the "published lists" that aren't rated at least GA. Maurreen (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: good choices, i think they could still involve a lot of work getting to ga Tom B (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Freud seems to be the most active. Maybe we should start with that? Maurreen (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: M, sorry for not getting back sooner, i've been working on other stuff - Freud still requires a fair few more inline citations and (even though i said good choices), actually that subject sounds a bit heavy for me! I'm currently probably not the ideal collaborator, i tend to be a bit of lone-wolf flitting around and doing cleanups, though i want to get a bit more serious and try getting some okay core Bs up to GA. if I was going to work on anything at the moment i might work on Albert Camus which isn't core and probably won't become one. hope editing is going okay Tom B (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, thanks for the update. I have little interest in Camus, so I guess I'll see you around elsewhere. Maurreen (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaborations 

message: Aristotle (B); Rene Descartes (C); Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (B); Immanuel Kant (B); Plato (C); 
::I suppose, for religion, a good baseline might be those individuals included with separate articles, or maybe significant separate articles, in both of the two editions of the recent highly regarded Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by respectively Mircea Eliade and Lindsay Jones. Anyway, I think by perhaps giving maybe a bit more specific information on some of the possible expansions, it might help to give people sufficient information to decide. I suppose the objective would be to ensure that as many of these articles as possible are at least at the B-Class level. If they are, individually, it may well be the case that any attention directed would be to whatever articles remain that might not be at at least that level.  John Carter (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure Taiko Jocho is spelled right? It gets zero hits on Google. Kaldari (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it's supposed to be Jōchō. Taikō is just a title. Kaldari (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Might have been a typo in the book - thanks for catching that. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Western philosophy

message: Currently, there are six sportspeople in the 200 core bios: Muhammed Ali, Michael Jordan, Jesse Owens, Pele, Jackie Robinson, and Babe Ruth.  Currently, they are classified as "Artists" on the career chart.  They have virtually nothing in common with Beethoven, Rapheal or even Andy Warhol.  I propose "Sportspeople" be added as a career category pbp 21:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Athlete as a profession. Kaldari (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sportspeople as artists 

message: I had the slighly more radical notion that we could use VA to not only replace the core list but the work group importance assessments as well. Each work group has an importance assessment backlog of around 10,000 to 80,000 articles, which—if we're being honest—is never going to be dealt with. Cross referencing the work groups with VAs gives the following:
Work Group           	Level 3 VA	Level 4 VA	Level 5 VA
Arts & Entertainment 	35        	374       	1850
Actors & Filmmakers  	3         	160       	1461
Musicians            	7         	142       	1284
Military             	32        	350       	923
Peerage & Baronetage 	1         	40        	141
Politics & Government	22        	297       	1027
Royalty & Nobility   	18        	330       	542
Science & Academia   	55        	368       	962
Sports & Games       	1         	97        	1061
This does tend to throw up a few false positives though when you get more specific (Ronald Reagan for actors & sports?), so maybe this wouldn't be the best approach for the work groups. PC78 (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work groups 

message: Taking into account that the messages of this Talk page concerning Michael Jackson date back to 2009; and that as of today he is currently included in the vital articles of the English-language Wikipedia and also in the Meta-Wiki's "List of articles every Wikipedia should have", I therefore propose the addition of Michael Jackson to this list of Core biographies.
Michael Jackson is regarded as the most important Pop music icon in History, probably the most famous black man of all times, and one of the greatest creators with huge influence in the development of music videos and a legacy in Dance that is globally known.
In this list there are other artists (eg. Elvis Presley, who is more US/Europe-focused) who are not as global as Michael Jackson. In addition, he is (along with The Beatles) probably the music artist of the 20th & 21st centuries with the greatest influence on other artists and the music panorama.--Salvabl (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Michael Jackson 

message: Hi, I expected to find Molière in the list of core biographies, as one of the greatest writers in the French language and world literature. French is often referred as "the language of Molière". Regards, Yann (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Molière]]