Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies/Archive 8

message: I just went through and counted the whole list and I came up with 201 people. Can someone double check it for me. Kaldari 20:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, 201. Honestly, though, does it matter if we're a few over? ♠ SG →Talk 20:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was afraid that might happen. Thanks for finding that. My choice would be to close this now. Maurreen 20:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's declare the list officially complete. We should archive everything on this talk page and clear the slate. I think any future debates on additions or subtractions should start from scratch (as I certainly don't want to pull 3 pages of debate on Queen Elizabeth I back onto this page again). Kaldari 20:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks pretty good to me, should we have some sort of vote to finalize the draft list? (By the way, my opposition to Elizabeth I was a mistake, I'm not sure why, but I saw "Elizabeth II" instead of I. Time for new glasses?) ♠ SG →Talk 21:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This list obviously has a lot of room for controversy, but overall isn't too bad.  The philosophers listed are largely appropriate, but don't you think Karl Marx should be added, seeing as his political philosophy supplied the foundations for the rise of communism/socialism and the cold war? I don't want to just add though without consensus --The Way 05:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I saw that he was placed under 'social scientists' instead of philosophers.  A problem of classification rather than exclusion --The Way 05:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait a minute... 

message: I forgot to add Socrates earlier when I added everyone's free picks. I'm going to do it now. Maurreen 21:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just fixed it in the Ancient Greece list, but then I noticed Socrates was also in "Middle Ages and modern." Fixed that, so we're still at 201. ♠ SG →Talk 22:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Maybe I've been looking at it too long. Maurreen 22:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Socrates

message: Now that we have a full list, I would like to propose that we convert it into a worklist so that we can actually start working on assessing and improving the articles. Here is a mock-up of my idea for the worklist (red link removed). I created the whole thing by hand and now have Carpel Tunnel Syndrome :) Does anyone object to switching to this format? Kaldari 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. A few suggestions:
#Use that as a supplement instead of a replacement. I like the simlicity of the current list.
#*Sure. I would strongly suggest that we at least remove the assessment icons from the simple list so that we don't have to update it all the time. Kaldari 22:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you like, maybe it could go at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biographies. Maurreen 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea. Kaldari 22:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow! But couldn't we have this made using mathbot? I think I can make this auto-generated... Should I go ahead and try? I can make a core biographies work group and we mark them and then at the next bot run (tonight) the list will be populated with comments, et al...plange 22:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can auto-generate something, that would be amazing. Would we still be able to maunally maintain information like "Date of last review" and "Version 0.5 status"? Kaldari 22:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only thing it won't do is 0.5 status... I can check with Oleg (who does mathbot) and see what can be done to include that. There is, after all, a version column and I don't know how that gets filled.... plange 02:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converting to a worklist 

message: ♠ SG has suggested adding John Wayne. If anyone is added, I think two should be removed, to put the list at 200. But I'd prefer the list settle for a while. Maurreen 14:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was evil. I can't think of anyone to remove from the list, let alone two. ♠ SG →Talk 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't see how we're going to move forward otherwise. We finally came to a settled list so that we can move to the next phase, while fully acknowledging that the list is not perfect, but it's a place to start. Otherwise we're going to have to open this back up again and go through more straw polls for adding John Wayne and whom to delete, etc. plange 17:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I guess you're right. I suppose it's not a big deal, best to keep moving forward. ♠ SG →Talk 17:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Wayne

message: I see the Pope question has been archived, though undecided.  Why?
Rcpaterson 22:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we realized we already have 201 on the list, as it says above, under "Wait a minute." Maurreen 22:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanishing Popes 

message: I imagine we've gotten the list more or less complete for the moment, then?  What's to do next?  I have access to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and could use that as a source to improve any articles on British figures, as a starting point. Of our articles, the following ought to have ODNB entries: Chaplin, Hitchcock, Austen, Byron, Dickens, Eliot, Joyce, Milton, Scott, Shakespeare, Yeats, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Churchill, Burke, Elizabeth I, Henry II, Henry VIII, William I, Columba, Wollstonecraft, Darwin, Lister, Babbage, Bell, Faraday, Maxwell, Newton, Rutherford, Watt, Bacon, Hobbes, Hume, Locke, Gibbon, Keynes, Malthus, and Smith. (Er, so yeah, there's rather an Anglophone bias, eh?).  I'll try to go through some of these, in order of how interested I am in the person. john k 23:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hawking and Hume are both GAs, but have not been nominated for Version 0.5. Maurreen 23:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I started reading Stephen Hawking in hopes of nominating it for 0.5. But I have three questions in just the second screen of the article. Maurreen 03:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking of GAs, Martin Luther was just awarded GA status (and seems close to FA), however, a POV war between Lutheran and Jewish editors is preventing the article from achieving a higher level of quality. I would like to invite any impartial (i.e. not Jewish or Lutheran) editors to review the article and give their opinions on how it can be improved. Otherwise I'm afraid it will languish in it's current state of mediocrity, due to the rigid stalemate it is in and the territorialism of the editors. Kaldari 01:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself am leaning toward working on the easier ones first. Maybe some of the various fights will peter out on their own. Maurreen 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, maybe it would be best to work on the Start-class ones first--well, as soon as we actually get them all evaluated :P Kaldari 03:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huzzah! 

message: Now that we have a worklist, let's complete the following tasks:
* Assess articles in worklist that are not yet assessed
* Add assessment comments to articles in worklist
* Review assessments and update review dates
* Make sure worklist matches the Top-importance biography category
Discussion of the above tasks should be done over at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biographies and this talk page should be reserved for discussion of the list itself. I realize I just violated my own suggestion, but I wanted to make sure everyone knows what's going on :) Kaldari 23:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now let's do some real work 

message: Since this page is apparently now officially a sub-project of WikiProject Biography, what do folks think of moving it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies? --kingboyk 20:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All done. Archives and (hopefully all) subpages moved too. --kingboyk 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: I'm slightly confused, because the project page suggests discussing changes here, but the discussion on the rest of the page seems to suggest that the discussion and the composition of the list has finished. I wanted to suggest Lope_de_Vega as an important Spanish-langauge author, and I also wanted to suggest J. R. R. Tolkien (slight bias on my part here), but then I see that the Tolkien article is already selected for Wikipedia 0.5. Remind me again of the differences between the "Core biographies" project and the Wikipedia 0.5 project? Carcharoth 00:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions? 

message: Certainly a physicist of the first rank, she is the only person to have won Nobel prizes in two different fields of science - her contributions to radiation had a profound effect on twentieth century science.  I'm surprised she isn't already on your list.  Not sure how to nominate, so if this doesn't count then raise her name on my behalf. Durova 04:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support adding Marie Curie to the list, although perhaps we should remove a couple while we're at it to keep the list size at 200. Kaldari 20:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Marie Curie]] 

message: In response to the two sections above: We finished up the list about a week ago and maybe forgot to make that clear on the project page. I'd prefer the list settle a while, but it's a wiki and is always subject to change.
We had intended the list to be 200 biographies, but accidentally went over by one. So if you want to nominate anyone to add, please suggest a couple of people to delete. Maurreen 08:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The impression I get is that this is a work list. It is merely the first 200 articles that this WikiProject will work on, right? Then you will work on other ones? This relates to the point I made above, about how this relates to Wikipedia 0.5 and so forth. If something has already been selected for Wikipedia 0.5, but is not on this list, what is the point in adding it? Also, many of the articles are also tagged as being part of the "CD Selection". Can anyone explain, briefly, what the history is behind all this, as it seems very confusing! Carcharoth 22:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As for ones to delete from the list, I don't really want to get into that, as if it is a work list, it would be better to start work on reviewing/checking/improving the articles, rather than constantly tweaking the list. Maybe start a "reserve list", and ones considered to be "core" people could be swapped in from the reserve list as needed. Maybe start the reserve list with the people that got rejected when drawing up the list of 200? For what it is worth, the people on the list that I had never heard of were: Jackie Robinson, Frank Lloyd Wright, Mikhail Baryshnikov, Columba, Frederick Douglass, Ts'ai Lun, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, Laozi. Some of these will be because I just hadn't heard of them, but some do seem a bit obscure. Alfred Nobel sticks out like a sore thumb in the list of scientists, as he is not in the first rank of scientists and thinkers. It looks like he's been included because of the prize he founded, and that is a silly criterion to use. If you are going to remove anyone to make room for Marie Curie, I'd get rid of Nobel. Carcharoth 22:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's not forget we still have 46 articles to assess quality on. Also I've noticed that people keep changing the importance settings. Another reason we should probably switch to using core=yes at some point. Kaldari 03:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be open to adding Marie Curie, if we get a consensus on two deletions. I don't agree with any of the suggested deletions. Maurreen 07:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New nominations

message: I suggest the following politicians should get top importance:
*George W. Bush: by far one of the most notable presidents of modern times, in generations to come I wouldn't be shocked to still see critics of his foreign policy (excuse the blatant POV)
**Oppose - We don't yet know how important his presidency will be historically. Besides, there not really much point in us wasting effort on that article. It's already one of the most edited articles on Wikipedia. A dozen more cooks in the kitchen probably won't help things. Kaldari 17:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see those people in the top 200. Maurreen 07:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I nominate George W. Bush because of his failures. Computerjoe's talk 10:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: (Gladstone and Salisbury also served as prime minister for longer than Thatcher did, although not consecutively.  You've also forgotten Pitt the Younger, who did serve for longer consecutively.) john k 11:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More political nominations 

message: The worksheet only lists 165 articles (). Would you mind tagging the remaining 35/6?
Please note that the syntax has changed: it's now priority=Top|core=yes. The priority parameter is only used if the article is within the scope of one or more workgroups; core=yes puts the article onto the core bios list. --kingboyk 16:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only 165 listed 

message: I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#David Attenborough but have decided to relocated my discussion here. This is the topic I posted in full
: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?
Attenborough is easily the best known biological documentary maker in the world but he doesn't seem to fall under any of the blanket terms for a top priority standing. How does he stand against other top priorities and should he be included? I know I left out suggestions for replacements currently but I'm not even sure he correctly qualifies currently. –– Lid(Talk) 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you were probably in the correct venue first time round :) Attenborough isn't going to be in the 200 core articles, I'm fairly sure of that, but I think you can make a convincing case for him to be Top (or at least) High priority in the Arts & Entertainment field. --kingboyk 16:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I just went back and re-clarified my statement in the other thread, I'm posting this here largely because this subgroup would have the best idea of top standings, not because I think it will likely be considered a core article. I'm considering this a litmus test and may extend it to envelop the ranking of Malcolm X as well. –– Lid(Talk) 16:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okie dokie. Good luck. --kingboyk 16:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also meant to include Oscar Wilde and Stanley Kubrick as part of the other articles to test. Just to restate: not all of these are really fore core biography, but rather to see if they qualify as top priority. If it's agreed they are a core then it's a bonus. –– Lid(Talk) 16:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Summary: He wants to know if it can be priority=Top. That's no longer the same as core=yes. He's not really in the right place. --kingboyk 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[David Attenborough]] 

message: from ghoti 20:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather add Marie Curie. Maurreen 21:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting list you guys got here. I say keep Malthus and Kierkegaard, their influence on the rest of the world is undeniable; Malthus' economic forecast has had tremendous impact on the policies and individuals of Britian. Kierkegaard's philosophy has had tremendous influence on the rest of the world: he is more likely to be looked up by non-philosophers, and his thought can be seen in Kafka and Ibsen, who are on this list. I'll second Curie, to replace Aeschylus, and maybe MacDonald over Proust, but I'm not too enthustatic on that. I don't agree with Trudeau, his influence is great in Canada, but not so much on the rest of the world... yet. MacDonald maybe, as he is important as the person who guided Canada from a lump of land to a country.  Kyle Rayner 00:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm.  Yeah, on second thought, much as I hate to admit it <grin>, Marie Curie probably beats out Pierre Trudeau for the moment.  We can revisit that one in another twenty years.  The catch is that I see alot more US presidents than political figures from anywhere else.  Roosevelt vs. Trudeau ... I think it depends on your country of origin. --ghoti 02:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two more political nominations 

message: *Walter Scott - delete his critical reputation suffered a serious downturn during the twentieth century.  Still widely read, but no longer generally acknowledged among the first rank of English language writers.
*:He remains, however, quite influential - his invention of the historical novel was imitated across Europe, and his work inspired plays and operas, and so forth.  Relatively inessential, but not ridiculous. john k 11:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *If the desire is to include the inventor of the historial novel, then replace him with Marie-Madeleine Pioche de la Vergne, comtesse de la Fayette who created the genre with La Princesse de Clèves 150 years before Scott. Durova 21:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with deleting Alfred Nobel and adding Marie Curie. Maurreen 13:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too --plange 14:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: ; This is a partial archive of failed nominations. ♠ SG →Talk 10:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting booth 

message: ====Louis Armstrong====
; Failed
# Support Late nomination - no jazz artists on our list yet.  Pivotal virtuoso and innovator of a major art form. Durova 03:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: ; Failed
# Support Late nomination - no jazz artists on our list yet.  Pivotal virtuoso and innovator of a major art form. Durova 03:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Louis Armstrong]]

message: ; Failed
# Support White Guard 23:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sandro Botticelli]]

message: ; Failed
# Support Stonemad GB 18:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[W. G. Grace]]

message: ; Failed
# Oppose ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[John F. Kennedy]]

message: ; Failed
# Oppose. Highly important in Canada, but elsewhere... I'm really not sure. ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[John A. Macdonald]]

message: ; Failed
# Support White Guard 23:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jawaharlal Nehru]]

message: ; Failed
# Support Stonemad GB 18:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[William Pitt the Younger]]

message: ; Failed
# Support Carcharoth 00:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[J. R. R. Tolkien]]

message: ; Failed
# Neutral. My supporting vote would be biased, living in Canada and all. ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pierre Trudeau]]

message: ; Failed
# Support Carcharoth 00:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Lope de Vega]]

message: ; Failed
# Support Stonemad GB 18:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Victoria of the United Kingdom]]

message: ; Failed
# Support. Everyone knows John Wayne! ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[John Wayne]]

message: ====Aeschylus====
; Kept
# Keep Durova 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions 

message: ; Kept
# Keep Durova 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Aeschylus]]

message: ; Kept
# Keep ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Marcel Proust]]

message: Michael Jordan, Bruce Lee, Jackie Robinson - you cannot be serious if you think they are among the most notable 200 human beings ever to exist.  Jackie Robinson especially is almost totally unknown outside the USA.  The inclusion of WG Grace would restore a little non-US balance, but I really don't think there is room for many sportsmen on this list.
Frank Lloyd Wright should be deleted.  Much as I love his work, if there is only to be one twentieth-century architect Le Corbusier has to be a much more credible candidate.  Andy Warhol should also go.
Walt Whitman: not a first rank writer - he should be replaced, perhaps by Wordsworth.
Indira Gandhi had little impact outside India, not a particularly important country in her period.  Hirohito doesn't merit a spot either.
William the Conqueror and Edmund Burke should be deleted - perhaps William Pitt the Younger and Queen Victoria would be possible replacements.
Benito Mussolini could perhaps be replaced by Cardinal Richelieu.
Frederick Douglass was only of parochial importance - William Wilberforce was a much more important contributor to the cause of the worldwide abolition of slavery.
Sun Tzu should be deleted - I suspect the only reason he is there is because he is familiar currently due to being Don Rumsfeld's bedtime reading.--Stonemad GB 18:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominations for deletion