Template talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 3

message: :NB. Several displays of templates on this page have been inactivated using 'nowiki' tags to prevent this page appearing in categories. See the page history, specifically the archived version here for an idea of what the templates looked like, though subsequent changes to the template will also be shown. Carcharoth 22:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

message: No offense to anyone, but... the activepol box is ugly. Why isn't this in a separate box like everything else? --Random832 04:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is a little ugly. We defiantly need the functionality on this template, and there is a seperate tempate:  which looks like this
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.
Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, public relations manipulation, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
Use only on talk pages, in conjunction with  or .
  Danski14 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That one's very big. If we're to change it I'd prefer to just move the existing banner outside the main banner so it looks seperate. Is that what folks want? --kingboyk 18:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Separate is fine. We don't want banners taking over, so the content should only be about three lines. We also might want it to appear above the BLP template. -- Jreferee 20:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BLP has priority, as that is a very serious warning about policy. This one is more of a guidance message. --kingboyk 21:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I agree, and already updated the instructions on that template. --kingboyk 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activepol 

message: I think it's a good idea to integrate WikiProject Porn stars with the WPBiography template. In order to achieve that, a "pornstar-work-group" parameter that performs similarly to British-royalty and musician-work-group sounds like a good idea. Discuss. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fine by me, welcomed in fact. Have you made any formal ties with the arts & entertainment work group? --kingboyk 10:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more work groups we use in the WPBiography template and tag, the more likely the proper people will be aware of the article and improve it. -- Jreferee 18:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this isn't too controversial then and we should accede. Would you be willing to make the code changes Jreferee? If not, I'll put it on my todo list. --kingboyk 12:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, porn stars already are apart of Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Actors. If we WPBiography tag articles as following under "Actors", that sub-group can figure out how it wants to further parse actor articles. Using the WPBiography template to tag them porn might bring too much heat on the otherwise spectacular WPBiography template. -- Jreferee 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I'll have to remember to tag 'em that way. I think that WP:PORNSTARS is going to turn into WP:PORN anyway. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not worried about the "controversy". However, what's the WP:PORN story? Are you going to expand scope to cover films etc? I'll hold off on this until we know what's happening. --kingboyk 18:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (DING! Carrage return) Even if they went ahead with WP:PORN, WPBipgraphy template still may need to address porn stars. I just added the Porn stars category to A&E Actor categories. Now, lets assume we go ahead with the 10 or so fields under A&E. Under the Actor field, we could have sub-fields of Animal actors + Arab actors + Child actors + LGBT actors + Porn stars + Shakespearean actors. Kingboyk, if you do not think this too much, I would be for it. -- Jreferee 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well my position has always been that biographical projects and workgroups should share our template. If the WP:PORN folks are going to, or are willing to, maintain a pornstars workgroup which is a child project of this WikiProject then I'm willing to add the code. What I don't want to do is waste time working on this and adding unnecessary code bloat if they don't want it. So, I need to hear the final word from them. As for the other parameters, see below: the A&E work-group hasn't asked for them, I think we have enough complexity already. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise but by more than one person :) --kingboyk 20:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 50% of the Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Actors members desire the change and I probably could get the remaining 50%, but I understand what you are saying. : ) It a good idea for which there is not sufficient desire.  I'll see if I can create a Wikiproject Actors group, recruit members, and then get a consensus for the field's addition. When you see this no longer red - WP:Actor - you'll know that we'll be coming for a parameter addition. And you are right, military, for example, shares the WPBiography template and not everything military is a biography. -- Jreferee 20:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pornstar-work-group 

message: The old image used, Image:Crystal personal.png, hsa been replaced by Image:Crystal personal.svg, both on the commons. Is it possible to get the template to reflect this switch?--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 15:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done -- Harryboyles 10:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: .PNG to .SVG replacement request

message: # Move activepol to a seperate box per #Activepol and remove some old crud.
# Although I really don't encourage folks to tag this way, I thought it would be neat if activepol=yes had the same affect as politician-work-group=yes. At the same time, I've let these parameters accept "Yes" as well as "yes". Perhaps we should do the same for all params? This was quite a technical change; it checked out in my sandbox but if there's any problems please let me know here.
#Next I will add workgroups for peerage and baronetcies per #baronets-work-group and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#.7B.7BWPBiography.7D.7D. --kingboyk 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woot! Over 200 in the cat now. --kingboyk 09:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template changes 

message: Please don't create redirects to this template without telling me about it. This is very important: my plugin needs to know what names it may encounter  under; the result - if there are alternative names it doesn't know about - is double tagging like this. Given that my bot can process thousands of pages a day, and other folks might be using it too, the end result could be one hell of a mess. --kingboyk 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects to this template 

message: I'd like to suggest that [ Needs-Persondata = yes / no ] be included in the WP:Biography template. --Camptown 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second it per this post. -- Jreferee 06:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Persondata]] 

message: Moved from User talk:Kingboyk. --kingboyk 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bump! Could somebody do this? (somebody other than me that is!) --kingboyk 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession box 

message: There seems to be a problem with the template. See below. - miketm - 03:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be due to a recent edit by Kingboyk .  You should ask that editor why it was changed. Presumably he/she can change it back if consensus goes that way.  CMummert · talk 03:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was unintentional. I didn't know the template supported small. --kingboyk 11:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it might have been a "good mistake" because I really think the BLP warning shouldn't be small. It's just about the most important template on any talk page... --kingboyk 11:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the BLP warning should be a different template than the wikiproject banner. They have conceptually different purposes. CMummert · talk 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is available as a seperate banner, but having it available here too - as the preferred usage - has, I would argue, been beneficial to both Wikipedia in general (the tag has been propogated to just about every living person's talk page) and this WikiProject (folks routinely add our banner). Also, the status of WP Biography as "custodians" of biographies and biographical policy seems to have met with widespread consensus or, at least, I've not seen it challenged yet. --kingboyk 13:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  small=yes and living=yes 

message: Please add an actors and filmmakers workgroup to the template for the new child project setup for film-related biographies. Our project image is . --PhantomS 19:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be easier if someone from your project would write and test the necessary template code and provide a link to it here. The best practice is to copy this whole template to a sandbox, make the additions, test them, and then provide a link here to the completed new template. CMummert · talk 12:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made the changes at User:PhantomS/sandbox. --PhantomS 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This better work. ;P Cbrown1023 talk 23:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  but it will take a long while to update the database. Cbrown1023 talk 23:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just noticed some category sections I forgot to add the new workgroup to. Could you please update the template with User:PhantomS/sandbox3? --PhantomS 02:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been  Cbrown1023 talk 02:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is intentional behavior. The code was already there for a&e to be selected when a sub-workgroup was selected. However, the code was done incorrectly, causing a&e not to show up. I fixed this when I added the actors and filmmakers workgroup to the template. --PhantomS 05:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, no, you didn't fix it, you broke it :) Those two workgroups are mutually exclusive (I should know, I wrote it!). i.e. "if musician=true then a&e=false" even if a&e is selected. --kingboyk 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Try User:PhantomS/sandbox, which reverses it to the "proper" logic. Note however that this does not handle sections in the template where both were not set as mutually exclusive in the original code. The lack of mutual exclusivity elsewhere is what confused me. --PhantomS 14:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, thank you for fixing it. I ran a few sample transclusions before committing and it seemed fine. --kingboyk 14:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sections that were never given mutual exclusivity: "Biography (arts and entertainment) articles with comments", "Category:Automatically assessed biography (arts and entertainment) articles". --PhantomS 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't matter, as the WP1 bot won't pick them up if they're not in the class categories too. --kingboyk 14:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Actors and filmmakers workgroup

message: Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Please_complete_comments_section_of_evaluation --kingboyk 11:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please complete comments section of evaluation

message: Until now, I've always had my bot put the template parameters onto seperate lines. I think it looks neater. However, 2 people have asked me to put it all the same line. I'm therefore inviting opinions. Please note I will only change if there's clear consensus; if folks aren't too bothered I may as well do it the way I like it ;)
Possible solutions:
*Always put the template call and parameters onto one line
*Always put the parameters onto seperate lines
*Put the parameters onto seperate lines only if they number more than or equal to "x", where "x" might be, say, 5? (I think this could be done without too much trouble, but because of the architecture of my program - which supports other templates too - the best way to find out would be to test it.
Example of a fairly large template call from Talk:Napoleon I of France:
{{WPBiography
|living=no
|class=B
|priority=Top
|core=yes
|politician-work-group=yes
|military-work-group=yes
}}
{{WPBiography|living=no|class=B|priority=Top|core=yes|politician-work-group=yes|military-work-group=yes}}
--kingboyk 14:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the one-liner. Otherwise the talk page becomes too large when you try to edit it. Errabee 19:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the multi-liner, as it's easier to browse and adjust when necessary.  But then I also always use the little "+" tab at the top of a talk page to start a new topic, and the edit links beside the topic name to contribute to an existing topic, so I never see the source for the templatecruft at the top unless I'm explicitly trying to edit it.  Xtifr tälk 10:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise. Maybe that's the difference? --kingboyk 10:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I also prefer the one-line version.  This is the most used version on higher class biography articles.  Also, some articles use the WikiProjectBanners template which organizes multiple banners into one template for better use of space on the talk page (look to the AC/DC talk page for an example of its usage).  Having each banner limited to one line makes makes editing of multiple banners easier.  Thank you for requesting comments on this issue. - cgilbert(talk|contribs) 14:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't consider the template containers issue when determining what to do, because my code doesn't support those containers. When the container issue has consensus at wiki level (hopefully soon) I'll make a decision then. I do however note your preference for one line. --kingboyk 14:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments - line break between parameters when tagging with bot 

message: Please put ... or CSS equivalent around the "If you rated..." passage, to slightly reduce the amount of talk page real estate consumed by this template. 
:Looks small already to me... ? --kingboyk 19:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Smaller font on /Comments note

message: As this page is fully protected seemingly permanently, it needs one of the standard templates that says so.  Don't care which, even the small lock icon version would be fine. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please place the modified template with the protection notice you want, the "free content policy link" you want, and the CSS changes you want, into a sandbox (my sandbox is fine) and place another protected edit request. If it all looks fine, which I'm sure it will, I'll oblige. --kingboyk 19:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: While you're here, what do you think of this request? Template_talk:WPBiography#Suggested_change_for_.22removal.22_output --kingboyk 19:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Install page protection notice template

message: Please change the use of image :Image:Nuvola apps kcontrol.png to :Image:Icon tools.png. Thanks. Siebrand 19:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Siebrand 21:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image replacement request 

message: Is no-one interested in this? Have a look at the revised proposal at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name#Proposed solution and the new discussion there. Also, see the test compact index for living people I've created at User:Carcharoth/List of living people compact index. That is identical to the URLs used by , but using the same layout as at Template:List of people by name compact page-index. I would like to do the same for all biographical articles, but at the moment there is no super-category for that. What is the best way to get approval for a bot to populate and maintain such a category? Carcharoth 23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restarting discussion

message: I think the phrase, "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." is longer than it needs to be. First it says that controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, then adds especially if potentially libelous. It already must be removed according to the lead clause. Can we shorten this sentence? Sancho 21:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly this sort of change, if not essential, could be done at the same time as another change (one is being discussed above). Would that reduce server load? On the other hand, the discussion above might take a long time, so if others support this, I'd agree with a sentence like: "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced, poorly sourced, or potentially libellous, must be removed immediately." It is possibly the longer wording was used for a reason though. Check the talk page archives or the template history if you want to be certain you aren't disturbing a carefully designed sentence. Carcharoth 11:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Material that someone might consider libelous but is sourced to really RSs is not usually deleted, except by Office action. Suggest 
""Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced, poorly sourced, must be removed immediately." Take special care with potentially libelous material"DGG 18:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant wording 

message: I've started working with WikiProjectBannerShell, and have noticed that WPBiography template has a small error in its implementation of nesting.
In the 16th line, instead of
 ! colspan="2" 
it should say
 ! colspan="3" 
(rest of the line should remain unchanged, I have quoted only the start of the line)
As noted on Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell, templates that have a  need its colspan increased to 3. Example: Talk:Hitoshi Doi 
Shinhan 15:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To further explain the error. When a WPBio is use within a BannerShell, WPBio is automatically hidden. If I click on "show", it will be normally shown, but the "hide" button will be moved to the left because of the Biography portal. Shinhan 14:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not urgent but I dont understand why was this uncontroversial error-fix ignored during the last template update. Shinhan 14:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not line 16 for me. Can you give me a code excerpt so I can find the right spot? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contact me and I'll be glad to fix it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Done, I think. Can you check to make sure I've got it right? --ais523 14:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it works now. Hopefully it wont get undone again. Thanks. — Shinhan < talk > 06:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please fix line 16 

message: There are now at least three proposed changes above. If needed, should they all be implemented in one edit to avoiding flooding the job queue? Carcharoth 11:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh. Just do one today, another tomorrow, etc.  There's no major hurry, and a general coding principle is to make a change then test it, not make a bunch of changes and test the mass result and then be confused and at a loss as to where the problem is when something (or worse yet two or more somethings) broke, and what code change is responsible for the problem is a needle in a haystack. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queue of changes 

message: Hi, I've benn analizing this and noticed is the most implemented here, I have been improving template:PeruProjectBanner (without work-groups boxes) but I think we need some advice, wonder if could help me. There's an issue I wanna clarify about the importance box, should it be shown allways, or only if the importance is specified with a value; and things like that. thanks --Andersmusician $ 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best banner ever 

message: Hi.  I've noticed that when nesting, the message about this being an article about a living person is also hidden.  Is that what you want?  
-- TimNelson 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why  has blp=yes option in it, to show that warning above the nested collection. On the other hand, it is not possible to have BLP warning outside the box with . Thats why BannerShell is better, but it does require more work. Come and join us at Template:WikiProjectBannerShell. Shinhan 09:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While Shinhan is absolutely correct, I think all this fretting about the BLP banner is a bit much.  Way too many people get lathered up over something so trivial.  I think most of us can read and think pretty clearly; the absence of a death date, the presence of :Category living people, and the use of present tense in the article, etc., etc., are plenty of indication.  I'm not opposed to the talk page BLP banners, I simply don't think there is any consequence of any kind to whether one appears or not.  Just for the record, because I'm a little tired of people treating its appearance (and it appearance first no matter what — insert numerous exclaimation points here) as if it were a WP:POLICY matter, which it is not: WP:BLP#Templates states " may be added to the talk pages of articles with living persons mentioned in the article. It also may be added to the talk pages of biographies of living persons so that editors and readers, including subjects, are alerted to this policy. Alternatively, if a  template is present, you can add living=yes to the template parameters." (Emphasis added).  Note "may" and "can", not "must". And there is certainly no policy that this banner "must" appear before all others.  One of the good things about  (though as of this writing  is only about half-compatible with it; see #WikiProjectBannerShell & WPBiography major incompatibility immediately below) is that its "blp=yes" feature allows one to put the WP:BIO banner at the bottom where it belongs (being generic and not particularly conducive to gathering people to work on articles), below more specific ones, e.g. for the baseball or Spain or whatever WikiProjects. (end rant) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nesting and living 

message: needs more conditional code, to nest the photo/infobox sub-banners when nested=yes, or it renders  pretty much useless. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 05:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProjectBannerShell & WPBiography major incompatibility 

message: I wonder if the Actors and Filmmakers WikiProject could be changed from ":Image:Fratelli Lumiere.jpg" to ":Image:Applications-multimedia.svg". The Luminere photo is rather difficult to make out at such a small size whereas the cartoon clapperboard will work. Discussion on which image to use died out on the project's talk page some months ago—I forgot about it too—so I'm defaulting to my suggestion. Thanks, Doctor Sunshine talk 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a good bet. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actors and Filmmakers image 

message: They're currently under unassessed articles when assessed as "list". Could a list category be added in to the template so we don't have this problem?--Wizardman 01:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List-class articles 

message: There are currently over 500 articles in the main namespace that link to Template:Infobox Astronaut. A WPBiography banner makes sense for all of these, as does a WPSpace banner linking to WikiProject Space exploration. Could the two be combined, e.g. with a "space-work-group" switch to WPBiography? Or does it make more sense to just go ahead and have double banners on them all? (sdsds - talk) 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astronaut bios