Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 5

message: 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)
thread_title: Image concerns

message: 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)
replies: text: ...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)
thread_title: Whither images?

message: About two weeks are left for general nominations. Maurreen 06:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 0.5

message: 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)
replies: text: I tried, but all of my suggestions were dismissed. Kaldari 22:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Martin Luther]] has been promoted to GA Status 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK with me. Maurreen 22:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1.0 assessments and this work group 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Biography Portal nominations 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[G. Patrick Maxwell]]

message: I moved this to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biographies. Maurreen 23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biographies missing from 0.5

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Fred Phelps]]

message: At times I thought it would never get finished, but  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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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! :)  --kingboyk 15:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hooray! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Infoboxes 

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Is there a Scientists & Scholars workgroup?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New organization

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Best infobox for this?

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Help requested on essay 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Victoria of the United Kingdom]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, this was added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/to do plange 15:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mary II of England]]

message: Can someone help me edit these?? I'm new to this project! --TheM62Manchester 09:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Actually I'm new to this project and how it works, that's the problem... --TheM62Manchester 09:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: They do. By a country mile. --kingboyk 15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Girls Aloud]] biographies

message: 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.
===Scientists & Scholars Workgroup===
====Support====
#Support plange 23:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  New work group proposals 

message: ====Support====
#Support plange 23:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Scientists & Scholars Workgroup

message: #Support plange 23:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: 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)
thread_title: Support renaming this to Science and Academia

message: 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)
thread_title: Support renaming this to Thinkers & explorers

message: 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.
====Support====
#plange 00:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sports and games

message: #plange 00:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #plange 00:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support renaming Athletes to Sports and games work group 

message: 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.
====Support====
#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)
thread_title: Religion & Occult

message: #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)
thread_title: Support

message: 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)
thread_title: Business & Practical

message: #24.126.199.129 19:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New articles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comments made at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Adding templates to article talk pages 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Joan of Arc]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Best place to get help would be to request a Peer review plange 22:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Joe Dever]]

message: Is a user box for people participasting in this project available? Maltesedog 08:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is - . --kingboyk 22:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Daniel Webster

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd suggest you do the Peer review then :-) plange 22:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anyone here be willing to help me?? --TheM62Manchester 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Girls Aloud biographies 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[James Bulger]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Bette Davis]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Template changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Newsletter 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality statistics]] 

message: See discussion at . Where is this best discussed? Carcharoth 15:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Template talk:Blp as it's their image. If they change, we probably will too. --kingboyk 19:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've gone over there and suggested an alternative. Carcharoth 00:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP picture/logo 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[David Attenborough]] 

message: I am not a member of WikiProject Biography, but I would like to note this message that I've left at Talk:Amber_MacArthur
:Somebody under the ip User:70.50.136.151 wrote in the article that Amber is leaving G4techTV.  It is confirmed on her blog at http://ambermac.typepad.com/ambermac/2006/08/to_all_the_g4te.html 
:I will clean up that section and re post it. Ampersand2006 ( & ) 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have re-written the section and put in a proper reference to the blog article; also came up with a better section title other than "She Is Leaving G4TechTV" and better grammar than this user used (i.e. Typing Every First Letter In Capitals Like This.) Tell me how you like it?  Also, feel free to make a small change to the section and maybe even come up with a better title than what I have done. Thanks! ;) Ampersand2006 ( & ) 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Amber MacArthur]] biography article. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: How about Template:Familytree? Hemmingsen 16:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lineages 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: GA Review

message: 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)
thread_title: Infoboxes

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Autobiography tag

message: 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)
replies: text: This is probably the most surreal thing I have seen on Wikipedia all week. 23skidoo 06:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was the Olsen Twins at first glance but evidently not! --kingboyk 09:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bio logo = hitler 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  September newsletter - need tidbits 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Joshua A. Norton]]

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Abraham Lincoln]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The [[Matt Tilley]] article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 "" 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)
thread_title:  Creating bios