Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 9

message: As a new person to biographies (specifically coming from the LGBT WikiProject, I was wondering if there were a list of basic resources for finding such simple information as birth and death dates, birthplaces, pictures, etc - sort of a "getting started finding out about your person" list?  Many thanks, -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a single useful source for all individuals, as such a source would be by definition huge. However, you might find some generally useful biographical dictionaries in the reference section of your local public or college or university library. Many of the more notable persons will be listed in one or more of them. And welcome to the project. If you should ever have any other questions please feel free to post them here or, if you would prefer, to contact me directly. Welcome again! Badbilltucker 16:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is NNDB considered a reliable source? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: On Wikipedia:WikiProject_Jazz#Possible sources for authors/editors there are a few links to musicians' birthdays databases (where I did at least find Annie Whitehead's date of birth). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BNutzer (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography resources 

message: Hello, I have self-nominated the Aaron Sorkin article over at FAC and would appreciate if y'all could review the article.  It chronicles the rise of a Screenwriter, and how Screenwriters collaborate with filmmakers, and it's about one of the more popular Screenwriters of our day: Aaron Sorkin.  Let me know what you guys think.  I would appreciate it.-BiancaOfHell 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenwriter [[Aaron Sorkin]] needs reviewers over at FAC 

message: *I have been doing some work to attempt to improve the classification status of the article on the only Congressman to die in the line of duty, Congressman Leo J. Ryan.  He posthumously received the Congressional Gold Medal.  He represented California's 11th congressional district.  Please let me know what you think, at Talk:Leo Ryan/Comments.  Thank you for your time.  Smee 07:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Leo Ryan|Congressman Leo J. Ryan]] 

message: There's been some discussion at WT:CAT and at WT:WSS about using DEFAULTSORT to "fix" the alpha-sorting of stub categories, which normally happens by first name (or more precisely, by whatever portion of the article title occurs first).  This hasn't been changed prior to this, despite some suggestions to that effect, since it would require parameterising the stub template on every single conclusion, which for a theoretically 'temporary' tag would be a painful use of everyone's time.  The trouble with using DEFAULTSORT for this, however, is while it'll happen anyway, as people add the magic word for the benefit of permanent categories, it's inevitably going to cause a jumble in the stub-cats as some start to use "Last name, first name", and others continue to use the (original) default of "First name last name".
I can think of two possible fixes for this.  Firstly, the stub templates can be recoded to override the default sort, and always use the article title.  (Effectively the status quo ante DEFAULTSORT.)  Secondly, a 'bot could, for all bio-stubs with exactly two words in the article title, and no existing DEFAULTSORT instance, add .  (Lot of edits, but simple enough in principle.)  A third option, coding a different behaviour into the stub template, trying to make an educated guess as to what the last name is, doesn't seem workable, as it would require parser functions not currently available at en:, and because it would override add DEFAULTSORT itself, which would then have to be be overridden in turn by a sort parameter, defeating the whole purpose.  The forth option is of course just not to worry about sort order, on the basis that stub categories are just supposed to be sets of unfinished articles on a given topic, rather than an indexing service...  Alai 02:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a bot resort is to be done, I'd be very, very careful about it.  Even in the U.S. bio stub categories that simple rule can cause errors for indigenous persons. Not knowing a lot about bots, would it be possible to program a bot to detect explicit sorts in the directly applied categories and then if they all use the same sort key replace them with the use of DEFAULTSORT?  That should be a safe starting point and could even be done for non-stub bios, if for no other purpose than to reduce article size. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, I hadn't thought of those.  (The scope for foul-ups with middle names, "embedded space" double-barrelled surnames, post-nominals, titles, and what-not is why I was avoiding any ambitions beyond two-word names).  And yes, the additional test you suggest would be fairly easy to do by bot.  That'd still give a fair number of mis-sorts, I imagine, but fewer, and make it less likely for that to re-occur.  Or did you mean, to apply the magic word only if there's an explicit category, with a supplied sort key?  Alai 07:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd meant only if there is a supplied sort key, at least for the first step of sorting. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The fourth option, not worrying about it, is actually pretty appealing.  Trawling stub categories for obviously missorted bios and adding a DEFAULTSORT (and likely, some categories) to them seems like it's a worthwhile option, and will help maintain the categorization of stub articles in the permanent tree as well as the stub tree, which can only be a good thing.  I really like Caerwine's suggestion of a major bot or semi-bot operation to implement DEFAULTSORT on all articles currently manually sortkeyed.  —CComMack (t–c) 14:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DEFAULTSORT and bio-stubs 

message: Sandy Koufax has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 22:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandy Koufax FAR

message: Husein Gradaščević has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 22:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Husein Gradaščević FAR

message: Todor→Bozhinov 11:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manuel I Komnenos FAR 

message: Mariah Carey has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mariah Carey FAR

message: Is it of any irritation/preference to WP:WPBIO if Talk pages have a  in them?  I notice that you use your WikiProject talk page banner as a category sorter for articles (status/rating, etc.)  If it does bug you, please let me know on my talk page; I already know a workaround that will let WP:CUE DEFAULTSORT by surname without making WPBIO do it too.  If you don't actually care, I'd really rather not have to bother with it, though. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm taking dead silence as assent and proceeding.  If it later turns out that this defaultsorting is doing something WPBIO doesn't like, you can fix it easily by changing:




to





(as an example; both the snooker and cue sports tag might not be present on all relevant articles; the bio tag might be living=no, etc.)
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DEFAULTSORT

message: There is a CfD debate here that could use some imput from folks that are familiar with the 'pedia's policies regarding libel. This should not be seen as an attempt to solicit or campaign for votes. I do not care if you agree with my opinion on the topic or not; this is just a good-faith effort to clear up a gray area with input from some experts. Thanks for any help.  youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need imput from seasoned [[WP:BIO]] members.. 

message: Over at Talk:Angelina Jolie (and probably other pages) a new banner stating "This article falls under multiple wikiprojects" has been added. Then the user has to click on "show" in order to actually see what Wikiprojects include the article. That's all fine and good but as a result the BLP warning banner is no longer immediately visible -- only if someone thinKs or knows to click on the Show link. This could be an issue given the imporance of the banner. 23skidoo 16:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the new banner is a very good idea generally, but, I quite agree, the BLP warning shouldn't be hidden inside it. Andrew Dalby 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New condensed banner idea affecting BLP warning

message: Bold textCould Someone Explain why "Biography" is Masculinized through stereotypical MALE TIE AND SHIRT?  This seems quite excessively gendered for a category that includes BOTH SEXES ~~Meredith Gallagher
(moved by --Vbd 02:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from top of page 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --PhantomS 20:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced it with the equivalent text for some of the more prominent articles. I admit that some less prominent figures did get in that list. If you check the links, there are over 500 articles that use it to date. Nothing, except a bot, would be able to convert those efficiently. In many of those cases, the equivalent text was previously exchanged with the template. I believe that showing a prominent TfD notice in the infoboxes of articles for Voltaire, etc. would not be for anyone's benefit. However, I do agree that it doesn't follow convention. --PhantomS 21:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Death date and age}} 

message: George IV of the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 09:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: George IV of the United Kingdom FAR

message: I'm just curious:  Why is Evan Wolfson only rated a B-Class article?  I think it's an excellent article, very full, sourced, imaged, balanced, etc.  --DavidShankBone 21:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Are there any guidelines about including a trivia section in a bio?  --Vbd 22:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:TRIVIA should help. Ekantik talk 17:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  That essay led me to WP:AVTRIV -- Wikipedia: Avoid trivia sections in articles -- which is actually an official guideline.--Vbd 03:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Stupidly enough, I never noticed that part where trivia is meant to be incorporated into the main article as time goes on (if it is notable enough), and I've been guilty of adding some (referenced) trivia to articles! Time to re-evaluate! :) Ekantik talk 16:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I was bold about an assessment drive, which makes the previous comments I had here moot, so I dropped them. I think we do need to revive the (now archived) idea of some sort of coordination council like what WP:MilHist has. Although I would like to see us do a few things differently. For example, theirs is elected, which I don't like - there's more than enough work on the project to go around for interested volunteers. Also, I'm not really sure there needs to be a lead coordinator if there's a good group of dedicated people working together. Thoughts? Mocko13 02:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above approach. Unfortunately Plange remains inactive, despite her brief return on January 8, 2007. Something should be done here. We can start with the creation of a co-ordination group, and, during the course of this effort, we'll see if a chief coordinator is necessary. I also think that it wouldn't be ethically correct to appoint or elect a chief coordinator on Plange's absene; let's wait and see if she'll be back, and then we'll act accordingly. I believe that MILHIST should be used as a benchmark, and Kirill should be advized, in order to help us with his know-how. Personally, I'll be more active after Monday. I'll take a wikibreak on Friday, lasting 3 days.--Yannismarou 11:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordination Council 

message: :Raoul Wallenberg is up for a featured article. Please read the article and leave critical comments at :Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raoul Wallenberg. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wallenberg 

message: A group of us are working to improve Paul Collingwood in time for the imminent Cricket World Cup. We're aiming for a speedy FA. It would be helpful to have your rating on the talk page and if any of you can contribute your expertise, that would be excellent. Thank you --Dweller 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hello. Both of these requests have been added to the list at Requesting an assessment. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 02:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating requested 

message: I'd also like Evan Wolfson assessed.  It's currently B-class and deserves to be at GA (in my opinion).  It's sourced, cited, imaged, categorized, balanced, and organized well.  --DavidShankBone 02:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hello. Both of these requests have been added to the list at Requesting an assessment. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 02:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evan Wolfson

message: can there be a rule for biographical feature article nominees to have persondata. 70.104.16.244 03:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a rule is necessary, you can go ahead and add persondata if you want and there shouldn't be much objection. Ekantik talk 05:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:PERSONDATA]]

message: The List of war criminals and :Category:War criminals are to be applied to those formally tried and convicted of war crimes. Yet there are many people who have been accused of war crimes and atrocities who have not been formally tried or convicted. There are also those who were tried but found innocent, or at least, charges not proven. How about List of individuals alleged to have committed war crimes and :Category:Alleged war criminals, as well as List of individuals found innocent of war crimes, or :Category:Found innocent of war crimes? These can be highly contentious, with passionate opinions held by various editors. What is the best way to identify by category, or to collect such lists, without harming the integrity of the list and category of those formally charged and convicted? It would also be helpful to formalize guidance as to when someone's name should be added, such as citation of a recommendation or allegation made by an international body, national government, or NGO, for the subject to be tried for war crimes, rather than simply the assertion of an individual author. Opinions? --Petercorless 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, I have argued strenuously against putting on ":Category:War criminals on any bio where someone was not formally charged or convicted. There are also those formally charged but not yet tried or convicted, and those for whom charges have not been filed though allegations have been made. I would be willing to defer to the community's collective thoughts on the subject, but I would like to reserve "War criminals" to those solely tried and convicted. --Petercorless 22:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: War criminals, and those not formally accused

message: People in this project might be interested in a proposed project to provide systematic linkage from Wikipedia biographical pages to WorldCat Identities: if you are, please do sign up at the project proposal page. Dsp13 15:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WorldCat Identities