Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 10

message: As of February 20, 2007 there are approximately 135284 unassessed articles - which counts for almost half of the amount of articles linked to WP Biography. As wonderful as it is to improve already great biographies, these unassessed articles deserve to at least get the one over and boosted to at least a start (or in the one case I found - a Good Article). I know I will personally be going down the list alphabetically - giving the article a look through and in most cases upgrading them a stub class, on occassion a start or rarely a Good Article. --Ozgod 06:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could this be done in any way by a bot? I mean, 130,000+ articles. That would take forever. Surely we can get a bot to look at the page, see if it is rated by another WikiProject, and have it apply that rating to the WPBiography tag. Should this request be made to WP:BOTREQ?↔NMajdan•talk 22:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is, in assessing articles I've come across a lot of pages where the rating by another wikiproject is not correct. - Mocko13 22:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I understand that completely. But we're talking about 130,000 articles. What would you say the percentage of bad ratings is? We could have the bot only look at ratings of high-standard WikiProjects such as Military History. Or if two or more WikiProjects have given it the same rating. Anything to help get that number down. Even if the bot gets only 50% of the unassessed articles rated, that is still 65,000 fewer articles.↔NMajdan•talk 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you have a point. But if we do this, I think we should have the bot also add a bit to the talk page explaining how to get an article re-assessed if an editor thinks the assessment is incorrect. Are you willing to put in the request? Mocko13 22:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but I probably won't get around to it until Monday. I've seen some banners have an "auto" tag that is used if a bot tags the article. Then we can always go back and review articles that were tagged by bots. I'll look into this as well.↔NMajdan•talk 03:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: While by doing this by hand is extremely tedious, at the same time it gives us the ability to add some important tags to articles. While I'm assessing most articles I make sure to add the    tags so that is already getting a little bit of nudge in the right direction. I have actually come across one B class article that somehow got by without an class assessment since its rating. If we have enough people working on this backlog consistently we could wipe it out in a month - month and a half. --Ozgod 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In terms of turn over time. 1 person doing 200 assessments a day, it would 3 1/2 years. 20 people doing 20 assessments a day would take 325 days. 200 people doing 20 assessments a day would take us approximately 33 days. It is doable if we have enough people behind us. I personally make an effort to assess around 200 articles per day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ozgod (talk • contribs) 23:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unassessed articles

message: Is the "Trivia" section really necessary in the Joaquin Phoenix article?  Is it considered encyclopedic?  Where are the cited references to these trivia alegations?  If the alegations in the trivia section are verifiable facts, shouldn't they be worked into the article itself?  I posted this concern in the articles talk page and I would like an honest opinion in the article's talk page from those involved in the bio project.  Shouldn't unverified alegations in that particular "Trivia" section be considered as "original research" unless verified? Tony the Marine 16:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Your instincts to delete the trivia section and merge information into the main article, where possible, are right on.  Check out the official WP trivia guidelines.  For additional guidance, see the essay on trivia and the policy statement "WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information".  Be bold and edit away!--Vbd | (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting an opinion

message: Why, hello! I come under the auspices of WikiProject Abandoned Articles, a project aimed at bringing articles that have not been edited for a number of years back to life. One such article is Liselott Persson, which needs expanding greatly, or else nominated for deletion. If you could spare some time to check it out, it would be much appreciated Lord Pheasant 02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Ms. Persson in clearly very wealthy, she appears otherwise to be non-notable (at least outside of Sweden).  I have been unable to find any English-language biographical information on her with which to expand this stub.  I will nominate the article for deletion.--Vbd | (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Liselott Persson]]

message: I just stumbled on the biography for Jane Wiedlin and went to Talk:Jane Wiedlin looking for a discussion about what the POV issue(s) were.  Seeing none, I discovered that  marked several articles with that template without explaining what the issue was on the corresponding talk pages.  I removed the one in Wiedlin's article; check out the contribs list for 70.147.145.165 for other such articles. — 68.167.253.128 00:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  several biographies marked NPOV without any related discussions 

message: Quick question regarding biographies: What is considered the place of birth when birth is given at a hospital? The location of the hospital or where the parents live, which could be different? For example, if a couple lives in a city's suburb but drive in to the city to have the baby delivered, is the baby born in the city or the suburb? -newkai t-c 06:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think fact is fact. My parents lived in Huyton but I was born at Liverpool City Hospital, and I always say I was born in Liverpool. Andrew Dalby 13:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of birth 

message: As some of you may know, there's been some discussion regarding the number of WikiProject banners on article talk pages. There are three projects underway that attempt to "reduce the clutter".  The first, of course, is the "small" option - see Small option for more info.  The second is , which hides all the banners in a one-line box.  As has been discussed on that template's talk page, this option has the disadvantage of hiding WikiProject banners, which defeats one of the purposes - to recruit new members.  The third option is , which addresses that issue by reducing each banner to one line (with the option to view the full banner).
Now the reason I'm bringing this up is because adopting this third option requires a small alteration of a WikiProject's banner - to add the "nested=yes" parameter.  I'd like to determine consensus within this project around the change and see if we can move forward with it.  I've put together a sample of your banner with the new option coded in (code).  As you can see, there would be no change to the banner if the "nested" parameter isn't there.  If it *is* there, the banner would be part of the "within the scope of the following projects..." box.
Two projects that have already implemented this option are WP:MILHIST and WP:LGBT.
One additional issue that cropped up only in WP:WPBIO is that there are several parts of the project banner that lie outside the normal box.  In the example, the BLP box (correctly) stays in place.  But other parts of the banner - activepol, needs-infobox, needs-photo, and (especially) the workgroups - those are all in separate boxes and would need to be pulled in to the regular banner box.
Thoughts? Concerns? Would going ahead with the alteration be okay? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd much prefer that option to having the banner hidden. Mocko13 21:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea too. Setting "british-royalty=yes" seems to break the show/hide-functionality, though. Hemmingsen 18:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "british-royalty" and some of the other options seem to break it.  Kirill Lokshin (the person that created the WikiProjectBannerShell) and a couple other editors are looking in to what is causing that and what can be done about it.  If someone here has more experience with this template and can help, that would be great! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small alteration to your banner 

message: Hello. I have amended the existing instructions for the assessment drive as follows to include simple criteria. See also talk. Changes welcome.
:Never assessed an article before? No problem. Articles should be assessed according to the Quality scale and instructions. In reducing the backlog, you may come across four classes: Stub, Start, B, and A. Most backlogged articles are either Start or Stub. Stubs are small, perhaps less than 1,000 characters. Start articles are usually larger than stubs and have references. B articles have inline citations, infoboxes as appropriate and may or may not be ready for GA review. A articles that have not been reviewed for GA are extremely rare.-Susanlesch 17:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria for ratings

message: Please would this WikiProject reassess your rating of the Paul Collingwood article.
It's been the subject of a massive and speedy expansion and improvement by a collaboration from the Cricket WikiProject, in advance of the forthcoming World Cup. The article is nominated for FA and I'd also welcome comments from the Biog specialists at the FA nomination page; after all, our foremost concern is to achieve an outstanding article. Those of you without cricket knowledge are equally or possibly even more welcome to contribute, as the article should be reasonably accessible to all; even if your technical knowledge of the sport is practically non-existent, you should be able to get the gist of the man's story. 
Thank you, on behalf of the WP:CRIC collaboration. --Dweller 21:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment of [[Paul Collingwood]] article 

message: The March newsletter will be delivered to user talk pages on March 1. Any last minute addition are welcome. - Mocko13 01:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Call for the Project Newsletter 

message: Hi all. I wasn't sure which WikiProject might be most involved or concerned with this subject, but I noticed the lack of a category for people who were killed by poison. Thus, I created the category, and would like to notify people who might be interested in helping populate it properly. Thanks. LordAmeth 15:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths by poisoning 

message: These guidelines are a bit too much in a MUST! DO THIS! DO THAT! style, that comes across like a bossy teacher. 
While there is certainly good reason for almost all suggestions, remember that even biographies do not need to be perfect, and especially not from the start (always remaining notable and referenced, of course). MadMaxDog 06:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THOU SHALT NOT CHALLENGE THE WISDOM OF THE WIKIGODS!!! No, just kidding, I agree. But wouldn't softer language lead to more confusion in implementation? - Mocko13 19:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commandments style

message: I was thinking that the project might be able to use its own barnstar, since we're pretty big and a lot of smaller projects have their own already. Unfortunately, my talent with graphics is nil. Anyone want to take a shot at making one, and proposing it here? - Mocko13 19:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Barnstar

message: WikiBios is a project for creating biographies of all people on Earth -- regardless of notability. It's an awe-inspiring project; the idea that no human being should be forgotten is audacious in the extreme. Since WikiBios articles are GFDL-licensed, it may make sense to start some sort of dialogue between this Wikiproject and their community (see ). I think some points of contact might be synchronizing or linking biographies for notable people, and moving bios from Wikipedia to WikiBios when AfD decides the person is insufficiently noteworthy. --ESP 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiBios 

message: I don't know who - if anybody - is holding the fort at the moment, but would they or someone be interested in getting a newsletter out? They're a good way of stimulating interest and there hasn't been one since September. --kingboyk 09:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started on a new newsletter here, and am planning on working on it over the next few days to get it ready to go out. Do you know how we can do automatic delivery, or will someone have to deliver it to people by hand? - Mocko13 21:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't see this question until a copy landed on my page today. Thanks for your efforts! I'd advise checking out WP:AWB for semi-automated edits, or asking a bot editor if they can deliver. (Next time!). --kingboyk 22:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter 

message: Richard O'Connor 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 16:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard O'Connor FAR

message: Is there a consensus as to whether a subject's infobox should use separate links for towns and states/provinces/whatevers or is it generally considered acceptable to put (for example)  Austin, Texas? Suriel1981 09:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just 2¢ but... I would think that format should be acceptable, if the relevant city article or redirect exists. That article should have the links to the larger political regions. — J Greb 10:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, you don't need the HTML-encoded text for the link. Austin, Texas works just fine. howcheng  {chat} 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox question 

message: Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians#.5B.5BDream_Theater.5D.5D. --kingboyk 14:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dream Theater]] 

message: I was just thinking today that it might be interesting to have categories by birthday. We already have categories for birth by year (e.g., :Category:1980 births) ... what if there were 366 categories for each day of the year, like :Category:January 1 births? Currently, the only other way to see who else was born on the same day is to see the article for that day, such as January 1. We could also have corresponding categories for deaths as well. Then we need a bot to go through the biography articles that have the date information and add the categories. Thoughts? howcheng  {chat} 03:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might actually get some use out of .↔NMajdan•talk 15:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories by birthday? 

message: A quick overview for newcomers: The Kingbotk Plugin is a set of add-on tools for the wiki editor, AWB. In bot mode it offers robust templating for WikiProjects. In manual mode, it can also be used to help editors assess articles quickly and efficiently.
Per requests, myself and  have just released a new version of the Kingbotk Plugin which is compatible with the latest AWB. To make things even easier, the plugin now ships with AWB. You may also have noticed my bot running over the last few days, testing the new version.
Since your WikiProject is one of the few which are programatically supported it's important that you inform us of any important changes to your WikiProject's template which have occurred in the last few months.
*The most important change we should know about is new redirects to your template. If your template could possibly be used on talk pages with a different name unknown to the plugin, double templating could result. Please take the time to check for redirects to your project's template - somebody might have created one without you noticing.
*Deprecated or removed parameters. We don't want complaints that the plugin is using old syntax now do we? :)
*Not critical in terms of annoying the masses, but for your own convenience you might want to let us know of any new parameters that the plugin needs to support. Remember, it only needs to support parameters which will be added by bots or which are useful in the article assessment process.
I hope you still find the tool useful. Comments, questions and bug reports to User talk:Kingbotk/Plugin. Cheers. --kingboyk 17:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingbotk Plugin 

message: Genesis (band) 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 02:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genesis (band) FAR

message: Robert Oppenheimer 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 02:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Oppenheimer FAR

message: I don't know what bot tags articles for the project, but I'm noticing a lot of untagged articles in these two cats: :Category:College football coaches and :Category:College football players. Whoever knows what bot tags articles for the project should recommend to them to go through these cats.↔NMajdan•talk 16:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, also, if the bot just goes through those categories, it might make sense to have it auto-add to the sports work group.↔NMajdan•talk 17:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. A lot of Olympic related articles and footballers already tagged by the Football Wikipproject are coming up too. LuciferMorgan 18:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cats to add to project 

message: Suzanne Lenglen 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 18:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suzanne Lenglen FAR

message: I've come accross a problem while assessing the Jacques Villeneuve article. When it comes to prioritising them, I usually give out "high" for those drivers that have won a World Championship (such as Damon Hill, Jim Clark, etc) and given "top" to those who have won four or more championships, excluding Ayrton Senna (such as Alain Prost, Juan Manuel Fangio and, of course, Michael Schumacher). But Villeneuve's article falls under two work groups: Arts and Entertainment as well as Sports and Games because of his music career.
So what I want to know is, should Jacques be considered "high" because he is a world champion or should he be "mid" so he doesn't end up in the "high" priority section of arts and entertainment. Thanks. --Skully Collins Edits 10:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacques Villeneuve 

message: Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints we've been having some discussion regarding the scope of the project. Specifically, some people have been adding the project banner to articles related to non-Christian figures who are considered saints by their various belief systems. Unfortunately, the active editors we have with the project are (so far as I can tell) primarily knowledgable about Christianity, and have (so far as I can tell, particulary myself) comparatively little if any expertise to add to articles related to non-Christian figures. I've noticed that there have been proposals in the past to create a religious figures work group of this project. If you have any interest in going ahead with such a project, which might stand a better chance of getting people whose knowledge extends further beyond the Christian sphere than most of the editors of the Saints project have, I think the members of that project would be very grateful. Thank you. John Carter 15:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible religious figures work group 

message: John Major 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) 00:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: John Major FAR

message: Moe Berg 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) 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moe Berg FAR

message: There is currently a dispute involving the repeated removal of the "saints" infobox from the page above, as well as a discussion on the article's talk page, in which the remover objects to biography infoboxes in general, among other things. Any input from the members of your project would be more than welcome. John Carter 15:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hildegarde of Bingen]] discussion 

message: The article De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) was created by a user who likes to include fairly questionable content, like a reference to "Peter, considered to be the first divine person by church of Rome." Moreover, the user in question believes that the New Testament was written by Petrarch in the 14th century AD, and that various books contain "very special meanings" in need of being decoded. (See further the deletion discussion for 62 of his articles that were deleted this morning.) I am burning out trying to single-handedly steer De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) towards being a sound and encyclopedic article, and I hope someone else can start watching the page. I have no agenda and would welcome editors with very different views from mine; the page just needs honest and experienced participants, period. (It might also be worthwhile to explore Doug Coldwell's other contributions.) Wareh 17:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in sore need of more watchers 

message: Hello, I created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Screenwriters to take care of some of the articles on screenwriting and screenwriters.    It's been suggested that I place my wikiproject under the auspices of this wikiproject so that the layout of the screenwriter articles have greater precedence.  I would like to know what some of you think about my article on William Monahan because there currently is a debate going on at WP:FAC over whether the article should incorporate the "Family life" section into the rest of the sections.  I'm for the "Family life" section, because I find spreading these familial facts throughout the article trivializes the family information by haphazardly placing the facts here and there.  Others have said it's sexist to separate family life from career.  Others are on the fence.  I wonder what this wikiproject has to say on the matter?  Anyways, any comments would be much appreciated.  I am trying to figure out the best template with which to cover the lives of Screenwriters.-BillDeanCarter 22:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[William Monahan]] article at FAC

message: There is a strange situation at Archimedes Plutonium. There seems to be an edit war between the subject of the article and other editors. The article seems poorly sourced for a biography of a living person. Please take a look at this page if you are familiar with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --JWSchmidt 14:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archimedes Plutonium 

message: Hey, I was thinking that there should be a writing-and-journalism work group, or somethign to that extent. Many writers that I come across seem to fit okay into the arts or politics groups, but many of them don't seem to fit very well into anything.
And if this group would not work, where should questionable writers be placed?--Wizardman 17:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Work Group? 

message: There appears to be a bit of a scuffle over the Richard Walter that you might want to take a look at, it's outside of the WP:LE project where the article was recently reported, so I though I would pass it over to you. I have left the usual reminder of how bio-article-content should be very verifiable, I hope you can take it from there. Cheers! SGGH 09:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Richard Walter]] 

message: Why is Mr. Turvey so relentless in trying to slander Richard Walter?
  
To accuse someone of perjury is a serious charge.  Mr. Turvey makes that claim on his own websites, but that is a matter between Mr. Walter and Mr. Turvey to settle in civil court.
I hold Wikipedia to a higher standard.
In reading the court document, in the final ruling in the Drake case, the judge overturns the appeal.
In his opinion, the judge states that Mr. Walter "may" have committed perjury (which he did not), but he rules that such an issue is a moot point because Mr. Drake does not have the basis for appeal.
Thus, Drake's appeal, and all of its allegations are ruled false.
I welcome you to read the decision on Lexis-Nexis and not Mr. Turvey's version on his websites.
While on Lexis-Nexis, I would also encourage you to read about Mr. Turvey's false statements under oath in Mississippi last year and his previous false statements under oath regarding his employment by the Sitka, Alaska Police Department as a detective. (Mr. Turvey lost in court in his bid to claim that he was employed as a detective in Sitka).
Because Mr. Turvey was not allowed into the AAFS, he has spent his short career creating his own organizations and schools.  His organizations are nothing more than him and a few of his former "students" posing as a substitute for the AAFS.
Still, the bitterness of rejection has never been exorcised from his soul.  He maintains a website that lists several well-respected forensic pathologists as "frauds" (Mr. Walter is not his only victim).
With all due respect, his situation reminds me of a jealous child in the playground who wants to "take his toys and play on his own".
I suggest that the Richard Walter page remain permanently locked in its pre-March 17th state.
Please disregard Bturvey's threat to "show why wikipedia can't be trusted as a source in my class".  He has many more enemies than friends; no one will stand in his defense.
02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Walter article - Libel

message: Yes, I'm stupid. But should articles already tagged with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints banner also be tagged separately with the Biography banner or not? John Carter 15:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding Saints 

message: There's some debate at Talk:Murray Gold over whether to mention that Gold is of Jewish descent.  He is apparently a secular Jew, and  (who may have a personal connection to Gold himself) has objected to the inclusion of Gold's Jewishness in the article.  On the one hand, the matter may qualify as "contentious" enough to trigger WP:BLP, but on the other hand ethnicity is generally considered encyclopedic information about someone, isn't it?
Right now, no citation has been provided for Gold's Jewishness, so I'm OK with it being removed as uncited.  But assuming a citation can be provided, what's the standard operating procedure for an issue like this?  Any assistance at Talk:Murray Gold would be welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of living person's religion and ethnicity? 

message: I wondered how the biography statistics - in particular, the total number of biographies, including the unassessed bios - are calculated. Is the total number calculated from a list / lists, or from some aggregation of categories (e.g. people categorized by year of birth / death)? Dsp13 23:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bot determines how many articles have the banner placed on them, and adds them to the articles assessed at a certain level. I think it does so on a daily or every-other-day basis. John Carter 15:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thom Hickey at WorldCat recently counted the number of biographical articles on Wikipedia using  :Category:Births by year and :Category:Deaths by year, and reached the total 283,655 Dsp13 12:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia biography statistics

message: I am proposing a new wikiproject which if it was allowed to develop would become a major project. I have noticed that as a memebr also of WP Films that articles on actrors, film directors, producers, cinematogrpahers, etc are often to much for Biogrpahy to deal with. I strongly beleive we need an institution on wikipedia to take care of all Film people. I propose Wikipedia:WikiProject:Film biography. If I created the tag for this project each time you would mark it as WPFilmmakers it would automatically put it is Biography articles as well . Please let me know what you all think. THanks  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 14:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about creating it as a subgroup/work group/task force under WP:FILM? Similar to the way WP:MUSICIAN is a work group under WPP:BIO.↔NMajdan•talk 18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New WIKIPROJECT FILMMAKERS PROPOSAL

message: I would like us to add the hCard microformat (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Microformats) to templates in :Category:People infobox templates. I can advise on the required mark-up, but I'm not familiar with template code editing. Can anyone help, please? Andy Mabbett 11:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hCard Microformat