Template talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Actors and Filmmaker Switch

"filmbio-work-group: Answer yes if the article is within the scope of WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, otherwise remove this line." Is that only film actors or television actors as well.? Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 09:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Template design question

Is it not inviting frequent changes (as work-groups come & go) to have each possible workgroup organised as its own line:

|a&e-work-group =

|politician-work-group =

|british-royalty =

|royalty-work-group =

|military-work-group =

|sports-work-group =

|s&a-work-group =

|musician-work-group =

|peerage-work-group =

|peerage-work-group =

|filmbio-work-group =

rather than something like

|work-group=

which can accept parameters such as "baronet, peerage" &c--Tagishsimon (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Workgroup parameters

I've just added "musician-work-group=yes" "a&e-work-group=yes" on Talk:Nur Ali Elahi, as the subject was both a musician and a scholar. The musician text and categories show up, but the a&e does not. I see in the archives that there were some changes made concerning one not nesting into the other, and I'm wondering if this is resolved. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That was by design iirc. a&e is arts & ents, of which musician is a subdivision. Scholars are s&a... fixed, hopefully - please review that what's there now is what you wanted. --kingboyk (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and clarification. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected request

{{editprotected}}

Request: Replace the image used for the "Activepol" parameter with Image:Ballot box current.svg, which actually reflects the contents of the box, rather then just saying "!", as the current one does. 68.39.174.238 16:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done! Neil ☎ 09:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

List-class

In my opinion, lists should be assessed in the same way as other articles, not least because Lists can be Featured. What do other people think? --kingboyk 14:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Comments section in this template

It's possible to use this template to post comments for an article, for example about its rating; however, in some cases this seems to interfere with the contents of the Talk page. See Talk:Michael Scheuer for an example - the contents box is, for some reason, inside the Biography template. Does anyone know why this happened, or how to fix it? Terraxos (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments pages need to have their headings done like this:

<includeonly>;</includeonly><noinclude>==</noinclude>[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment<noinclude>==</noinclude> or they are interpreted as part of the page content when transcluded in the Project banner, and this forces the ToC to appear inside the template. Another solution would be to add __TOC__ to the page below these templates, and an even better one would be for WPBiography to stop transcluding these things, and link to /Comments instead like the other project banners do. Transcluding them is rather user-hateful, as they can often be several screens long, and virtually unreadable when small=yes. See Talk:Irving Crane for example. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

They shouldn't be several pages long, as they're designed for transclusion into long list pages produced by a bot. /Comments should be a few lines at most. (I wrote much of this template, and iirc /Comments pages were my idea in the first place).

That said, if things have changed and it's now causing a problem, feel free to alter the template code. We don't want to annoy people unnecessarily I'm sure. --kingboyk (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Does wikipedia needs more templates on the talk pages?...

This template is terrible.

If a user types yes in the "needs-infobox" "needs-photo" then two more templates clutter up the top of a page. On many pages there are already 4-5 templates. This bass akwards template creates three more templates.

Example

{{WikiProject Biography|living = yes |class = Start |attention = yes |needs-infobox = yes |needs-photo = yes}} creates four templates:

(Template transclusion removed -- things have moved on a bit since this discussion! PC78 (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

Like many protected templates where the masses can't viciously edit the template, this template is counter productive.

Suggestions

Since only the anointed (admins) can edit this template, can anyone condense the number of templates WPBiography creates?

1. Maybe the extra templates can go to the bottom?
2. Maybe the extra templates can be condensed into one template instead of four?

Why not make the template page partially or semi protected?

Why these changes will never happen:

1. Unfortunately, like most talk page requests, this one will be ignored. By protecting this page (for good reasons I am sure) WP:BB does not apply on this template, therefore changes will be glacial, and...
2. Unfortunately, [but even worse than most pages because this page is protected], there is a couple of editors who came up with the genius idea too add four additional templates from one. So they will probably consider this criticism a personal criticism against their fine work on wikipedia, and will refuse to change anything.

Sigh. T (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In a slightly nicer way of saying it, this template does look messy when you see three or four separate boxes on one talk page. Couldn't this be made into one box? Here's an example I propose:

Proposed changes

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
	This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
	It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
	Other included parts of the box here

I made this using semi-mangled HTML, so someone that can decypher the template syntax could do this. {{blp/BLPtext}} is what's included, and it doesn't have any box coding, so using that template will give you the words without the box (which is what I've done). The others are buried in the template syntax, so they only need top placement and the separate box coding removed. Thanks. 69.221.128.247 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Active politician

Active politician currently says "This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy." That's too strong. There are plenty of active politicians who are not currently campaigning for (re)election nor in any controversy. Maybe this should be reworded? Or maybe there should be more options, eg: no, active, campaigning, controversy? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Then they're "in office" :) Note that we transclude the message from {{Activepolitician}}, so wording changes should be discussed at Template talk:Activepolitician. --kingboyk (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it looks like the text from {{Activepolitician}} has been moved in here, as the article and talk pages of it have deprecated warnings. 69.221.128.247 (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Displaying priority etc

[from archive] not real important, but next time the template's updated, can it reflect the change frm 'importance' to 'priority' ie display that rating like the other project templates display the 'importance' rating?  ⇒ bsnowball  16:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it IS rather important: now the template uses both "priority" and "importance" in different places without mutual interchangeability and any documentation. (Oh, what I'd give to have the rights to sort out the mess in the code...) --Malyctenar 09:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think you can, just do so in a sandbox and after sufficient testing, your cleaned up version can be dropped in, in place of the original code. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you do have the right to "sort out the mess" (thanks, glad you like it! :)), you just don't have the right to make the save because each time a big template like this gets saved it places some strain on the servers. So, please fire away in a sandbox and present your changes here for consideration.

Re importance/priority: Could you tell me exactly which code you are talking about? We started with importance= but moved to priority= after some debate about POV/BLP issues of assessing "importance". Some references to importance= would have been left in for backwards compatibility. This is the first I've heard of anything being broken however, and it's damned surprising that it's taken this long for it to be raised considering how widely used the template is. Give me a template instance which is broken too, please (i.e. what combination of parameters causes breakages). I ask for this info because although it was probably me who wrote that code I haven't worked on this template for a long time so can't really remember much about it. Are you sure you're not confusing "backwards compatability" (good) with "interchangeable use within the code" (theoretically bad but who cares?!). --kingboyk (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I've just had a look. Perhaps you ought to get your facts right before making these sweeping statements :) The template recognises importance= as being equal to priority= (because we already had many talk pages tagged with importance= before we had to switch to priority=), and also puts the talk page into Category:Biography articles needing priority parameter replacement so that the importance= param can be renamed. This ensures the template works even if the wrong parameter name is used. Granted it may be time to consider deprecating importance= altogether, but it sure doesn't seem broke.

There's over 1000 articles in Category:Biography articles needing priority parameter replacement at the moment, so I guess I'll send my bot out later to tidy them up. Don't be surprised to find it empty later but right now it's far from it; evidence to me at least that the backwards compatibility features are still working well. --kingboyk (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

unarchiving the above as it seems to be more important than i first thought. can we pls have the template & documentation fully updated to implement the change to 'priority'?  ⇒ bsnowball  08:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That change was made in August 2006 and this template is used on over 100,000 pages. Thus I'm still struggling to see what the problem is and why it hasn't been identified before :)

The documentation is at Template:WikiProject Biography/doc and may be edited by anybody. Please feel free to improve it! --kingboyk (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There's 14 articles in Category:Biography articles needing priority parameter replacement right now, and I cleaned it out only a day or 2 ago. In other words, maybe 100 talk pages a week are getting importance= settings added. I'm not at all against totally deprecating importance= now, and removing (say) all but a warning from the template if it's used. However, given that folks obviously still haven't got the message that the correct parameter name is priority= I wouldn't want to be that bold without changing all existing template instances first (or, we have to carry on monitoring that category in which case we may as well just retain the backwards compatible code). Thoughts? --kingboyk (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC) PS I now have my bot forceably change WPBio importance= to priority when it processes a talk page, even if the parameter has no value. That'll sort a few thousand instances out in the next few days I suspect.

Spelling correction

Is there some way that the spelling of libellous can be corrected. The correct British English spelling has two Ls but it is appearing on all the templates as libelous. It sets a very poor example to have words mis-spelled in this way. I wonder if libelous with one L is perhaps the American English spelling. If so is it possible to have two different versions of the template. Dahliarose (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The text in question is transcluded from Template:Blp/BLPtext. We're just the messengers :) The talk page for discussing it is at Template talk:Blp.

This issue has been discussed already at Template_talk:Blp#Libelous_.2F_Libellous.

As originally written, it said "libellous". I'm just trying to find out changed it and when... Looking at it, I think I changed it inadvertently; we'd agreed to leave it as was I think. I guess I must have pasted in somebody's text suggestion including the altered spelling without realising... hmm... Well, I guess I'll have to revert myself, as I'm sure I didn't do that on purpose and there was no consensus to change it.

If as seems my changing it causes renewed discussion you need to be looking at Template talk:Blp not here. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC) mabye make an auto matic spell check and after your finished it will tell you the words you misspelled. 13:49 cst ~yougo1000~ 11/16/08

Category:Automatically assessed biography articles

The above category was created to keep an eye on articles automatically assessed as "stub class". It wasn't known at the time if it would prove controversial or not (it seems to be accepted). Also, the number of articles in that category is so large that I wonder if it has any use for humans.

I was wondering then whether we ought to remove this category from the template. It's arguably not really needed at the moment and provided folks use auto=yes rather than adding their own boilerplate text we could easily restore it at a later date if needed. Of course, it's not particularly problematic and it only needs one person to say they're using it to find articles to assess for it to be worth keeping. --kingboyk (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there might be a few {{stubclass}} templates floating about which use the category individually too.

It looks like WPMILHIST have removed their auto=yes parameter altogether. I think that's a bad idea; it's handy to know which articles weren't really assessed but which were hit by a bot, and I think the large messagebox it displays is good at inviting editor attention. I'd rather keep the category than delete the whole scheme altogether. Not having also leads to bots placing boilerplate text on pages about assessments, several thousands of which my bot is currently cleaning up.

So, since nobody has spoken out in favour of nuking this category I guess we keep it for now. --kingboyk (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a comment, the current auto=yes parameter is rather Kingbotk-centric.;-/ What happens when you have a bot like User:FlagBot that is capable of reliably assessing Start class articles? The current text generated by auto=yes is inappropriate, but I don't like the idea of having no indication in the template that the assessment was by bot. Two obvious ways to do it would be either to add a botname= paramter, or to save on template spaghetti, set the auto= parameter to the name of the bot. I thought I'd mention it, although I've no immediate plans to set FlagBot loose on the bio project just yet - I've a heap of other things to do at the moment, and I want to do more testing of my regexes in the calmer water of the country WikiProjects before I give him spaghetti to eat.... FlagSteward (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Biography articles with listas parameter

Seems to be totally useless. Remove? --kingboyk (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I've found it quite useful - but I am a relative newcomer. I started doing some work via the Photography project to get some of the photo requests better categorised. In the process, I've got frustrated that many biographies are not sorted by surname, and have stumbled across the whole problem of listas and DEFAULTSORT - which I'm still trying to get my head round. In the process, I've been using the "with listas" and "without listas" categories to identify different articles for comparison to help me understand what works and what doesn't...... Currently, I'm none the wiser, but I'm about to tackle the relevant Talk archives. Wish me luck!! Romney yw (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I read a discussion in which Carcharoth presented a viewpoint which I found compelling at the time, for the use of the "Biography articles with listas parameter" category. Unfortunately, I don't remember now what it was :( But it made sense at the time. I'll request that he comment here. --Lini (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See Category talk:Biography articles with listas parameter:

"This category only tracks use of listas. To understand what I am saying about DEFAULTSORT, try and answer the simple question: "Which biographical articles do not yet have DEFAULTSORT?" Think of it as a clean-up category. If a biographical article doesn't have DEFAULTSORT, you would want to add that to the article. At the moment, it is not possible to easily find articles without DEFAULTSORT. The next-best thing is to find an article without the listas paramter, to look at the article, and either add both DEFAULTSORT (to the article) and listas (to the talk page), or copy the DEFAULTSORT to the talk page (but call it listas instead). It should be possible to get a bot to do the copying bit."

Admittedly, this doesn't help much, but please consider helping to answer the simple question, rather than giving up and saying "remove the category". There is also discussion in these talk page archives. The longest is at Template talk:WPBiography/Archive 4#DEFAULTSORT and listas problems. Again, please, please read all of those discussions and try and suggest a way to move forward that isn't just "I don't see the point, let's remove it". There were also discussions over using a bot to help out with all this, but ideally someone will come up with some software tweak that allows us to easily identify those biographical articles lacking DEFAULTSORT. Carcharoth (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's all I wanted and needed to know. If folks say they use it, it's useful. Thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the second question, that ought to be possible. Have you asked at any of the technical discussion boards or asked the devs? --kingboyk (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Several times. The results were (I think) inconclusive. I'll try and pull together all the discussions. It got a bit spread out in space and time. Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be very happy if we remove listas. It's focus our effort to track articles that don't have defaultsort and added it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories populated by this template

About 5 months ago I created Template:WPBiography/Categories. Does anyone know of a way to easily update that list? I did a laborious search for "Category" in the template code and then tidied up the results. Did I miss any? Have any been added or removed? Why are nine of them redlinks? Why are there so many? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Military got renamed, COTW template got deleted. Not sure about the others. Useful list... could probably write a script to make it automatically.

There's so many because this is a very, very large project :) --kingboyk (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I updated the military ones. The other three got deleted because they were empty, ie. not being used. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

British Royalty template

Can someone type in the full link -- Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty -- instead of just Wikipedia:BROY. It's no big deal, it just makes it easier for those using the popups function. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 22:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done --CapitalR (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

needs-photo parameter

The needs-photo parameter "populates Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people." Is there a way for it to populate "Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in xxx", where xxx is the particular location? For example, on Talk:Peter Moon (musician), there now are two duplicative requests for photos, but each is needed to populate a particular category: (i) Wikipedia requested photographs of musicians, (ii) Wikipedia requested photographs in Honolulu County, Hawaii. Should we keep things the same or add a parameter to WPBiography, such as |in=xxx|in2=yyy|in3=zzz ... so that the WPBiography photo can populate those categories that fall under Wikipedia:Requested pictures/Places for biography articles? (Additional in2=, in3=, in4=, etc. parameters can be used to specify additional location categories.) Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Occupation parameter?

I've been working on film editor articles for a while now. It would be helpful if I could make a search on these articles by their quality-rating. I've been working on this by adding an additional "film editor" banner to the talk pages of some articles, but I think a better way to manage this would be to add an "occupation =" parameter to this template, which is already used on most of the film-editor talk pages. Let me know! Easchiff 01:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Use SVG instead of PNG

This template should use Image:Icon_tools.svg instead of Image:Icon_tools.png --Inkwina (talk · contribs) 15:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done --CapitalR (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Article importance grading scheme

Why is the Article importance not shown on this template. It's used and documented as used, but not shown Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Priority_scale SunCreator (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Here, there is an answer. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Persondata

{{editprotected}}

I suggest a |needs-persondata= parameter to be added to the template, with some appropriate corresponding visual clue, so that people interested are made aware of the Persondata template and the need of adding it. The visual clue could be a message similar to the one that appears when |needs-infobox=yes, probably appearing inside that very same box, like in this simple paraphrase:

An appropriate '''[[Wikipedia:Persondata{{!}}persondata]]''' may need to be added to this article, or the current persondata may need to be updated. Please refer to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Persondata{{!}}WikiProject Persondata]] for further information.

With an optional empty line separating both texts if both the |needs-infobox= $\wedge$ |needs-persondata= parameters were set to yes.

I know this would lead to a massive creation of new categories, but it might be worth the effort. What do you think?

PS.: I guess this comment (above) also deserves an "editprotected", but its author probably forgot to add it. Gave it a look, okay? :-) -- alexgieg (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Added with its own box for now. Also, it doesn't create any categories as of yet; discuss and make a request once categories have been agreed on. --CapitalR (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! As for categories, I think we could emulate the way |needs-infobox=yes is handled: it adds the page to the generic Category:Biography articles without infoboxes, and then, for each and every workgroup parameter with an yes, it also adds the page to another category in the form [Category:XYZ work group articles needing infoboxes]. So, my suggestion is the following set of categories:

• |needs-persondata=yes:
  • Category:Biography articles without persondatas
• |needs-persondata=yes $\wedge$ |filmbio-work-group=yes:
  • Category:Actors and filmmakers work group articles needing persondatas
• |needs-persondata=yes $\wedge$ |a&e-work-group=yes $\wedge$ |musician-work-group= isn't set $\wedge$ |filmbio-work-group= isn't set (this is a special case):
  • Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles needing persondatas
• |needs-persondata=yes $\wedge$ |peerage-work-group=yes:
  • Category:Baronetcies work group articles needing persondatas
• |needs-persondata=yes $\wedge$ |british-royalty=yes:
  • Category:British royalty work group articles needing persondatas
• |needs-persondata=yes $\wedge$ |military-work-group=yes:
  • Category:Military biography work group articles needing persondatas
• |needs-persondata=yes $\wedge$ |musician-work-group=yes:
  • Category:Musicians work group articles needing persondatas
• |needs-persondata=yes $\wedge$ |peerage-work-group=yes:
  • Category:Peerage work group articles needing persondatas
• |needs-persondata=yes $\wedge$ |politician-work-group=yes:
  • Category:Politics and government work group articles needing persondatas
• |needs-persondata=yes $\wedge$ |royalty-work-group=yes $\wedge$ |british-royalty= isn't set (this is a special case):
  • Category:Royalty and nobility work group articles needing persondatas
• |needs-persondata=yes $\wedge$ |s&a-work-group=yes:
  • Category:Science and academia work group articles needing persondatas
• |needs-persondata=yes $\wedge$ |sports-work-group=yes:
  • Category:Sports and games work group articles needing persondatas
• |needs-persondata=yes $\wedge$ |sports-work-group=yes:
  • Category:Sports and games work group articles needing persondatas

This is the best to provide for the consistent naming of categories. -- alexgieg (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjectBannerShell

{{editprotected}}

BLP notice (For WikiProjectBannerShell cross post, see this)

The living=yes parameter in Template:WPBiography posts a BLP notice on the talk page. There probably is more than 100,000 articles tagged with {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes}}. When Template:WPBiography is in WikiProjectBannerShell, the BLP notice is hidden. To overcoome this, some people additionally use {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes}} Also, some people add {{BLP}} to WikiProjectBannerShell to overcome the hidden BLP problem. See Talk:Eduardo Maruri as an example. While |blp=yes or {{BLP}} may be a solution, they seem redundant to the long used {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes}}. Is it possible to change Template:WPBiography and/or WikiProjectBannerShell so that the BLP notice is not hidden when Template:WPBiography is in WikiProjectBannerShell? Doing so would eliminate a need to use {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes}} on the 100,000+ articles now using {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes}}. Idealy, the living=yes parameter in Template:WPBiography should cause the BLP notice to appear outside and above WikiProjectBannerShell, if possible. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from here by GregManninLB (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)): The last option (adding |living=yes to {{WPBiography}} resulting in the BLP notice displaying outside the banner) is impossible without using a lot of messy javascript. It would be possible to cause the BLP notice to display even when the template was collapsed inside WPBS, but that would still look messy, particularly as the BLP notice is not a WikiProject banner and so should not be shelled with WPBS. The BLP notice does not actually belong inside the banner shell at all. I think that the only effective way of doing this would be to encourage the use of |blp=yes in WPBS as well as |living=yes in WPBiography. Once this system is widespread (by which I mean universal :D we could alter {{WPBiography}} to not display the BLP notice when |nested=yes is also defined (since it would be duplicated by the notice over WPBS) but still add to the relevant categories. Happy‑melon 18:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs-infobox notice

When template:WPBiography is in WikiProjectBannerShell, the needs-infobox notice is not hidden. See Talk:Eduardo Maruri as an example. Is it possible to change template:WPBiography or WikiProjectBannerShell so that the needs-infobox notice is hidden when template:WPBiography is in WikiProjectBannerShell? Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would second this suggestion, and also request that the needs-photo banner likewise be hidden when inside the WikiProjectBannerShell. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This is going to take some work to figure out the new code and test it. I'll work on it tonight to see what I can do. For now I'm removing the editprotected tag since there's not immediate edits to be made, but if I can't figure this out in the next 24 hours I'll put it back up for another admin to look at. --CapitalR (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, take a look at the last example in {{WPBiography/testcases}} and let me know if that's what you're looking for. --CapitalR (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The non-nested version of the needs-photo banner also has a little paragraph that starts, "Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images..." See for example Talk:Ahmet Zappa. I'm not seeing that in the proposed nested version in {{WPBiography/testcases}}. I don't have a problem with that, but some people might want the paragraph to be included, to remind editors about the strict standards for BLP images. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that still works the same. The extra note only appears if "living=yes", which wasn't set in the testcases. If that flag is set, then it works just as before. I'll make these changes later today. --CapitalR (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Please let me know if there are other changes you would like to this template or if you would like a different style for the changes I just made. --CapitalR (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the extra note only appears if "living=yes", that make sense. Yeah, these banner changes seem perfect to me. Thanks! — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Thanks for the changes. GregManninLB (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Free image search tool

Template:Reqphoto has added

The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Could this also be added to the photo request section of this template? Thanks - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit requested

{{editprotected}}

The 'during a public appearance' should be changed to '(e.g. during a public appearance)' - there are other ways to take a photo, e.g. arranging to take one at their residence etc. Richard001 (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

living=yes

I think it is very important that there be a {{BLP}} on every talk page of BLPs due to their highly sensitive nature. Currently, this template can be added either by placing it directly, or by adding the |living=yes parameter to this template. However, I have come across at least one article where this parameter is not included, and therefore it is not in the category, nor is there any link to the noticeboard to report BLP concerns. Now, I assume that this must be an oversight (and indeed, the tag was added by a bot several years ago, and is thus likely in my mind), and not the norm. I propose that |living=yes is the default for the parameter; if it is not specified, the template will consider it to be 'yes'. While this may have some conflict when biographies of people, but dead people, have a similar oversight and are included in the BLP category, I believe that the necessity for the {{BLP}} and link to BLP/N outweighs any such disadvantage. Is there any particular opposition to this idea? seresin ( ¡? ) 05:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea that articles without |living= stop being assumed as biographies of dead people, but there are problems of its own by assuming they're of living people. The best approach, IMHO, would be to tag them as "maybe living", with categories of its own and a warning box that isn't as scary as the one that appears when |living=yes.

Another problem is related to the way {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{WikiProjectBanners}} work. The former has a |blp= parameter to show the living person warning box, since there's no proper way to do it from inside {{WPBiography}} when it's shelled. The latter I don't know, but it probably works in a similar way. So, what should happen in this case? Maybe some clever CSS trick and/or JavaScript? If we're going for this, we must first reach a clear solution to these technical problems. If such a solution exists, then I'm all for it. :-) -- alexgieg (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Any articles which do not have the |listas= parameter specified are added to Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. Perhaps a similar approach would be best here, i.e. have the template add any articles without the |living= parameter to Category:Biography articles without living parameter. This would of course require adding |living=no to the biographies of dead people, but the category would make it simple to identify those articles where this information needs to be added. PC78 (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

FL & List-Class

{{editprotected}} I would like to request the following changes to the template:

• The inclusion of FL-Class, now one of the standard assessment grades at WP:ASSESS.
• Categorisation of List-Class articles by work group (currently it's just for the Biography WP as a whole), since these will be picked up by the assessment bot.

Also a couple of bug fixes:

• Inclusion of a switch which allows the British Royalty Project to recognise the deprecated "Importance" parameter. All the other work groups have it, but not this one, oddly.
• A couple of minor capitalisation issues.

I have prepared the necessary code at User:PC78/Sandbox4, it just requires someone to cut & paste it over the current template. Many thanks! PC78 (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I copied it over. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Articles missing birth or death information

I have a musician biography article in alpha (Main Article: User:B.C.Schmerker/Article Prototype9) for which I am unable to obtain a date of birth, and this Template does not currently have a Boolean parameter for Needs-DOB-and/or-DOD, answering "yes" whereto would automatically categorize the Talk page of the applicable Article into Category:Articles missing birth or death information and/or call a daughter Template explaining the need for these data, with an appropriate caution in the case of articles on living people. Is there sufficient demand for such a Parameter in other biography Articles in alpha to warrant encoding into this Template the procedure for:

{{WikiProject Biography|
...
| needs-DOB-and/or-DOD =
...
}}

and, if so, can it be done and documented in Template:WikiProject Biography/doc and other doc pages as appropriate? B. C. Schmerker (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The article itself should be categorized under Category:Year of birth missing (living people); I'm not sure how duplicating this function in the project template would be beneficial. PC78 (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

YCategorization of User:B.C.Schmerker/Article Prototype9 in Category:Year of birth missing (living people) Done per counterproposal. I actually consider the proposed boolean function a time- and memory-saver for the Editor, especially if it can be integrated with the existing ListAs function for placement within the Category Category:Articles missing birth or death information. With the demand for this modification unknown, it's probably wise to run this mod by WPBio (Target Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography) for further discussion. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Template WPBeatles "vs." Template WPBiography

Please see Template_talk:WPBeatles#WPBiography_support. BNutzer (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Too large

This template can be too large. If there are more than 3 sections it should, by default display in hide mode. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Some kind of indirect vandalism

This template is somehow including or transcluding the text "bgfhgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhÁ———hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" into page Talk:Samuel Goldwyn... AnonMoos (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not the template, it's the "Comments" subpage of Talk:Samuel Goldwyn; I've tagged it for speedy deletion. PC78 (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

NOINDEX

Although I understand that Google doesn't index out talk pages anyway, I think we should add __NOINDEX__ or {{NOINDEX}} to this template for when "living" is true. That will cause all of the talkpages of BLPs to be NOINDEXed and excluded from reputable search engine results. That will make possible talk page defamation less likely to impact the subject. Such BLP violations can be hard to catch on a sprawling talk page.

Any thoughts? Cool Hand Luke 19:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please replace some PNGs with SVGs

{{editprotected}} Please replace Image:Nuvola apps edu mathematics.png with Image:Nuvola apps edu mathematics-p.svg in the Science and Academia Work Group section and Image:Nuvola apps package graphics.png with Image:Nuvola apps package graphics.svg in the Arts and Entertainment Work Group section. Thanks in advance. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, but the Arts and Entertainment image doesn't look too good on talk pages for me. I'll probably revert it soon. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Arts and Entertainment image reverted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Right-o. It's strange, that, really, as the SVG version appears fine in the little template on Image:Nuvola apps package graphics.png itself. I'll try to bring it up at WP:VPT at some point. It Is Me Here (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The image has been fixed now following my request - could you now change it here, too? It Is Me Here (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Image icon

I added an image icon for the portal link [1], which looks like this. Cirt (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Mbox classes

{{editprotected}} Please replace the template with the contents of {{WikiProject Biography/Archive 5/sandbox}}, leaving out the first line. This adds the mbox classes for the few independent message boxes above and below the main box. Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, but expect this to take quite a while to filter through because the template is very widely used. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Error message

Anyone know why this template is causing an error message on Talk:Alan Turing? Current version here. Thanks. MSGJ 13:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a conflict with {{LGBTProject}} regarding that templates use of DEFAULTSORT. I have requested an edit to that template which should resolve the matter. Regards. PC78 (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't think it's LGBT that's causing the error. See also Talk:Fyodor Dostoevsky and many others. MSGJ 18:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Talk:Fyodor Dostoevsky was that someone had used a {{DEFAULTSORT}} template in addition to the project banners. I have removed the {{DEFAULTSORT}} template and the error has now been resolved. Road Wizard (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Defaultsort should be removed from this template as well. It should not be used in templates, period. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree strongly. DEFAULTSORT should be used on talkpages and not in project templates. —teb728 t c 20:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This will probably need discussion by a broader audience. A large number of wikiproject templates have the capacity to use the listas parameter (many through the transclusion of {{WPBannerMeta}}). As it affects a number of WikiProjects, the WikiProject Council may be the best place to raise it. Road Wizard (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

listas problem

The template asserts DEFAULTSORT of the PAGENAME if the listas parameter is not given. This is a horrible idea for biographies because the title is almost always wrong, and it is the default anyway. Hundreds of biographies lack listas, and it may override a correct DEFAULTSORT on the page. —teb728 t c 09:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What appears to be happening is that only the Biography project generates a category when the listas parameter is missing. If the listas parameter is missing from the WPGreece template, the PAGENAME sort is assumed and conflicts with what is in the WPBiography template. Other national templates may do the same. I hope so.

JimCubb (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem with parameters

In Talk:Andreas Tilliander the template doesn't seem to interpret all parameters. I cannot see any typing errors or anything to acount for this. __meco (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed a "[" to a "|". Hopefully that fixed it. Best, --Jh12 (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated. __meco (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT conflicts

This template seems to be responsible for most of the DEFAULTSORT conflicts in Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts. The articles show up in this category and an error appears on the talk page whenever the listas parameter differs from the name of the article or from a DEFAULTSORT specified on the article page. What is the solution to this problem? —BradV 16:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to pin the blame on this template alone. I looked at the first two pages in that category, and the problem stems from a conflict between the "listas" parameter in this template and the same parameter in other templetes (specifically {{WikiProject Wine}} and {{WikiProject Greece}}, but no doubt others too). I'm think this can be resolved by recoding the parameter so that it doesn't use DEFAULTSORT, but I'll try and have a proper look later. PC78 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say that part of the solution is for this template to specify DEFAULTSORT only if listas is specified. What it does now is to use PAGENAME as the default. That is the wrong for most biographies. If we fix this template, 1. we could see clearer how much other templates are problematic, and 2. it might act as an example of what other templates should do. —teb728 t c 21:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on the research I've done, I would say this is correct, and would resolve the vast majority of the 2700 defaultsort conflicts. Can an admin please implement this change? —BradV 21:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the required change is to replace {{DEFAULTSORT:{{#if: {{{listas|}}}|{{{listas}}}|{{PAGENAME}} }} }} with {{#if: {{{listas|}}}|{{DEFAULTSORT:{{{listas}}} }} }}. —BradV 21:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No, that's not really going to solve anything. You'll still get a DEFAULTSORT conflict when the listas parameter is specified, and, while I appreciate that sorting by PAGENAME is incorrect for most biography articles, without it the default will be to sort everything under Talk: instead. I've done some quickie tests in my userspace, and I believe we need to do this:

• Remove {{DEFAULTSORT: {{#if: {{{listas|}}}|{{{listas}}}|{{PAGENAME}} }} }}
• Add this code (minus the DEFAULTSORT) to each and every category in the template code, so that they read [[Category:Somethingorother|{{#if: {{{listas|}}}|{{{listas}}}|{{PAGENAME}} }}]]

It's a bit longwinded, but it should have the desired effect. PC78 (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Per request... The fundamental issue here is not really DEFAULTSORT, but what happens when you don't use DEFAULTSORT. As noted above, pages where DEFAULTSORT is not used categorise by {{FULLPAGENAME}}, which puts all talk pages under "T". This is fundamentally stupid and requires hacks like the one PC78 proposes above. While your code works, PC, it is far from the best solution. A more relevant solution is found here; I proposed to change the default category sort keys to ignore the namespace prefix when sorting. That means that a page Talk:Foo Bar would categorise under "F" by default. This means that we only need to specify DEFAULTSORTs on pages such as biographies where it should be sorted by surname.

Obviously this is not the entire solution to the problem, but the other issues spring from it. As noted, the problem arises when there are two or more banners on the same page all specifying their own DEFAULTSORTs. If the default category sortkeys were changed, then none of these banners would need to speficy default DEFAULTSORTs of PAGENAME. So we could reconfigure all these banners to only specify a DEFAULTSORT if a value is given to |listas=. This will resolve the huge majority of the DEFAULTSORT conflicts. We would then be left only with the instances where two banners really are specifying different DEFAULTSORT values, which is a legitimate problem that has to be resolved for each individual instance.

So how to proceed? We need to get that default category sortkey changed. I've already opened a bug (T18552), but the discussion at VPR got archived. My suggestions are: anyone who has a bugzilla account go and vote for that bug, and anyone else indicate support at the restored thread at VPR. This is a key first step on getting this problem fixed, IMO. Happy‑melon 13:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So if we can get the default category sortkey changed, then we'll still need to reconfigure all troublesome banners in order to resolve these conflicts? And this would mean making the change suggested above by Bradv? Is that correct? PC78 (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that that change should be made to every banner that supports the |listas= functionality. Then each page only needs the DEFAULTSORT key set once, so we can resolve the majority of conflicts by checking whether {{WPBiography}} has a |listas= parameter set and, if so, removing the |listas= parameters from other banners (or just changing them to make sure they're all the same). Happy‑melon 16:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

OK then; first things first, I've lent my support to your proposal at VP. Is there an easy way of tracking down all the banners that use a "listas" parameter, or will it have to be done the hard way, i.e. by going through the cleanup category on a page by page basis? Incidentally, how does your meta template handle "listas"? PC78 (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I just came to this from Category:Biography articles without listas parameter where I am adding the parameter, something like trying to empty the Pacific Ocean with an eyedropper. I managed to induce the error, since fixed by someone else who saw something I cannot find. I will work on Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts to resolve the conflicts that can be resolved. Some things work some of the time. When I have finished, perhaps by the end of the year but don't count on it, all that will be left will be those where the listas parameter is causing a problem but I cannot figure out where. Does that make sense to you?

JimCubb (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Bulletin! Bulletin! Bulletin!
As noted above, some templates use the absence of a listas parameter to make the PAGENAME the DEFAULTSORT. This is generally undesirable but easy to fix. The conflict error message appears on the Talk page just below the template that needs the listas parameter. Note where that is. Edit the page. Copy the parameter from the template at the top of the page into the misbehaving template. Preview the page to see if there is another and fix it if there is. Add an edit summary, save and move on. (I said it is easy. I did not say it is not tedious.)
Just for a feeling of accomplishment I took a break from "A" and wiped out "X" and everything after "Z".
I am only refreshing after every five or so because I use the back button or open the offender in a new window. Your results may vary.

JimCubb (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

living = Yes (vs. yes)

I think that the "living =" parameter should be able to accept "Yes" as well as "yes". Currently, if you put living=Yes, the needs-photo banner does not show the warning about adding photos of living persons, e.g. at Talk:Simon Brown (footballer born 1983), but if you put living=yes, it does show it. Can the template be amended? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As with most things these days, the many of the parameters are case-sensitive, especially the parameter names, "Living" is not recognized but "living" is, "Listas" is not recognized but "listas" is. Another simple fact of life is that it will take much longer for the template to be recoded such as you wish than it will take you to get used to the case-sensitivity and forget that it ever was a concern to you. That is why I did not suggest something similar for blp. After roughly six weeks and 2000 to 3000 edits "blp=yes" rolls off the fingers and if I see "BLP" or "blp=Yes" it catches my eye as being wrong before I find what I am there to correct.

Does that make sense?

JimCubb (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Working groups: scope/support?

Hi, having filled in this template for the first time, I found one of the explanations misleading. I filled in "|s&a-work-group = yes" because the page described this tag as indicating that the article fall into the scope of said working group. But of course, the text that appeared claimed the article was supported by the working group which, not being a member, I would find presumptive to claim. So what is it - does the tag mean it is supported? Or is anything within the scope automatically supported? Am I as the article's main author meant to add the tag to alert the working group to the article's existence? Or does the working group decide which articles to tag? Some information about this on the template's description page would have made matters much easier for me. Markus Poessel (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Noindex

We really ought to {{NOINDEX}} this template as the pages this template appears on tend to attract disputes over BLPs and might contain material that is defamatory to a person, while the material is being discussed and analyzed for reliable sources and weight. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, seeing no objections I did so. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I probably paid no attention to this as I had no idea what the {{NOINDEX}} did. Now that I do understand that it only means that supposedly the page it is on will not be indexed by search engines, I hope it is not too late to object strongly to this action.

• A biography talk page is precisely where disputes over BLP should occur.
• The biography page will still be indexed by search engines.
• "Supposedly" is the operative word. How can WP markup affect what a Yahoo, Google or any other search does or does not index?
• The category that {{NOINDEX}} populates is of no value to WP. At least I have been unable to get anyone to describe its value. Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts contains pages that may not be listed correctly. Category:Biography articles without listas parameter contains pages that probably will not be listed correctly such as Talk:Viktor Asmaev is under V not A. (Category:Biography articles with listas parameter contains pages that may not be listed correctly as it is my experience that some sort criteria, mainly those that have been applied by a bot, are incorrect.) The category that {{NOINDEX}} populates merely takes up space.

JimCubb (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, talk pages is where disputes occur. The biography page will be indexed. It is known from their technical specifications and operation that adding meta-data to a page telling Yahoo or Google to not index a page, will result in it being not indexed. The category is a hidden category that does not appear to logged out users and can be hidden in you preferences. MBisanz ^talk 05:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are where disputes should occur.

I have been working to clean up a hidden category for a couple of months now and need to see hidden categories. I seem to recall that a hidden category is listed in edit mode whatever the preference setting.

A "hidden category" is a category that is only listed at the bottom of the page for a user whose preference settings allow its being listed. The category itself still takes up room on the servers. This category has more than 1,500 sub-categories that take up further room on the servers.

Why is it necessary to track this? I have asked this on the templates talk page and have yet to get an answer. I do not question the value of hidden categories and wish that many more were hidden. I do question the value of tracking pages that are not indexed by search engines.

JimCubb (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is because {[tl|NOINDEX}} is used on 377,000 pages that a category is used, since some of the query tools don't work well on Special:WhatLinksHere, but do work on Category: grepping. Other than that, I don't know. MBisanz ^talk 06:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Could It Be? (WPBS compliance)

According to the edit summary for a change on the main page it would seem that I no longer need to put the nested parameter in this template when I insert the WPBS. Is this true? JimCubb (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, yes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone has to update Template:WikiProjectBannerShell/doc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Biography articles without living parameter

I think we have to create this category. This will help Yobot to add the parameter in all talk pages correctly and faster. Agree? -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. I vaguely recall suggesting this ages ago, but it never got anywhere. I'm all for it. :) PC78 (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How this category can be created? -- Magioladitis (talk)

It needs an edit to the banner. Try changing:

-->{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{living|}}}}}|yes|{{blp}}[[Category:Biography articles of living people]]}}{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{activepol|}}}}}|yes|{{activepol}}}}<!--

to:

-->{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{living|}}}}}|yes|{{blp}}[[Category:Biography articles of living people]]}}{{#switch:{{lc:{{{living|}}}}}|yes|no=|<includeonly>[[Category:Biography articles without living parameter]]</includeonly>}}{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{activepol|}}}}}|yes|{{activepol}}}}<!--

This will categorise any pages without the parameter as well as any that use the parameter with a value other than "yes" or "no". PC78 (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a necessity since there is an agreement that the banners should contain both parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

For the above change (code is near the top of the template). Might take a while for the category to fill up, though. PC78 (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll add it in the source but let's wait 1-2 days to get sure more editors have seen it and don't disagree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realise you were an admin. :) I don't see why anyone would oppose this change, but by all means give it a few days before making the change. Regards. PC78 (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I am always stressed when touching highly visible templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't consider this before, but I see that the category is picking up categories, templates, disambiguation pages etc. This can be fixed if need be. PC78 (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It would nice if we could exclude them. Of course, Yobot isn't affected by this. I am running it in the intersection of this category with living people of other yod categories. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Any guess of the number of articles finally included in this category? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

All the musical groups will also be there. Give it some time. Then comes the decision of whether a rock band or a symphony orchestra is living or not as only a few people are concerned about musical groups' being covered by the project.

My guess is that there will be about 200,000 valid articles included in the category based upon what I have seen in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter.

That is a nice lead-in to the article I just finished. A living person, in three projects who did not have the living parameter nor the listas parameter in any of the project banners but did have "nested=yes" in each of the banners and no shell at all. Fortunately all the banners have been fixed so it was not apparent. A few weeks ago and it would have looked really odd. I replaced the nested parameter with a correct listas value, slapped WPBS around the three and put blp=yes at the top. I've been at this for so long I did not even shake my head at the mess but it was good for a laugh.

JimCubb (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am discovering some great things myself. I discovered broken tags vandalism more than 2 years ago and that none fixed them. My guess is 200-250k. Yobot has run though 200k out of 560k. Guess some are already fixed... so it will take a while to reveal us the real situation. I am very confident for both living and listas after the recent developments. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to discover major vandalism and minor vandalism is almost to be expected. Most of that sort that I have found does not appear on the page and is only visible in Edit mode. The good faith edits that are wrong are the ones that give me pause. I share your confidence, believe it or not. The last two weeks have been wonderful. The last 10,000 or so in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter will take forever because they will be the ones where there is no DEFAULTSORT value to grab and there is confusion lack of consensus on how they should be listed.

However, back to real seriousness. As I noted above some banners lack the living parameter but since there are more than two banners on the page I use WPBS and blp, ignoring the living parameter. Should I put living=yes in the Biog banner anyway?

Are we allowed to have this much fun?

JimCubb (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Put the "living=yes" even if there is blp. I noticed that if someones comments it out, AWB crashes. Anyway, since it doesn't affect the visual result, I recommend to add it. Some editors, remove the WPBS or blp and forget to add the living=yes back. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I made AWB crash? Be still, my trembling heart!

It seems redundant but I will put blp and "living". I actually see a value to having both. (The blp is needed to produce the blp banner when WPBS is present. When the person dies, delete the blp and change "living=yes" to "living=no" rather than forget to add "living=no". I won't go back through the ones I have already done, however. My support for redundancy has its limits.

JimCubb (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am making many typing errors. :) -- Magioladitis (talk)

They are only 4,042 articles in Category:Biography disambiguation pages. So, no need to take extra measures to exclude them from this category. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes to the documentation with respect to this amendment. I feel that the emphsis is needed as I for one have previously sometimes practiced deleting the living= line for deceased persons. I have not edited this page before, so if you regulars disagree with my edit or feel reason to tweak it, go ahead and make the requisite changes. __meco (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that the Category has been created and populating it is well under way, I looked at the poor thing. The first 100 ± 10 seem to be bands! I seem to recall that bands do not require an entry in the living parameter so there will be a "problem" ctegory that has a few thousan false positives. If it is determined that musical groups no need a value for the living parameter, when is a band living and when is it not? Can bands go from not living to living?

I think this brings us back to an issue that has reared its ugly head before only to be ignored. Why are musical groups covered by this project? If their inclusion is valid then we also need to include all sports' teams and all political groups as we cover all athletes and politicians.

See what happens when you flap your wings?

JimCubb (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone link us to a discussion/decision that bands should be included in the project? I find it a bit weird and I agree with JimCubb's reasoning. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nearest I can find to an actual discussion is here; essentially, bands fall under the scope of WP:MUSICIAN which is an integrated part of WP:BIOGRAPHY and this banner. For what it's worth, though, I disagree with you both. Articles about bands are biographical by nature, i.e. bands are people, whereas sports teams and political groups are more than that. To answer Jim's initial question, I would say that a band is "living" if at least one member is still alive, and "not living" if all members are dead. PC78 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I guess. I question that the infra-structure for a band is less people oriented than the infra-structure for a particular governments' Ministers / Cabinet Secretaries or Symphony Orchestras. (Bands are included but Orchestras are not?)

As for the answer to my initial question, The Beatles and The Highwaymen are still alive even though half the members of each group are dead and there is no possibility of successors to either group? For that matter what about The Crickets as at least two members are still alive?

JimCubb (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would treat all of those as living. PC78 (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I am on it. This is a difficult task. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Category assessed biography articles

I think we have to create this category as well. I can't understand why doesn't exist. It seems to be for any other class. Any disagreements/opinions/etc.? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK such categories don't exist; certainly it wouldn't serve the same kind of purpose as Category:Unassessed biography articles. How do you see this being useful? PC78 (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I see Category talk:Austrian dancers, Category talk:Austrian dancers and hundreds more. They all appear in Category:Biography articles without living parameter. Moreover, I see that many other projects have such categories. Look for example Category:Category-Class physics articles and much more. They are all found in Category:Category-Class articles -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you before. I think you mean Category:WikiProject Biography categories, which is the same thing only named differently. PC78 (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right. The name is a bit weird on the other hand. I think we should rename it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

template loop

This template might lead to a template loop. See e.g. Talk:Subhash Kak and press "Show". Debresser (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not the template; the problem is that the comments subpage has been redirected to the talk page. PC78 (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If you could just tell me how to fix that in general, I could do that on all 3 pages with this problem. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I now understand. Just blank the comment page. That should do the trick, don't you think? Debresser (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be the easiest way, though if the pages aren't worth keeping they can probably be deleted. PC78 (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This came up at RfD and I ended up just blanking it (in my opinion, there's no point in deleting), but it might be useful to document that the [[/Comments]] page should not be redirected. Any redirect might cause problems; the one here is just the worst case. On the other hand, I don't know how often this actually comes up in practice. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I found 3 such pages today and that's all of them. I have also blanked one of them, but deletetion would be the best solution. See Category_talk:Infobox_templates#3_infoboxes_causing_template_loop. Debresser (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Update Due?

I see that "living" has a notation that it is a required field. Could the same be done for listas? I believe, with no substantiating data, that there are more musical groups in the project's purview than there are entities whose names' first words are the order in which they should be sorted.

Could something be added to the description of the listas parameter to the effect that DEFAULTSORT is not to be used on the Talk page and that any category tags on the talk page need to have a pipe with the sort criterion added? (This is one of the many details that were not considered when a very small group of people decided to move some tags from the article page to the talk page. I am almost certain that convincing people to put in the pipe will be easier than convincing people to reverse an ill-advised decision.

While you are about it, why not delete the information about the "nested" parameter and it is no longer needed? I don't know that it does any harm by its being there but it may.

JimCubb (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Needs-persondata category

Per a request on the help desk, it might be a good idea to populate a category with those known to need person data. It should be a easy change on the template, but I like consensus :) I don't think one already exists, so why not, really? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it would be easy enough to do, but is it really the best way of tracking these articles? It's not a visible component of the article, so you would have to open up the edit box to see if the person data is there or not, then go to the talk page and add the parameter to the banner. In the time it takes to do all that, you could reasonably have just added the person data template yourself. It would be better to have a bot check all articles tagged for the biography project and see which ones don't have the person data template. PC78 (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean populate a category from the template (needs persondata already exists as a parameter).- Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Ah well, if the parameter already exists then fair enough! Here's the relevant code in the template:

-->{{#ifeq:{{{needs-persondata|}}}|yes| {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{nested|}}}}}|yes|<tr><td colspan=3><hr></td></tr>|<table class="tmbox tmbox-notice {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|mbox-small}}">}} <tr><td class="mbox-image">[[Image:Icon tools.svg{{!}}32px{{!}}Maintenance]]</td> <td class="mbox-image" {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{nested|}}}}}|yes|colspan=2}}>Appropriate '''[[Wikipedia:Persondata{{!}}persondata]]''' may need to be added to this article, or the current persondata may need to be updated. Please refer to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Persondata{{!}}WikiProject Persondata]] for further information.</td></tr>{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{nested|}}}}}|yes||</table>}}

It just needs a category adding to it, like this:

-->{{#ifeq:{{{needs-persondata|}}}|yes| {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{nested|}}}}}|yes|<tr><td colspan=3><hr></td></tr>|<table class="tmbox tmbox-notice {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|mbox-small}}">}} <tr><td class="mbox-image">[[Image:Icon tools.svg{{!}}32px{{!}}Maintenance]]</td> <td class="mbox-image" {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{nested|}}}}}|yes|colspan=2}}>Appropriate '''[[Wikipedia:Persondata{{!}}persondata]]''' may need to be added to this article, or the current persondata may need to be updated. Please refer to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Persondata{{!}}WikiProject Persondata]] for further information.</td></tr>{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{nested|}}}}}|yes||</table>}}[[Category:Biography articles without persondata]]

No reason not to do this; the parameter is pretty useless without a tracking category to go with it. But as I said, I think a bot created worklist would ultimately be a better way of tracking articles that need persondata adding. PC78 (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Please check it's working as intented. This category needs to be created (and possibly made into a hidden category?) Cheers, Martin^msgj 21:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles needing attention categories

I would like to propose a change to the template that for all WPBiography articles which have a work group, that if attention=yes instead of the article being added to Category:Biography articles needing attention, they go to [[Category:<Name of work group> articles needing attention instead]]. So for example, if politician-work-group=yes and attention=yes, it will be added to Category:Politics and government work group articles needing attention. The Actors and filmmakers, Musicians and British royalty work groups both do this already. This will help diffuse Category:Biography articles needing attention and will also help bring the articles to the attention of their respective work groups. Any comments? - kollision (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

NOINDEX

{{editprotected}} Please remove the instance of {{NOINDEX}} from this template. It's causing translcusion to tons of category talk pages, project pages, and others that only contain the banner and no controversial or problematic discussion. Applying the NOINDEX tag indiscriminately like this on a WikiProject banner is way too sloppy and abuses the NOINDEX system in a way. All article talk pages are not indexed already (I believe this is a site wide setting), so I fail to see even a need for this. -- Ned Scott 03:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Just in case anyone was wondering, someone brought it up at Template talk:NOINDEX#Why Does This Template Exist?. -- Ned Scott 03:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And I honestly can't fathom why anyone would object to this, but in case they do, at least make it so it only activates when the "living" conditional is used. The Bio WikiProject has a heck of a lot more articles on stiffs than on the living. -- Ned Scott 03:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I would rather err on the side of accidentally not indexing things than on the side of indexing pages that should not be. I see no reason to remove this and every reason to keep it, barring more discussion. Let's not hastily remove this, even briefly. ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Lar, understand that this is on the WikiProject banner for all bio related pages, article or not. There is absolutely no logic to not indexing category talk pages like Category talk:1890 deaths. If we make it a conditional with "living" it will trigger with the same consistency as the BLP message. That would be perfectly safe and not be risking anything. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The no-article talk thing is as a result of google's search practice, WM still provides the talk pages fully indexed and google chooses not to index them. Also, there are pages other than BLP that this template is on that should be noindexed and are not caught in other templates. Category talk:Participants in the September 11 attacks and Category talk:South African humanitarians are pages where there could be controversial talk about BLPs and leaving them noindexed would be the most conservative approach to take. And also don't forget that our BLP tagging is woefully understaffed. A recent study indicates there are 30,000 bios without the living person switch turned on because of editor negligence. MBisanz ^talk 06:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion on my talk, if "living" were applied, without fail or possibility of removal, even accidentally, even briefly, to every single BLP, I would be fine with this restriction. Otherwise, I prefer to err on the side of caution, and apply it to everything tagged with this template. ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this has since moved on, but I can't help but point out that there's probably a better chance of someone accidentally removing/not including/etc the entire project banner from the talk page. If you want to err on the side of caution to such an extreme degree then maybe we should just delete every single BLP. -- Ned Scott 06:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a short, un-referenced, personal history of applying this template to the talk pages of all the pages that are within the Biography project. (I am the one who started the discussion at Template talk:NOINDEX#Why Does This Template Exist?. As of a few seconds ago the Talk pages of the categories that I listed at the end of my last post, categories of people who died in years more than a century or a millenium ago, still had not bee repaired.

• An admin proposed applying the NOINDEX tag to all WP Biography articles on the Talk Page to the WP Biography template. Five days later the admin posted that, as there had been no objection to the proposal, he was going to make the change to the WP Biography template so that it included the NOINDEX. A few hours after that post an editor posted that Talk pages were not indexed by search engines and I posted that there were specific warnings that the WP Biography template should not be changed without extensive discussion and clear consensus as it was on almost 1/3 of the pages. With a consensus of one the NOINDEX tag was applied to all WP Biography articles.

• I attempted to learn why this change was needed by asking the admin who proposed it and a couple of editors and none of the answers addressed the question. Almost all the answers promoted the virtues of Hidden Categories.

• I still question the need for this template. I stopped worrying about the impact that applying it to 1/3 of the pages on WP after it was done.

• In light of the history of this matter I believe that admin who called for consensus was way out of line. The NOINDEX tag was applied with a consensus of one, after no discussion and, as noted above, is causing problems. (I also believe that the stated purpose of applying the NOINDEX tag, that of hiding controversial pages, stifles discussion and consensus building.)

I will leave it to others to do the standard WP thing and cite the guidelines that this matter has violated (don't forget ownership). I will go back to monitoring the pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts and the WP Biography articles that have the importance parameter while I am fixing everything that I see wrong with the Biography pages without the listas parameter such as no living parameter. JimCubb (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that it's no longer just one editor that feels this needs to be applied. " there are 30,000 bios without the living person switch turned on because of editor negligence"... that fact far outweighs some dead people's pages being misapplied. Per IAR "First, do no harm" trumps "the forms must be obeyed". ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

First, as of the last time I refreshed my screen there are 51,760 bios without the living parameter. The last count on the talk page showed 57,094 articles of which 4,088 are disambiguation pages, about 200 are lists and 3,563 contain "band" in their title. Add to that the number of bands that do not contain "band" in their title (AC/DC and ABBA for example) and the dead people and there are a nearly insiginficant number. However, just to add bit of perspective to the matter, on 6 February there were 375,812 biography articles without listas parameter but as of the last time I refreshed my screen there are only 174,295 such articles. In ten weeks a missing parameter has been applied by a bunch of diligent editors to four times the number of articles that lack the living parameter. It might be better to find a bunch of diligent editors who are willing to attack the problem you have stated (with an unwarranted slur) so that the NOINDEX tag could be applied appropriately.

Second, the following is the explanation for the NOINDEX tag that was placed on Category:Wikipedia noindex pages as a justification for the tag. I fail to see that it explains anything.

The primary purpose is to provide a visual element (the hidden category) on the page. Hidden categories are visible on the edit form, so this category exposes the actual status of the edited page to the editor - if the hidden category is missing on a page where an editor expects it to be there, they are more likely to add it.

Third, if, as I infer from the comments I have read about this tag's being applied to biography articles' talk pages, the object of the tag is to keep search engines from finding talk pages of biographies of living persons, why is it being used when

• Talk pages are not indexed by search engines even if they lack the NOINDEX tag
• The biographies of living people are indexed by search engines and the biography itself is where the controversy is apt to appear rather than on the talk page.

Fourth, with the same inference as above, why are so many of the first 1200 entries in the Category of NOINDEX pages not only not living people but more than one-third of the pages are clearly indicated as being dead people?

Fifth, thank you for forcing me through the exercise that was needed for point #4. On the 7th page of the listing there are a number of persons whose listas parameter is set to ">". This verifies my suspicion that there are incorrect values in the pages with the listas parameter. By the way most of those whose listas parameter is set to ">" are dead.

JimCubb (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Responding to point four, Noindex is for any page that should not be presented to the public. Many sockpuppet reports contain real people's names or IP locations, hence the need to remove them. Also, talk pages are only removed from google because of google's internal policies. Look at this yahoo search (a plausible search term I think), where the first five results are talk pages [2]. MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. ("Responding to point four, . . .")

Fourth, with the same inference as above, why are so many of the first 1200 entries in the Category of NOINDEX pages not only not living people but more than one-third of the pages are clearly indicated as being dead people?

I concede that "Washington Archives" is a plausible search term. Will you concede that George Washington has been dead for more than two hundred years?

JimCubb (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the first 1200 or so entires i see in the Category are suspected sockpuppet categories, so I am not sure how we determine if they are alive or dead, and is Hillary sufficiently alive [3]? :) MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I will indeed agree that Hillary is alive. The fact that an archive of her article's talk page still shows up in a search engine is another reason to remove the template from this banner — It does more harm than good. No archive of a talk page will carry a project banner so no archive of the talk page of a living person's article will be affected by the {{NOINDEX}} tag. As noted above it is causing problem where it has been placed incorrectly. Please remove it from the banner.

JimCubb (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"noindex" template

{{sudo}} I buy the argument above about how you can't restrict this to only living people because there are 3264 pages the template is on where you don't know if they're living or not, but can it at least be changed to only add {{NOINDEX}} in the Talk: namespace, and not in any of the others. Category:400 BC deaths is most definitely not a living person, and it's also causing various other pages, like for example this one, to not be indexed, which is a problem. Thanks. Gurch (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I support this. I also think it should be uncontroversial to remove NOINDEX from any pages where the living parameter is explicity set to "no". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In order to protect living people, I think the proposal above is very good. If the living parameter is set to "no" NOINDEX should not apply. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the change. It will also be excluded from dab pages and other non-articles in mainspace. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record I have to admit that there is a very small percentage (less than 0.1%) of living people marked with "living=no" my mistake. But this is not a problem since my bot and maybe others are fixing this regularly. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? The default is no value, why would someone explicitly mark a living person as not living (other than vandalism)? 0.1% = 380 articles. Gurch (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

By mistake and only. Some people add templates and they don't know what the parameters are for. Sometimes bots are also mistaken due to false positives. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

needs-photo

I would like to have some comments on an idea. Does this have merits?

The Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people is so large that I cannot believe anyone goes through it to see if they can fulfill any of them. The solution is maybe to split into smaller groups. The proposal is therefor to create an additional parameter in {{WPBiography}} namely in=, where a country or region can be input. This would then place the article in a category like Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people in Japan. The advantage of this is that the category can be placed, not just in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people, but also in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in country and will then be brought to the attention of more people who could possibility address the request. Obviously a person can be found in more than one country but at least the main place can be identified.Traveler100 (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea. I think it may also be appropriate to find a way to create more subcategories under Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people. For example, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople alone has more than 12,000 articles in it as of this writing. Surely it would make more sense at least to divide that into footballers, baseballers, hockey players, Olympians, swimmers, curlers, professional rock-paper-scissors players, etc. That would be easy to do with {{reqphoto}} but I expect it would require more coordination to do with {{WPBiography}}.

(To be up front about my biases, I think that it would be a better solution in general to use {{reqphoto}} for all of these image requests as it offers more flexibility. However, I realize that that could make the {{WPBiography}} article assessment process more cumbersome, so I am not presently proposing that.) Tim Pierce (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

splitting sportspeople also makes sense so can place as sub-cats of the particular sports photo request categories. Should however the naming be people in American football, people in soccer and people in Chess, ...? ; just in case people get pedantic about placing managers and commentators in the same category. Traveler100 (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If the reqphoto was used instead of parameters then it would make sense to remove the need-photo=yes from the the Biography template, would this cause any problems?Traveler100 (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

parameter proposal

{{editprotected}} Two additional parameters in= and photo-cat=.

The in parameter is for location and will add, in addition to current categories, the article talk page to photo request category for places. The photo-cat will override existing photo request category placement and place in a sub-category on a specific grouping.

Examples:

• {{WikiProject Biography|sports-work-group=yes|needs-photo=yes|in=France}}
  • Places article in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people in France and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople
• {{WikiProject Biography|sports-work-group=yes|needs-photo=yes|photo-cat=Golfers}}
  • Places article in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Golfers only.
• {{WikiProject Biography|sports-work-group=yes|needs-photo=yes|in=Germany|photo-cat=soccer players}}
  • Places article in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people in Germany and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of soccer players.
• {{WikiProject Biography|needs-photo=yes|photo-cat=LDS church members}}
  • Places article in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of LDS church members.

Traveler100 (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not done for now:. Thanks for the suggestion but this a massively transcluded banner and all changes should be examined in minute detail.

1. Could you obtain consensus first? The only other person who participated in the discussion above suggests using {{reqphoto}} instead, and I might agree with that actually.
2. If consensus is obtained, please put the changes required in Template:WikiProject Biography/sandbox for others to comment on.
3. Then place the editprotected.

Thanks! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

action being taken

OK what I plan to do.

The main aim is to address the requests for photographs. To do this the requests need to be made easily visible to people who can and are willing to address them. I am therefore creating two sets of categories:

• Based on country, see under Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people by country
• Based on reason for notoriety. So profession, type of sport etc.

For the people in country categories talk pages will be added to this category based on a region project task template and that they are in the request for photo of people category or that they are in a request for photo in country category and have WPBIO template. They will be added to the people in country cat, removed from the in country cat but kept in the people cat. This task I have started. This will not reduce the number of requests for photographs of people list but will add them into more manageable and useful lists visible to photographers looking by regions.

For the 'people by notoriety' categories I plan to create categories such as request for photographs of golfers. With this task the need-photo parameter will be removed from the WPBiography template. The idea is to split the large list into smaller more manageable lists that subject experts can then go through. This task I plan to start once the country list has been done (this may take some time!) Traveler100 (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs-photo (2)

Before you lot start categorising requests, may I suggest you look through this list? It lists articles which have probably been mis-tagged (all 2000 of them). i.e. they actually already have photos. Feel free to send me any major "it's counting this as an image but it's not of him/her" requests (currently blacklisting non-jpgs, icons, flags and stub images). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Useful tool, was not aware of this. thanks for the info. Traveler100 (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

DW, I only made it yesterday. (By the way, I wasn't trying to pour scorn on your efforts (au contraire), just trying to save you some time categorising requests which were bad anyway.) - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea, thanks for the work! Tim Pierce (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Went though some on the the list. Looks like about 50% are valid for removal of need-photo.Traveler100 (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think as a first task we have to clean this up. Nice tool. We need something like this for the needs-infobox as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a good thing I made one of those yesterday too! It can only handle one given infobox at a time though - Infobox Person is here. Takes a while to load all 600+ on the list. My advice would be to work through those first, then switch to another infobox and repeat. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Great!!! I had something similar in my mind. Make my bot run in the intersection of Infobox person and needs-infobox. You are great. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just how great? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 07:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Another request. Would it be possible to list articles in a category that have a particular template in them? For example, how many {{WikiProject Cricket}} in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople or {{LDSproject}} or {{WikiProject Germany}} in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people. Would be useful to assess if above proposal is worth doing. Traveler100 (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't claim credit for one of the most popular tools on the toolserver, but I believe Duesentrieb's Cat Scan can handle that. If I'm reading you right, this should equate to your first query (it took ages to load for me, and aborted after it found 1000, but that's hardly a bad thing. Consider intersecting two categories for faster results - does that template add all articles to a set category?). Anyhow, I'm sure you can tailor that to get whatever you want out of it. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 07:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That is what I was looking for. As you say a lot of cricketers; other groups are typically around the 150-250 mark.Traveler100 (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a mistake to try to shoehorn traditional Arabic names into the European naming scheme of inherited surnames...

Several no doubt well-meaning, good-faith bot owners have set their bots adding "listas" parameters to the talk pages of articles about individuals with Arabic names.

There are two parallel naming schemes used with traditional Arabic names. Neither one uses inheritable surnames.

Some of these bot owners base their changes on the earlier placement of {{DEFAULTSORT}} tags in the articles. Unfortunately those {{DEFAULTSORT}} tags were almost all placed by well-meaning, good-faith contributors who don't understand the nature of Arabic names.

I don't have a bot to fix these errors. I spent six hours last night trying to undo the work of these bots.

Could bot owners please show more caution and less hubris? Geo Swan (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I was afraid that there was not a single naming scheme and have generally ignored Arabic names in the Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. Where I have been overly bold I have either copied the DEFAULTSORT value to the listas, if there was one and it seemed to match the usage in the article, or I have created a DEFAULTSORT value from the usage in the article and then copied that to the listas. There have been times when there was not a consistent usage in the article so I gave up.

Would you be so kind as to go to the Category:Biography articles without listas parameter and work on all the Arabic names that you can find? It would be much better for the DEFAULTSORT and listas values to be correct even if it is extremely labor-intensive and time consuming than for the values to be wrong in the interest of saving time, don't you agree?

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I will ignore the listas value of persons with Arabic names as I do not pretend to understand the schemes.

JimCubb (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

DAB pages

Is there a consistent policy for the use of this template on disambiguation pages? I notice a good chunk of the articles in the Category:Biography articles without living parameter are DAB pages. Any ideas? --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I noticed that this very week. Asked on IRC, don't think I got an answer. It's a real poser, actually. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel like these articles should have the no-bio = yes option (although many don't, it would seem), perhaps the template should not add the page to the cat if that option is checked. Then it would be a nice bot task (or a tedious human one) to make sure every dab page with the WPBio template has the no-bio option on. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If there's consensus for all DABs to be no-bio (and I'm not saying there isn't), my bot would have it done pretty easily. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be an idea to have the template exclude any Disambig-Class pages from the category. PC78 (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that would work too. I was thinking that it would be a rare non-biographical article for which the alive parameter makes any sense, so we could take care of any other varieties which might otherwise end up in the category. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Great idea! It could also take care of the organizations and groups, definitively not biographical, that are in the musician work group but do not belong in the Biog Project. Please make it happen.

JimCubb (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Living" parameter not applicable to certain classes

Moved from bottom of page. {{sudo}} Please change this to not put disambiguation pages in Category:Biography articles without living parameter, as a living parameter doesn't make sense on those pages anyway. This means putting an extra conditional to check {{{class}}} = Dab around where the category appears. Gurch (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there any other classes which need to be excluded? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"List" probably but I am not 100% sure. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the disambig class case, but "Living=yes" for lists could mean that some of the listed people are alive. This is important because lists can violate WP:BLP, while disambig pages (presumably) cannot. GregorB (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I agree. Let's implement it only for DAB class. Lists should be tagged with living=yes if at least one person of the list is alive. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-articles? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right but it's not a big gain. Category:Biography articles without living parameter is only for talk pages of articles. And very few non-articles are of this type. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed code on the sandbox (diff). Comments? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We should add the Redirect class as well then. IT turns out we have one! -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The template code has no support for Redirect-Class. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I just saw an article with Redirect class. Thanks! -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Seems to be working as intended! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

|nested=yes

Is it intentional that when |nested=yes is removed that the |needs-photo=yes results do not get "squished" with the rest of the banner?--Rockfang (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sould it be squished? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it probably should be. I'm not sure what current consensus is though.--Rockfang (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else have an opinion on this?--Rockfang (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Me again! I think it should not be squished but I am ok either way. I hope more people raise their opinion on this one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you two are talking about. How do you propose to "squish" the parameter exactly? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that certain elements of the banner do not collapse inside a banner shell without using the otherwise obsolete |nested= parameter, e.g.

This should really be fixed. It shouldn't be necessary to use |nested=yes just to get the banner doing something it should be doing anyway. PC78 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a job for happy-melon. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed the issue. Thank you for rewording it. :) Rockfang (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The way this is accomplished with WPBM (for the |auto= parameter, etc) is using CSS; both the 'inside' and 'outside' versions are included in the banner, but only one is ever visible. That could probably be done here, but I think you need tmbox styles to do it (the banner is currently still using the messagebox standard-talk styles that were deprecated almost a year ago).

I can probably fix it, but I'd be borrowing code from WPBM to do so. I think WPBM can handle everything that WPBio could want (and more). There's already a fairly complete WPBM version at Template:WPBiography/sandbox/meta; if Martin and I tidy that up, and I fix the |listas= functionality on WPBM (which I'm aware is broken, but I'll implement a workaround until T18552 is fixed), would you guys think about converting? I'm not trying to blackmail you; if you'd rather I tried to fix the existing code I'll do that, but I would rather not duplicate work. What do you think? Happy‑melon 22:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as the photo thing gets squished eventually, I'm cool.  :) Doesn't matter to me how or when it gets squished.--Rockfang (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to using the meta here if you guys are satisfied there are no issues, but it's a fairly trivial matter to strip the remaining "nested" code from this template. I've yanked the offending code from {{WPBiography/sandbox}} so that the nested behaviour is now the default; if nothing else it could serve as a short term fix until the meta version is ready. PC78 (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to move away from the multiple-boxes setup, that's even better (makes it even easier to switch over to WPBM). I don't really see why these sometimes display as separate boxes anyway. Happy‑melon 16:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree; this is all one banner, so I don't see the logic in having it assume the appearance of multiple templates. It's a fairly trivial change, IMO. If there are no objections, can we switch to the sandboxed version? PC78 (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please update the template with the code at {{WPBiography/sandbox}} per above. PC78 (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

Is this template supposed to be used on the talk pages of redirect pages? It strikes me as not making much sense there. Gurch (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Since there's no "redirect" option in the classes I'm going to remove them from redirect pages. Gurch (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What I would do:

• If the redirect is from alternate spelling, without diacritics, etc. remove the WPBiopgraphy banner
• If the redirect links ot something else than variations of the name then tag the WPBiopgraphy banner as non-bio.

-- Magioladitis (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... ok. Why does the template even have that parameter? Surely a non-biographical article isn't within the scope of the wikiproject in the first place. Gurch (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll also change their assessment class to "NA", since calling a redirect a "stub" doesn't really make sense. There's already a category for NA-class biography articles, but it doesn't have any pages in it. Gurch (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually that puts them in the "non-article pages" category anyway, so the other parameter is redundant. I'll just change the class. Gurch (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly living people

Do articles about possibly living people get the "living" parameter set to "yes" or "no"? Gurch (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

To "Yes". They are under the BLP policy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What about articles about bands and stuff? (why are they even tagged with this template) Gurch (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as at least one member of the band is still living (or suspected of being living). Kaldari (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I made a guide in User:Yobot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I thought there was a bot that did these. But I guess you need some help :) as there are 43,000 pages in here (and about half of them seem to be actual living people) Gurch (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I need a lot of help. Most of the living people there don't have categories neither. There is also Wikipedia:Uncategorized biographies of living people/BLPPotential. You can help! :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

AfC submissions

There seem to be some articles for creation submissions tagged with this template. Are they meant to be? If so are they all meant to be? (because most of them aren't) Gurch (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Only biographies should be tagged with this template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, they are all biographies (or at least requests to create them). So is that a yes? Gurch (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you rpovide an example? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Craig Alan, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Michael P. Flynn, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Shannon Gardner, and so forth. There are more in Category:WikiProject Biography non-article pages. Gurch (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We should probably remove mainspace categories (like Category:Living people) from declined submissions. There used to be a bot which did this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• We have to remove categories from declined submission
• WPBiography tags have to stay in the case of living people because we need the blp
• Tags have to be removed from redirects from alternate spelling, etc.
• Tags have to remain in redirects only if they link to non-bio articles or to another person.

-- Magioladitis (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Does that mean tags should be added to biography AfC submissions that don't currently have them? Actually, why do we even keep rejected biographical AfC submissions? Isn't letting people write pretty much anything they want about a living person and retaining it in the project even if it doesn't meet our standards contrary to policy? Gurch (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we can just put the {{blp}} and not not the WPBiography banner. I don't know why we keep them. I'll look it in more detail. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) No, I think adding the bio tag to submissions would be inappropriate. These are created in talkspace purely for technical reasons, and for all other purposes are subjectspace pages. Anything potentially dodgy is generally deleted from the submission when it is declined, and the {{AFC submission}} template automatically adds NOINDEX anyway. So I think that deleting them would be unnecessary. By all means bring this up at WT:WPAFC; it's a discussion we've had before. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove it from those that have it. As long as you're sure "potentially dodgy" stuff is indeed deleted. Gurch (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth missing categories.

Apparently this is handled by placing the categories directly on the page. Any reason why this isn't handled by the banner? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 12:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It could be done by the banner. In fact, I am not sure why we have some articles in this category. This was supposed to be for articles really needing the DOB. I guess nobody cleans them up. I was thinking to form a group of willing editors for that purpose. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Automatic {{Blp}} works in one shell, but not the other

FYI. I double-checked at the sandbox. As long as the required parameter living=yes is set for {{WPBiography}}, the {{Blp}} displays automatically within the {{WikiProjectBanners}} shell. But when {{WPBiography}} is inside the {{WPBS}} shell, the {{Blp}} DOES NOT appear. Blp does NOT appear in the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} either since WPBS is a shortcut for WikiProjectBannerShell. So for Biography pages, WikiProjectBanners is the easier choice. 74.178.202.19 (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Soon these two template will merge to one. I ll copy your message there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The two templates are already one; {{WikiProjectBanners}} merely calls {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, it isn't a distinct template. It is the |banner collapsed=no parameter in {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} that causes the BLP notice to show inside the shell, but it shouldn't. PC78 (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, you shouldn't be calling living=yes within the shell. Any BLP which uses a banner shell should use blp=yes as a parameter within the shell itself and omit the living=yes from the template. ie:

{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Biography}} 
{{WikiProject projectname |class= |importance=}}
}}

Regards, Woody (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the parameter should still be used in order to keep track of articles. PC78 (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

We are discussing the issue in Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As PC says, |living=yes should be set on all WPBio banners on living people. What should be altered is that the blp notice should never display inside shells; it should always be displayed outside. Unfortunately that probably entails adding |blp=yes to all the relevant shells by bot, since there is no nice way to pass the |living= information out of the banner template to the shell. Happy‑melon 14:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

{{WPBIO}} was changed. Now all articles with living yes no longer show the Blp in the WikiProjectBanners. Don't know what change removed Blp, but if the fix is to add Blp=yes in another parameter, will do. Prapsnot (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Edited to add - WikiProjectBanners doesn't call WikiProjectBannerShell. They are still different. WikiProjectBanners message text "This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details." While WPBS calls WikiProjectBannerShell, message text "This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:", so not yet merged. And the Blp=yes fix fails in both now, again seems to be in change to WPBIO, not the shells? Prapsnot (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

:edit! Entirely my fault it's blp=yes not Blp=yes, lower case "b", lovely IT WORKS! Prapsnot (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, really. Check the template code. They are both the same template. PC78 (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

/Comments

Why does the template instruct users to leave comments on an empty page? -- Mentifisto 10:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. We have to remove this. I think most people use the talkpage itself. I personally never used the subpage. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a device used by many projects to keep comments related to the assessment of an article on a separate subpage. There are currently 0 biographies with these subpages. For a short related discussion held recently see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Comments pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never been convinced of the usefulness of these comments pages. Relevant discussion should go on the talk page itself. I wonder how many of the pages are empty? Happy‑melon 14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am minded to sort that category by the pagesize of the comments subpage. Do we think that would be useful? Happy‑melon 14:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a particuarly clever way of doing things to me. You might be commenting on an assessment for one project, and have your comment appear in another project's banner. Better off using the talk page, IMO. Also it sees that these subpages may not be getting moved whenever a page move is done; see Talk:Thomas Alcock, for example. PC78 (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Subpages discourage discussion. Moreover, a discussion why an article was assessed in a certain class sound to me a little limited. This discussion can be held in the talk page or in the project's talk page if they are disagreements. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

One disadvantage of talk page discussions of assessments is that they can get lost in the noise and archived on a busy talk page. Sometimes it is better to keep them in one place. Since considering the assessment level of an article, and overall plans to drive the quality upwards, is more of a "meta" discussion, it can be better to have that all in one place. Failing that, the talk page should be split into two sections: (1) What needs doing to improve the article and how to get it to the next stage (this should apply to all wikiprojects with an interest in the article); and (2) Day-to-day issues with the editing of the article. In part, the "to do" lists on some article fulfill the first function, but I would be really happy if there was a conscious split between long-term planning for an article, and the short-term issues. In part, I think that is what this comments page could evolve into. Carcharoth (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove the |non-bio= parameter?

Is there any reason why we need the |non-bio= parameter? This was first added to the banner way back in 2006 for the benefit of non-biographical articles that were tagged for Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty, but that project now has it's own banner for that purpose. Beyond that the parameter does not appear to be employed in any useful fashion. There are currently about 135 articles in Category:Non-biographical WikiProject Biography articles. This includes:

• A number of disambiguation pages and redirects. These are already distinguished by |class=Disambig or |class=NA, so the extra |non-bio= tag is redundant.
• A number of lists. If we are to consider these as "non-bio articles", then again they are distinguished by |class=List or |class=FL.
• Brad Sucks, which looks very much like a biography to me.
• Mel Gibson DUI incident, which should certainly be tagged with {{BLP}} but otherwise it's an event and I don't see how it falls under this project.
• Articles like Bodhinyana Monastery and How to Break a Terrorist, which are clearly beyond the scope of this project.

It should be possible to remove most if not all articles from the category. Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am using |non-bio= to redirects from persons to non-biographical articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that is useful. As I said above, the redirects (if they even need to be tagged for the project in the first place) are already distinguished by |class=NA. The target articles should be of no importance to the project. PC78 (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let's remove it :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the parameter is not particularly useful at this stage. Happy‑melon 13:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it gone? Is some one going through the pages in Category:Non-biographical WikiProject Biography articles to remove the parameter and determine which parameters are proper? (I am almost past burn out on Category:Biography articles without listas parameter as it just keeps growing and even grows while I am working on it.) Could this be one more small step to restricting WPBiography articles to Biographies? JimCubb (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional information about the pages in Category:Non-biographical WikiProject Biography articles —

• Some of the pages are indeed biographies. I have removed the parameter from those articles and made such other fixes are were required and will continue to do so.
• Some of the pages are the talk pages for redirected articles. I have replaced all the banners, but not the page history if one existed, with a redirect.
• Some of the pages are not biographies at all and some of those do not deal with living people, such as House of Guise, Franco-Monegasque Treaty and Sword of Osman. These will have the {{WPBiography}} removed.
• Some of the pages, such as Mel Gibson DUI incident, mentioned above, and Pat Robertson controversies, are not biographies per se but should have a {{blp}} tag.
• Most of the rest are lists and dab pages and take care of themselves.

Is that of any help to anyone? JimCubb (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have a crack at emtying the category now. Interesting question: should biography be tagged for this project? :D PC78 (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, kind of. There are three pages left in the category:

• Biography and Jack the Ripper, which I'm not sure about.
• Template:WPBiography/testcases, which is unimportant and can be left alone. PC78 (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't need "Biography" in WPbiography. We are dealing with people or groups of people to improve their biographies. I removed the tag from its talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Remove the |removal= parameter? :)

This is another parameter that does not appear to be employed in any useful fashion. Without proof that the subject of an article has requested to be excluded from Wikipedia, the parameter is next to useless. There are a mere 19 articles in Category:Biography articles of living people who have requested removal, exluding one test page. Several of these offer no indication that the subject has ever made such a request. Others are controversial and/or have been edited by the subject themselves, but are generally tagged with one or more of {{article probation}}, {{controversial}} or {{notable wikipedian}} which highlight any problems far more effectively. Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Note Whatever we decide, give it please some time before doing any changes in order to give the opportunity to more editors to participate. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sure. I'm not in any hurry. :) PC78 (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone exclude "Disambig" from |living= please?

Right now "dab" is excluded. Can we add "Disambig" as well please? think I know how is done but I don't feel comfortable with regex. :) Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the banner properly supports "Disambig" anyway. I'll try and have a look later today. PC78 (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No, "disambig" is not supported. It's a bug with this template that it will appear to accept any class you type in, even invalid ones. To be honest I would suggest we get the new version up and running asap, and not waste time trying to fix this one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm still waiting on a few things from you guys before I can make any headway with the new version. ;) A few quick fixes in the meantime won't hurt... PC78 (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to update the banner using the code at User:PC78/Sandbox11. In addition to the above request, I've also excluded Category-Class and Template-Class from the |living= parameter. I've also implemented some better handling for the |class= parameter and stripped away some redundant code, as well as a few minor fixes here and there. PC78 (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. I would only prefer that "yes" and "no are the only valid parameters for |living= and not "y" and "n" because everything until now is set in this logic. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed; ultimately it would be better for all yes/no parameters to accept y/n, but that's more work than what I'm prepared to do. PC78 (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[[Category:Biography articles of living people]]{{NOINDEX}} is missing, or not? I think we should add it to the sandbox version. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I took them out because we don't need them. These are already added by the {{blp}} template. PC78 (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion of template to use the meta

For convenience I have put all the discussion relating to this in a subpage and am transcluding it below. There are discussions in more than one place and it might be helpful to have them together. Feel free to revert if you disagree. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nested-Revised?

Probably a question for HappyMelon, I really like {{WPBS}}, but would like the WPBiography template to NOT collapse. Would it be possible to implement something like "nested=no" in this template. Often "|banner collapsed=no" at the WPBS level is simply too much open text. OR, would it be possible (or wise) to block collapsing when any "Needs" parameter is set? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What about just don't put it in WPBS? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This template should be collapsed when put in a banner shell, as all other project banners. One can easily press "show" to get more information. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Uncollapsed banners within a banner shell would defeat the very purpose of having a banner shell. PC78 (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite. The whole purpose of banner shells is to collapse banners. If you don't want the banner to collapse, don't put it inside the shell. Why don't you want it to collapse? Happy‑melon 15:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject British Royalty

Now that this project has it's own banner {{WikiProject British royalty}}, would it be a good idea to remove support for that project in this banner? PC78 (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it would, that was the general idea. Unfortunately I got sidetracked and then forgot about that little project of mine... we need to finish off the conversion (probably using a tracking cat, I was just going through the quality cats IIRC) and then remove support here. Happy‑melon 16:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject British Royalty articles needing banner conversion - didn't you add that? ;) I added a few things to that banner which were being used here. Also (though this would be something to discuss elsewhere), it strikes me that {{WikiProject English Royalty}} and {{WikiProject Scottish Royalty}} could be merged into {{WikiProject British Royalty}} as task forces, because there seems to be a certain amount of redundancy in having three different banners. PC78 (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks like one of my over-specific tracking cat titles, yes! Seems it's a fairly small task to finish off this conversion... Happy‑melon 18:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What does this template mean? Do we add both templates now? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It would mean that an article like Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (for example) would be tagged with {{WPBiography|royalty-work-group=yes}} and {{WikiProject British Royalty}}. PC78 (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Template name?

{{Editprotected}} All other project templates with rare exceptions use format like "WikiProject Nnnnnn". Why not to rename this template too? SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 15:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

600,000+ transclusions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop you renaming the template and leaving the existing name as a redirect. Gurch (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

True. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 18:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This name is we;l established, why do this change? How does that benefit wikipedia? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject templates don't benefit Wikipedia anyway. Gurch (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Standardization will benefit Wikipedia. The name of this template is deviation from standard. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 17:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How is gonna benefit Wikipedia? There is already a redirect with the proposed name and tenths of editors use the long established WPBiography. If we change it some people will start changing "redirects" to new name, creating chaos. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And what about banner name standards? Most of banners use name with format of WikiProject Nnn but not WPNnn. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 14:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no naming convention for WikiProject banners, and past discussions have been against adopting one. Unless there is a tangible benefit to the template (and I don't see one) then there is no reason to rename it. PC78 (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There are, however template naming standards. Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

Replacing the "priority" parameter

This project has never (so far as I can tell) used priority ratings for its articles, I believe because people feel it would be too arbitrary and subjective to apply such ratings over a huge amount of articles. Instead, the project has a core list of 200 articles. However, we do have a |priority= parameter in this banner; this is used to give priority ratings to our work group articles. Quick example to show what this means in practise:

{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes}}

adds an article to Category:Low-priority biography (arts and entertainment) articles, but

{{WikiProject Biography}}

doesn't actually do anything.

This has some pretty big limitations for articles that are tagged for two or more work groups, because only a single priority rating can be given. For example, Madonna (entertainer) is currently Mid-priority; that seems about right for the filmbio work group, but for the musician work group I would expect her to be rated High-priority or even Top-priority. Likewise, Jerry Springer is also rated Mid-priority; that may be ok for the arts & entertainment work group, but he's less known for his political career, so may be more Low-priority for the politician work group. (You may not agree with those two examples, but you get the idea.)

What we need is to replace |priority= with seperate parameters for each work group, i.e.

• |a&e-priority=
• |filmbio-priority=
• |musician-priority=

• |military-priority=
• |peerage-priority=
• |politician-priority=

• |royalty-priority=
• |s&a-priority=
• |sports-priority=

It should be fairly easy to implement this change. Adding the new parameters to the banner is trivial. All we would need then is for a bot to update the parameters on each page; it may take a while to work through all articles, but it wouldn't cause any disruption.

Any objections or other comments for this proposal? PC78 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In some cases like Michael Jackson there are two banners there. I am not quite sure for this change. It means we have to change 700k+ banners. We really have to be sure it's worth. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good example (better than the ones I gave) of why we need this change. There shouldn't be two biography banners on that page just so it can have two different priority ratings for the different work groups. PC78 (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I support this idea. We can certainly support workgroup-specific priorities very easily, but default to using the main one if no specific one is given. Then you can leave till later the discussion of whether to bother changing all 700k instances. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand PC78 reasoning but I think the cases we need more than one priority parameter are nothing comparing to the 700k. Cases that priority is set with now actual work group are also very limited an eventually these articles will end up in a work group. Leaving priority as is it's more flexibble in possible future changes to work groups. I am afraid if we do this change some people will start changing excisting parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I definitely support this proposal. There doesn't seem to be any downside to implementing workforce-specific priority ratings. The situation where we need to add multiple banners, with all the attendant duplication, to achieve the same effect, is ludicrous. I don't understand Magioladitis' concerns, especially that "if we do this some people will start changing existing parameters": what's bad about that? I totally disagree that the current system provides any increased "flexibility" over the proposed implementation. Changing parameters on 700,000 pages is a significant but by no means impossible task, one that I'm quite prepared to run with my bot if there is consensus for it an no one else is interested in doing. Or it could be run in conjunction with one of the other bots that routinely edit WikiProject banners and banner shells. I see only upsides to this proposal. (also)Happy‑melon 13:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As Martin says, there is also no need to rush into any mass updating of 700k articles. We can introduce the new parameters while still supporting |priority=. We should, however, take the opportunity to remove support for |importance= as it is no longer being used anywhere. PC78 (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Found another one: Talk:Mikhail Baryshnikov. This begs another question: should a&e and filmbio be mutually exclusive (as they currently are)? I've already asked this at WP:BOTREQ, but does anyone know of a way to identify such pages with duplicate banners? PC78 (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Right now they are mutually exclusive because a&e is supposed to be dealing with filmbio as well. Someone in the project can enlighten us more. Kingbotk plugin removed a&e if filmbio is present. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's another question that you may be able to help with: what bots are doing what to transclusions of this banner? I already know of ListasBot, but are there any others besides Kingbotk? PC78 (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kingbotk was doing it for a long time. I applied recently that Yobot does it in the future as well. Category:WikiProject tagging bots doesn't give much more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a lot of this template as well as the plugin, which is why there are little touches like Magioladitis mentioned above :) Yes my bot was doing a lot of tagging for WPBio, but I just don't really have the time or inclination any more so he should be considered well and truly retired I'm afraid. Obviously now that the plugin is open source you're free to change it and use it to your hearts content. The only worry I have about this proposal (beyond the work somebody - not me - would have to do the plugin) is that it would make the template even more complex and you're almost at the stage of needing a degree to use it never mind to edit it. I think it's a good idea though. --kingboyk (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess the more general a&e work group should normally be sufficient, but with filmbio being a full WikiProject they may want to have the article tagged for themselves as well. I'll ask about the article there. PC78 (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The above means:

• If the article is about an artist, tag with a&e and a&e-work-group will deal with it
• If the article is about an artist who also appears in a film, tag with filmbio and both a&e-work-group filmbio-work-group will deal with it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

For someone primarily known as a dancer, it seems more logical to tag for a&e rather than filmbio. I'll ask at both projects, try and get a few more opinions. PC78 (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I work mostly with WP:ACTOR, and at least as far as that project is concerned, we do pay attention to the priority ratings. It basically stemmed from seeing Michael Jackson constantly included (in this case) in our carefully maintained top-priority category. Baryshnikov is another example. I will say that I'm not entirely thrilled with WP:ACTOR being regarded as a sub-project of A&E, and it should stand on its own. I'm not completely knowledgable about how one banner effects other status, like core biographies, but Jackson is a core A&E article as well, but certainly not in actors. I'm not concerned that there are multiple banners or not, but I am interested in seeing that our priority assessments be maintained when they are different between WP:BIOG projects and that an article remain listed in whatever projects/subprojects, A&E, ACTOR, etc., that are relevant to the article. Not having the option to include a given article under all relevant projects isn't helpful to any of the projects involved. Gregory Hines was a high profile dancer (A&E), but then, he was an award nominated actor (ACTOR) and should properly be included in both projects, since actor is much more specific than A&E. In that case, he was not included in both. Therefore, I'm quite supportive of the addition of the priority parameters suggested. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know the "core" articles are not specific to workgroups and subprojects but are for the WikiProject as a whole. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, that's certainly how it used to be. Core for the entire project, priority= for workgroups. --kingboyk (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Banner conversion

Discussion has been continuing on the subpage Template talk:WPBiography/WPBM conversion on converting this banner to the meta template {{WPBM}}. I believe we are close to completion on this and PC78 seems satisfied that all the required functionality is present. What follows is the transclusion of the subpage. Please feel free to add any last minute comments or concerns. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC) {{Template talk:WPBiography/WPBM conversion}}

Editorial note: the aforementioned discussion has since been merged into Template talk:WikiProject Biography. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 06:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

why the trouble?

We above found 24 articles out of 700,000 that are in two working groups. Most of them don|t really need to be assessed for the secondary working group. Why do we really have to change the system we assess? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Because:

• It sorts out the problem with the 24 articles.
• There are probably hundreds of others which come within the scope of more than one workgroup.
• It doesn't harm or break any of the others.
• It is the logical and sensible way to do it.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Progress. :) 24 out of 700,000 is 24 too many, but there will no doubt be many others that could benefit from the change. Let's not continue to do priority assessments for the work groups in a rather primitive and restrictive manner when there is a better alternative that has no down side. PC78 (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we don\t really lose anything if we remove musicians that played in films from filmbio. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. But that's just avoiding the problem, not solving it. PC78 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, removing that is not productive. That would theoretically remove Bing Crosby and Barbra Streisand, both Academy Award winners, Judy Garland, Fred Astaire, Frank Sinatra, Gene Autry, and Ginger Rogers to name a few. It's a step back. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

These tags are not for bureaucratic reasons. If a working group wants to focus to a certain person, it can. The tags help the working groups to define their priorities. Tag are not categories. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, and if two different working groups want to assign different priorities to the same arictle... ? Since the priority ratings apply only to the work groups, it's important that the work groups have full control over the rating. I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue against here. PC78 (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) My response was to the statement that we don't lose anything if we remove musicians that played in films from filmbio. My examples are of persons who are arguably more musician than actor. If musicians that played in films are removed from filmbio, we actually lose very prominent crossover persons who are quite important to filmbios. All the ones I mentioned are top or high priority persons to filmbio, though not all are rated that highly by the musicians group. I'm not sure where you got that it's a bureaucratic matter. The difference in priorities are the reason some articles have two WPBIOG templates at all. I think my points are relevant here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Biography articles with listas parameter

It seems silly to have this huge category (0 pages) that almost entirely duplicates the list of pages to which this template is applied. Since, like the living parameter, the listas parameter should almost always be there, wouldn't it be better to do the same thing that is done with the living parameter, get rid of this category and only categorize those that don't have it (i.e. keep Category:Biography articles without listas parameter) so that people can go through that and add the parameter? Gurch (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking to propose the same but let's don't rush it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The only reasons to have the category are because it can be created and, more importantly, so that editors who have way too much time on their hands have a list to use to verify the the listas parameter is correct and that it matches the DEFAULTSORT value on the main page.

It only has about 93% of the pages that have this template. There are still 5,909 pages that lack a listas parameter and even though that latter number is shrinking, it is shrinking very slowly, by only 13 pages since I started typing this.

JimCubb (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I strongly encourage both of you to do a few (or a few hundred) of the articles in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter each day. If you would also add DEFAULTSORT values to the article pages and do whatever clean-up needs to be done about the banners (living parameter, verify Stub status, apply WPBS if it is warranted), that would be wonderful.

JimCubb (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I would like to invite you in Wikipedia:Uncategorized biographies of living people/BLPPotential. :) . -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As this category is being depopulated (down to 8,911 pages as I write this) there are four pages on the first page that clearly have the wrong value, although one is not a biography. As I indicated above Category:Biography articles with listas parameter is the only way to check that articles have the correct sort value.

As soon as Category:Biography articles without listas parameter has fewer than 200 articles in it (it now has more than 52,000) I will be happy to address the few hundred articles that will remain in Category:Biography articles without living parameter as many of the pages I see in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter lack both parameters.

I am really sorry to see this category go. I would much rather that sloppiness be evident and corrected instead of hidden and regretted.

JimCubb (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

JimCubb left me a talk page message telling me about this change that has just taken place ("depopulate Category:Biography articles with listas parameter, not needed"). I wasn't aware of the above discussion, but if I had been, I would have contested the proposed change. I was the editor who originally asked for this category (and several others) to be populated, back in August 2007. Please see the talk page section here. The reason given at the time for that category was "to demonstrate the utility of a category sorting all biographical articles". I think the category is still needed for that purpose, as it is currently (as far as I'm aware) the only way to generate an alphabetical list of all biography articles. If there is an alternative way to generate an alphabetical list of all biographical articles, please can this be implemented to reliably replace the current system? Having such a list has numerous uses. One use is to allow work to be done on surname disambiguation pages. The other, as JimCubb has pointed out, is spotting and correcting the articles where mistakes have been made with the listas parameter. There are other uses as well. I am going to alert all the above participants in the discussion to this objection I am raising, and also the admin who made the change. Hopefully, we can discuss what can be done here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is my opinion in brief, because I was about to go to sleep:

• I think the category sooner or later will have all the articles of WPBiography.
• "to demonstrate the utility of a category sorting all biographical articles" it's not a strong reason to have this category. It's impossible for editors to check 700k+ articles. The main job can only be done by bots. Having less than 0.001% of mistakes is not a big deal and quite impossible to locate them all.
• Removing the category was a mistake. Any changes to this template must have a strong consensus. It affects 700k+ articles. In the discussion above I didn't fully agree with removing this category since right now people are still correcting mistakes in the categorisation. I think it can serve a purpose for some time more, until ListasBot makes one more run and editors check that the job is done correctly.

I hope I helped. Tomorrow, I'll be back. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth having a separate category for where the listas value is the same as {{PAGENAME}}? -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for any inconvenience, I have reverted my edit for the moment. I had read a consensus on the discussion about this and hadn't interpreted JimCubb's comments as dissent (normally he states his position much more strongly when he disagrees!) I must say that I can't for the life of me see how this category is useful and the explanations above and the link provided by Carcharoth don't really help me to understand. But if some editors are using it then of course it should stay until we find a better way to achieve the required purpose. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I also fail to see the value in having such a category. If it is seen as useful to have a top-level category containing all articles tagged for this project, then it should be fairly easy to implement without being tied to the |listas= parameter. PC78 (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. I can't really understand why a top-level category is needed, but if people find it useful then it should be Category:WikiProject Biography articles or similar and not related to listas at all. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

After 3 months from my last comment, I can say that I now agree as well. It's no reason to keep this category. The "without listas" can do the job. Let's delete it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at this again.

I can't really understand why a top-level category is needed, but if people find it useful then it should be Category:WikiProject Biography articles . . .

Apparently some people can understand why a top-level category is needed and can even understand why the name is important.

Having less than 0.001% of mistakes is not a big deal and quite impossible to locate them all.

Having one error that is easy to locate and somewhat easy to correct is a big deal. (Go to the end of the category, "Zz" and beyond. There are 577 pages there with incorrect listas values from |listas=Zápotočný, Tomáš to |listas=Ávila, António José de Ávila, Duke of. If the first letter former were other than "Z" how would a bot locate it? Is your bot going to put the {{blp}} banner at the top of the page where it belongs?) Actually, having one error that is easy to locate and somewhat easy to correct is one error too many.

I think the category sooner or later will have all the articles of WPBiography.

As long as people continue to write article about other people (or groups of people) and fail to include a value for |listas= or leave off the project banner and the bot that tags them fails to include a value for |listas= this category will never have all the articles in this project. Recently a bot tagged approximately 14,000 articles for this project. As a result of this Category:Biography articles without listas parameter increased in size by 14,000 articles because the bot's owner has said repeatedly in many places that he/she is not concerned about |listas=.

Category:Biography articles with listas parameter is not broken. There is no need to fix it. Some feel it serves a useful purpose. Others do not understand this and, because of their lack of understanding, seek to destroy the category. Those in the latter group really should confine their opinions to things they understand.

The 29,143 pages in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter and the 577 error-laden pages at the end of Category:Biography articles with listas parameter eagerly await your attention. If you would also concern yourselves with the |living= and the sort value on the article page, that would be extremely helpful. Happy Editing! JimCubb (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect Jim, I think it's just you who sees the value in this category. Carcharoth originally asked for this category to "demonstrate the utility of a category sorting all biographical articles", except it doesn't do that, it only includes articles with listas. A category that actually included all biographical articles would be simple to set up if necessay. That said, I have no great wish to change things if you find the current category useful. PC78 (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this category from the sandbox version, so it will start emptying when the update is done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am firmly in the camp of those who believe the category is useful for the reasons set out above. I have found a number of errors in the living and listas tags (e.g. Yobot for some reason thinks that a number of dead people are actually alive); one of the few ways to find these articles is thru a listing (however imperfect; and it is). But I'd rather have that imperfection and know it's there rather than stumble blindly thru each biography as I do cleanup on both its talk page and the article itself. I hope this makes sense. Also, I think a warning that the listas category was going to be depopulated in the near future would have been helpful. I was surprised to find it had happened (I discovered it yesterday). Again, this is my opinion. I remain, yr humble, --FeanorStar7 (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

From what you are saying, it seems that you would probably find a category of all biography talk pages more useful, for example Category:All WikiProject biography articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I will try very hard to be calm even though MSGJ stated on 24 July 2009

I had read a consensus on the discussion about this and hadn't interpreted JimCubb's comments as dissent (normally he states his position much more strongly when he disagrees!) [emphasis added]

I cannot promise to avoid my appreciation of irony to peek through.

Here is what I see in this discussion and the discussion on Category talk:Biography articles with listas parameter. There may also be points from other discussions.

• On 5 June 2009 User:Gurch and User:Magioladitis agreed that the category was useless. My comment was neither substantial nor helpful.
• On 24 July 2009 MSGJ edited the template so as to cause the depopulation of the category. Carcharoth and I objected and gave reasons for our objections. User:Magioladitis also objected but changed his mind later. The category was repopulated.
• On 13 September 2009 User:PC78 wrote that an upper-level category of this sort was not necessary Why not? but if one were deemed necessary it should not be dependent upon the |listas= Why not? and an alternative would be easy to generate. Note that Carcharoth had asked for such a category two years before and it had not yet been generated.
• On 29 September User:Magioladitis changed his mind from his post of 24 July, two months and ten days before and began his post with the words, "After 3 months from my last comment". Three months after 24 July would be 24 October, next Saturday, as I write this.
• On 2 October User:PC78 wrote

A category that actually included all biographical articles would be simple to set up if necessay. That said, I have no great wish to change things if you find the current category useful.

• On 16 October MSGJ edited the template to depopulate the category again. I threw a fit.
• On 17 October User:Roman Spinner objected to the depopulation of the category.
• On 19 October User:FeanorStar7 posted with both justification for the category and regret that there was not notice of its depopulation. Also User:R'n'B denied the speedy deletion of the category because of the controversy over its depopulation.

I am certain that the folks who want to eliminate the category will respond to this very soon to nitpick it as best they can. The clear fact remains that the value of the category has been established, no alternative category has been established for the category despite the reputed ease of doing so and there is no consensus for depopulating the category.

JimCubb (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A few comments:

• I think your summary above is quite accurate.
• I would like to point out that at the time I depopulated the category there was a strong consensus to do so. (This was before Roman Spinner and FeanorStar7 had turned up and Carcharoth had not returned to the discussion, so it was only you who was still arguing for this category.)
• I still find thr arguments for this category extremely unconvincing.
• I believe there is provision in the sandbox version for a category of all biography articles. Personally I don't think this is necessary (I still think a bot-generated list could be more useful); however I will not oppose it as there are clearly a significant number of editors who want this.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My objections above still stand, though before we go back-and-forth again, can we please try and get a proper consensus and plan in place? This is a massively used template, and switching this category on and off does actually (as far as I'm aware) put some sort of load on the job queue. I think that is the point of notice on this template that says: "To avoid large-scale disruption and unnecessary server load..." My point about a category for all biographical articles is that it provides a dynamically updated list that can be linked into. A bot-generated list would be one option. A manual listing would end up with what was deleted at an MfD at some point about a year or so ago. My point here is that reference books have alphabetical listings of their articles. Wikipedia has alphabetical listings of all its articles, but why not alphabetical listings of subgroups, such as the WPBiography articles? That can only happen if all the biographical articles have DEFAULTSORT values, and currently it seems that you have to duplicate DEFAULTSORT using listas (I've found no way of getting the talk page templates to detect and recognise the DEFAULTSORT value used on the article). If someone comes up with another way to do this, please start that going before removing this one. Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. We should all strive to be accurate.
• Gurch only appeared once. Magioladitis has waffled between depopulating and leaving things alone and it could be that he/she will switch sides again.. PC78 wrote that the category should stay if it is found to be useful. I learned about the initial depopulation by accident. I honestly felt that if a reason were given to those who saw no reason, that would be enough. I stuck around because it was easy to do. Carcharoth wrote that he was going to contact other editors who were around at the creation of the category but apparently he was ignored. He would not have known about the initial depopulation had I not told him about it. He would not have known about the current depopulation had I not told him about it. Now, after the second, unannounced depopulation, Carcharoth has returned; Roman Spinner and FeanorStar7 found the discussion by accident and R'n'B denied the speedy deletion of the template because of the controversy. Now that people have found that the category is gone, people who had no way of knowing that it was in danger, there is no consensus for the category's depopulation and deletion. (Had the correct procedures been followed, such as a CfD discussion, I suspect that the consensus for keeping the category would have been much stronger. Note that one of the exceptions for a speedy deletion of a category is that no CfD discussion was held.)
• At least there are reasons given for keepting the category. The only arguments that have been given for deleting the category are lack of understanding of the reasons and personal preference. The former is an AGF issue as you seem to assume that the reasons that have been given for the retention of the category are without merit and the latter smacks of ownership.
• It took several days for Listasbot (or Defaultsortbot, I do not remember which) to go through CATEGORY:Biography articles without listas parameter on its last pass and there were only about 60,000 pages in it. it would take several weeks for a bot to go through a 3,000,000+ articles to rebuild a list. The list would never be accurate. It may be possible to generate a category of all biographical articles strictly by populating it with articles that have the template. After CATEGORY:Biography articles with listas parameter is repopulated it will be easy to check the new list or category for comprehensiveness by adding the number of pages in CATEGORY:Biography articles without listas parameter to the number of pages in CATEGORY:Biography articles with listas parameter. Also, would a bot generated list be sorted by the sort value of the page as a category would be sorted by definition? If not, a list would be completely worthless, as most lists seem to be.

JimCubb (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Since my comment at Category talk:Biography articles with listas parameter is eventually likely to vanish along with the entire category talk and the now-empty category, I feel it necessary to add a similar note here if only for the historical record of this process. Joining the comments from JimCubb, FeanorStar7 and Carcharoth, I was at first dismayed and, ultimately, regretful that this category, which I have been using for over two years as a table of contents/index/guidepost in repairing the thousands of misalphabetized, misspelled and missorted entries in "listas=" has been emptied before the hopeful, but still uncertain, attainment of some version of Category:All WikiProject biography articles, mentioned above by Martin (MSGJ). As JimCubb, who has done the lion's share of work in this area, pointed out, we are now bereft of any tracking device for the entire compendium of combined biographical entries which, together with those compiled in the analogous Category:Biography articles without listas parameter, comprise nearly 800,000 and, within a couple of/few years, will likely reach a million.

While the article-page Category:Living people (412,322 entries as of this writing) and talk-page Category:Biography articles of living people (436,550 entries as of this writing) have kept track of that (somewhat larger) portion of biographical entries, Category:Biography articles with listas parameter, although described by PC78 as "no more than a listing of pages using a certain parameter in the banner", had been, along with Category:Biography articles without listas parameter, the nearest entity, by default, to present a grouping of nearly all biographical entries, with the obvious exception in that grouping of the relatively small number of talk pages missing the "WPBiography" banner.

To support this category's usefulness, specifics underscored by JimCubb may be elucidated to a greater degree. Category:Living people, which has as its final entry, Todd Zywicki, was once filled with scores of post-Zywicki entries sorted under all manner of unicode symbols. In the past (approximately) 18 months, increased maintenance of DEFAULTSORT has mostly eliminated the problem with, as of this writing, only two (newly-created) entries following Zywicki----Chipmunk (rapper), misindexed under lower-case "c", and Águila Solitaria, misindexed under "Á" (again, as JimCubb has pointed out, a bot-generated list would improperly place this individual's professional/stage name as Solitaria, Águila). Although some DEFAULTSORT indicators are similarly misunderstood and misplaced, those are, for the most part corrected by knowledgeable editors and used as an example by a bot which has been utilizing DEFAULTSORT as a guidepost for adding "listas=". Unfortunately, no bot has attended to the thousands of entries with "listas=" which are misalphabetized and, taken as a combined unit, could only be spotted in Category:Biography articles with listas parameter.

The final entry in almost any list of notables is Wojciech Żywny (alphabetized as Zywny, Wojciech), but Category:Biography articles with listas parameter was the sole venue to see instantly that Żywny was followed (at the end of the "Z" listings, as of this category's last appearance) by Piotr Żyła, Jan Zábrana, Šárka Záhrobská, Gundis Zámbó, Tomáš Zápotočný, Manuel Ortiz de Zárate, José María Zárraga, František Záviška, Tom Zé, Venance Zézé, Tomáš Zíb, Ladislav Zívr, Antje Zöllkau, Felipe de Zúñiga y Ontiveros, Andreas Zülow and Ernst Zündel. These names were further followed (and preceded, at the end of each previous letter of the alphabet) by at least two thousand others, listed under various unicode symbols and lower-case letters, most of which contain surnames joined with "de" and "von" which, unless the subject is referenced under American name format, should be listed under the main part of the surname. Inconsistencies created by editors and bots abound (DEFAULTSORT:Catherine de' Medici --- Persondata NAME=Medici, Catherine de' --- listas=De' Medici, Catherine). Since some of the above-linked are living, their names may also be found similarly misfiled within Category:Biography articles of living people, but the majority of names was only visible in the now-lost Category:Biography articles with listas parameter, including names listed under "listas={", "listas=[" and "listas=yes".

To conclude this already-overlong posting, since the likelihood of this category's reappearance has been described as remote at best, and no list, whether updated by editors or bots, could deal with the soon-to-be million biographical entries, if/when "Category:All WikiProject biography articles" is created, taking into account the difficulty of getting the talk page templates to detect and recognize the DEFAULTSORT value used on the article, as described by Carcharoth in the posting immediately before this one, the best we can hope for/expect, if at all, is something very similar to what we had in the deprecated category --- a listing still based on "listas=". Like the other posters, I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but a procedure intent upon recreating/duplicating a listing of this size has the aura of a Sisyphean task.—Roman Spinner (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a new category in the sandbox (actually the existing Category:WikiProject Biography articles) which will include all biography articles. This should allow Jim to carry on what he was doing, and it will be the category that Carcharoth originally wanted and which others have said would be useful. Hopefully this will please everyone and we can all go about our buisness. PC78 (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just how deep into the category tree presented in Category:WikiProject Biography articles must I go in order to find the sub-sub-category that includes all biography articles? All I see are the empty Category:Biography articles with listas parameter, the very troublesome Category:Biography articles without listas parameter and a bunch of other categories, none of which are negatives of each other.

Other than your personal preference is there any good reason not to have a top-level category based on the presence of a value of a parameter? Is there a policy or a guideline regarding this? Is your objection strictly with Category:Biography articles with listas parameter or does it include such categories as Category:Biography articles without listas parameter and Category:Biography articles without living parameter? It appear to me that Category:Biography articles with listas parameter is and always has been a sub-category of Category:WikiProject Biography articles and not a top-level category at all. What am I missing?

The only answer appears to be for an admin to revert the change that was made to this template that depopulated Category:Biography articles with listas parameter and initiate a CfD on the category. If I did it I would probably be banned by one of the admins who fails to see any value to the category and dismisses the reasons that have been given for keeping it as worthless.

JimCubb (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has been implemented yet, so you're looking for something that isn't yet there. Since I am unable to edit the template myself, any changes will be down to Martin or another admin. Any category based on the listas parameter will only ever contain those articles with a listas parameter, i.e. not all biography articles; am I the only one who sees the blinding obviousness of this? Frankly I'm not sure what else you want me to say. You can either pester Martin into moving things along or you can display a greater level of patience than what you have so far. Last I checked the world had not stopped turning, so I can only conclude that this is not the matter of grave importance that the amount of commentary above would tend to suggest. PC78 (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Twelve hours ago as I write this you wrote

I've added a new category in the sandbox (actually the existing Category:WikiProject Biography articles) which will include all biography articles.

The perfect tense indicates an action that has been completed. You wrote that the category had been added. When will this category be added? It has been almost three weeks since you wrote that it would be simple to do.

As stated above, Category:Biography articles with listas parameter contained roughly 97% of the Biography articles. As also stated above, User:Carcharoth asked two years ago for a category that contained all the Biography articles and could not get one. We have been satisfied with Category:Biography articles with listas parameter. We like Category:Biography articles with listas parameter.

Your failure to understand the reasons given for Category:Biography articles with listas parameter and the importance that some editors place on this issue is your failure. If you cannot understand the latter from the fact that User:Carcharoth took time away from his ArbCom duties to address this issue and that User:Roman Spinner took the time to provide an extensive explanation of the need for Category:Biography articles with listas parameter with examples of the problems with the integrity of the encyclopedia that the category exposed.

You still have not given any justification for your dislike of Category:Biography articles with listas parameter. You still have not created the category that you said had been created.

I eagerly await your accomplishment of the task you have set for yourself although experience indicates that I will be disappointed. JimCubb (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"The perfect tense indicates an action that has been completed. You wrote that the category had been added." PC78 wrote that the category has been added to the sandbox (the test environment). That action has been completed and agrees with the tense used in the statement. PC78 also wrote that an admin will need to transfer the sandbox code to the live template due to page protection.

It seems a little inconsistent that you were demanding the banning of members the other week because a glitch slipped through the testing process unnoticed and then this week expect changes to get rushed through the testing process. Either we go through a testing procedure and catch problems before they occur or we rush things through and hope for the best. You can't really have it both ways. Road Wizard (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This point has already been mentioned but, to focus on it specifically, yes, of course, by its very nature, "any category based on the listas parameter will only ever contain those articles with a listas parameter, i.e. not all biography articles", but that key specific should not be perceived as a shortcoming in compiling a complete list of biographical entries (both articles and stubs) based on listas, but as a strong point. As in the case of article-page DEFAULTSORT, discussion-page listas is expected to accompany all biographical entries, including those of individuals known by a single name, such as Tacitus, or others, such as Chiang Kai-shek, who come from a culture in which the placement of a name for alphabetical sorting leaves it unchanged from its standard form.

Just over a year ago, on October 12, 2008, Category:Biography articles without listas parameter contained 332,845 entries and, as of this writing, has diminished by more than 90% to 29,607, much of this decrease thanks to JimCubb and one or more bots. Within a relatively brief period, optimistically speaking, the "without" category is slated to be empty, but always at the ready to receive new batches of "WPBiography" entries. All of those talk pages to which listas is being appended and which, until very recently, could be observed as they moved from Category:Biography articles without listas parameter to Category:Biography articles with listas parameter plus all those once contained in the now-depopulated "with" category do, indeed, constitute a list of all biographical entries in Wikipedia, with the obvious exception of those entries awaiting categorization and tagging. Also, since some editors have been under the impression that DEFAULTSORT and listas are appended to subjects other than biographies, it was possible, during the active existence of Category:Biography articles with listas parameter to spot such talk-page anomalies, correct them and examine the accompanying article to see whether its DEFAULTSORT was also in need of adjustment.

Ultimately, given the hope of an all-biography category, I will patiently await its appearance, but it should also be noted that, while not all matters or subjects are equally important, to those editors who devote hours, days, months and years of their lives to the development and improvement of Wikipedia in general and their specific niche in particular, the perception that they are contributing their share to the compendium of world's knowledge gives justification and meaning to the intensity with which they approach their work.—Roman Spinner (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

JimCubb, I've just about had it with your attitude. If you can't be bothered to read and understand what I say before flying off the handle about this, that or the other, then you and I have nothing further to discuss. In short: the perceived problem here was not of my making, and despite the abuse and accustations you have thrown my way I've done all I can to seek a compromise that we can all be happy with. If you find that unsatisfactory, then tough. It's no wonder you find yourself disappointed when you seem to expect the moon on a stick. Your recent conduct here leaves much to be desired. PC78 (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

List of pages with duplicate banners

List of pages with duplicate banners

1. Talk:Aaron Abba ben Johanan ha-Levi
2. Talk:Abnuceals Emuukha Electric Symphony Orchestra (do we tag this article for the project or not?)
3. Talk:Albert Brackmann
4. Talk:Aretha Franklin
5. Talk:Aziz M. Osman
6. Talk:Camilo Sabio
7. Talk:Catullus
8. Talk:Coleman Young
9. Talk:David William Cohen
10. Talk:Earl Washington
11. Talk:Eero Mäkelä
12. Talk:Elizabeth Báthory
13. Talk:Fatma Ceren Necipoğlu
14. Talk:Gene Callahan (economist)
15. Talk:Harry Snyder
16. Talk:Helvi Sipilä
17. Talk:Howard T. Odum
18. Talk:Jack O'Neill (baseball)
19. Talk:Jacqueline Lichtenberg
20. Talk:Jenny Oropeza
21. Talk:Jethro Tull (band)
22. Talk:Joey Tempest
23. Talk:John Lehr
24. Talk:John Richard Packer
25. Talk:Knut S. Heier
26. Talk:Mark McCormack
27. Talk:Matt Slick
28. Talk:Maurice Benyovszky
29. Talk:Mick Karn
30. Talk:Mohammad Afzal Cheema
31. Talk:Orelsan
32. Talk:Peter Brown (music industry)
33. Talk:Peter Elliott
34. Talk:Prince Christian Victor of Schleswig-Holstein
35. Talk:Prince Karl Emich of Leiningen
36. Talk:Rick Comegy
37. Talk:Rim'K
38. Talk:Sam Stern
39. Talk:Stephen C. Johnson
40. Talk:Stiff Little Fingers
41. Talk:Tara Sharma
42. Talk:Yang Wei (gymnast)
43. Talk:Amália Rodrigues
44. Talk:Andrea Corr
45. Talk:Basil Rathbone
46. Talk:Cesare Battisti (1954-)
47. Talk:Duke Kahanamoku
48. Talk:Elfi Schlegel
49. Talk:Eminem
50. Talk:James Brown
51. Talk:Janet Jackson
52. Talk:Jim Brown
53. Talk:Jonny Lang
54. Talk:Joseph Estrada
55. Talk:Kenny Rogers
56. Talk:Lucia Rijker
57. Talk:Michael Jackson
58. Talk:Mikhail Baryshnikov
59. Talk:Pat Boone
60. Talk:Pierre Richard
61. Talk:Prince (musician)
62. Talk:Quincy Jones
63. Talk:Samuel L. Jackson
64. Talk:Tina Turner
65. Talk:Tupac Shakur
66. Talk:Whitney Houston

I've already been through the first twenty or so. Many are just redundant duplicates that have probably been added by bots, but others are symptoms of the problem outlined above, i.e. two banners being used to give different priority ratings for different work groups. These can be taken care of once the new version of the banner is implemented. PC78 (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I did 29 more. All added by mistake. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) PC78 (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

All done. PC78 (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Make auto=yes less obtrusive

There's 167,398 articles and counting in Category:Automatically assessed biography articles, so I'd suggest making the "auto=yes" display less intrusive. Right now it makes a separate box, I'd suggest a line item in the template proper, the way it is done by {{WPBannerMeta}}. –xeno^talk 20:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A {{WPBannerMeta}} version of this template is in progress. :) PC78 (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

kk, good to know. =) –xeno^talk 21:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

category name for inheritance based auto-assessment

Category:Biography articles with inherited assessments (current) matches the maintenance cats but not the other auto-assessment cats. I'd suggest something more along the lines of

• Category:Automatically assessed (via inheritance) biography articles.

Thoughts? –xeno^talk 15:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not terribly important, thoght to be honest the code I wrote for this is actually a bit half arsed. The whole thing needs more thought and more discussion, IMO. Perhaps best to continue this at Template talk:WPBannerMeta (where we've already had some discussion), since this is something that will ultimately affect other banners? PC78 (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Biography articles needing priority parameter replacement

was Did I Miss Something?

There is a category, Category:Biography articles needing priority parameter replacement that is populated by “{{WPBiography}}-tagged talk pages have an active |importance= parameter which needs to be changed to |priority=.” I have been taking care of the pages that drop into the category from time to time, no more than five in a day.

There are now more than 56,000 pages in the category and the number is growing. I have looked at five pages to verify that that many could have been lurking waiting to be found. None of the pages has a |importance= parameter and each has a |priority=. Did one of the many programmers and template "experts" screw up again? How quickly will the category be de-populated? JimCubb (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably an error in the swap to WPBannerMeta, when its fixed it should depopulate about as fast as it populated... –xeno^talk 20:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps this category has been repurposed to show all the pages which could use a taskforce-specific priority parameter (see discussion higher up). I'm not too sure, but PC78 will be able to clarify and I'm sure he'll be along here soon. It might not be the best idea to use the same category for a different purpose ... but let's wait to see his response. Anyway, I do not consider this to be an urgent problem. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Did the same mega-vandal cause Category-class articles to appear in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter? Can the offender be banned?

There have not been any vandals who have managed to screw up 60,000 pages and allowed to continue editing. JimCubb (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia, whereas this is apparently an innocent coding error. A little good faith, perhaps? –xeno^talk 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The assumption of good faith is just that, an assumption. When categories are over-populated or depopulated because of "errors" in programming the assumption is severely challenged. Maybe the error-prone programmers should leave well enough alone until better programmers can be put on the tasks. JimCubb (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your error reports, but your tone is entirely unhelpful. Let's not forget that these are banners on talk pages, and internal maintenance categories - really - no big deal –xeno^talk 20:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I second that. If you want to be taken seriously here, you need to be constructive and certainly not offensive. The discussion about the redesign of the banner was taking place for months and it would have been better to contribute to that and help with the testing rather than to come here complaining. Perhaps you are not aware of the considerable care and hard work that has gone into designing the new version (mainly by PC78). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was aware of the discussion. I am aware that the same level of care and hard work has gone into this conversion as went into the disabling of the |listas= a few months ago and the recent depopulation of Category:Biography articles with listas parameter because an editor did not not understand the need for the category and had it in his power to make the change. The more bandages that have to be applied after the fact, the better one will be able to appreciate the level of care that has gone into the conversion.

These internal maintenance categories you so blithely dismiss are also part of the infrastructure and it should be as big a deal to you as it is to those who are trying to keep the categories clean. JimCubb (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So let's get this right. You believe that this unexpected categorisation is a result of "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (emphasis original). That is, you believe that, in making this conversion, PC78 and Martin ran through the deliberate thought process of "I know, let's depopulate a tracking category, that will damage the encyclopedia nicely". That is what you are saying by calling someone a "vandal". Is that what you intend to say? Happy‑melon 21:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not dismissing them, but I don't understand the histrionics. Report the errors calmly and politely - they shall be fixed swiftly. (As you can see the listas category is already being depopulated by the job queue and should be back to normal shortly) –xeno^talk 21:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like someone needs a healthy dose of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Regarding Category:Biography articles needing priority parameter replacement, concensus was to deprecate |priority= in favour of seperate parameters for each work group, so as Martin correctly surmises above the category now contains articles that use |priority= in conjunction with one or more of the work group parameters. The only thing that needs changing is the category text, which I shall now promptly do. Regarding categories in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter, I'll look into that ASAP. PC78 (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The listas issue is fixed. It looks like this swap-over is going to require botting, perhaps you could explain what needs done and I can see if Xenobot can help? –xeno^talk 22:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically if an article in the arts and entertainment workgroup is using |high= then it can be changed to |a&e-priority=high. This allows workgroups to have separate priorities. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles tagged for more than one work group will need |priority= replacing with more than one parameter, i.e.

{{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-work-group=yes|politician-work-group=yes}}

should be changed to

{{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-work-group=yes|filmbio-priority=Low|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=Low}}

etc. May be best to leave it a week or so and let the dust settle. It's not something that requires immediate attention. PC78 (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand we ll allow the new parameters ONLY if the article is subject of more than 1 (i.e. more or equal to 2) projects. Moreover, we still replace a&e in favor of filmbio of the article is about an actor that plays in at least one film. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And I am sure we agreed we won't change 700k+ banners in favor of 20. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Only 97k+ according to the category. |priority= is still supported by the banner, but it shouldn't be added to any more pages. While there's no great need to replace the parameter in those 97k articles, I do think it would be appropriate to do so. PC78 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't be added to new pages? And what happens with the rest articles? Don#t they have a priority parameter or someone already went and plecaded it?-- Magioladitis (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess it is preferable to use the new parameter names on new pages because it will take less time to sort out later if more than one workgroup is added. Using the workgroup-specific parameters will override the standard priority, if given, i.e. the following is fine:

{{WikiProject Biography
|politician-work-group=yes|military-work-group=yes|military-priority=high
}}

But the following would be clearer, and be easier to understand for people who look at the code:

{{WikiProject Biography
|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=low
|military-work-group=yes|military-priority=high
}}

I agree that this is very non-urgent, but it might as well be done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it's non urgent, in fact, perhaps the bulk of the articles should be put into "Biography articles using generic priority parameter" and the maintenance cat would be for pages using importance=, or having two or more work groups and using priority. –xeno^talk 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, much better to sort out those banners with 2 of more workgroups first. Should be a smaller list. (Change for note 1 below.) -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

|note 1={{#ifexpr:{{yesno|{{{a&e-work-group|}}}|yes=1|no=0}}+{{yesno|{{{filmbio-work-group|}}}|yes=1|no=0}}+{{yesno|{{{musician-work-group|}}}|yes=1|no=0}}+{{yesno|{{{military-work-group|{{{military-task-force|}}}}}}|yes=1|no=0}}+{{yesno|{{{peerage-work-group|{{{baronet-work-group|}}}}}}|yes=1|no=0}}+{{yesno|{{{living|}}}|yes={{yesno|{{{activepol|}}}|yes=1|no=0}}}}+{{yesno|{{{politician-work-group|}}}|yes=1|no=0}}+{{yesno|{{{royalty-work-group|}}}|yes=1|no=0}}+{{yesno|{{{sports-work-group|}}}|yes=1|no=0}}+{{yesno|{{{s&a-work-group|}}}|yes=1|no=0}}>1|{{{priority|}}}}}{{{importance|}}}

I think we have to agree that if the article belongs only in one working group we should not replace priority parameter with the new ones. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think for now, not making 70,000 edits that aren't strictly necessary should be our default position. But, we could tweak the WPBio module of WP:Plugin++ to make this change so its done gradually over time. –xeno^talk 13:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There are three reasons for which I disagree: a) Since I think we did a lot of effort for only 20-25 articles I still believe there is a possibility that we go back in some years. b) The KISS principle. Editors will start to change and produce errors. c) It's more felxible to just change working group than working group AND priority in the case it's needed. For example filmbios. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This was not something that was done for the benefit of twenty or so articles; this was done for the benefit of all articles using this banner, and for the benefit of those work groups that the banner provides priority assessments for. Why do you think we would go back on this at some point in the future? That would be like trading in your PC for a ZX81, i.e. a step backwards. I appreciate that there are a lot of articles to work through, but this is no different to having bots change |importance= to |priority=, and I don't recall you having a problem with that. Why do you think editors would "produce errors"? Why do you think the old way is "more flexible"? I don't really understand you point of view on this issue. I do, however, agree with the above suggestion to segregate those articles with more than one work group and deal with them first. A more measured approach would perhaps be prudent. PC78 (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So, is everyone happy if I implement WOSlinker's idea above so that the tracking category will only contain those articles in more than one workgroup using the generic priority parameter? This can be changed again later as needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Preferable to do it as a seperate subcategory then we're not chopping and changing, but yeah. I need to tweak one or two things anyway, so I'll try and sandbox something in a bit. PC78 (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Could I suggest that you might like to sort the category based on the number of workgroups, then the more urgent cases can be tackled first. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think it would be useful then be my guest, but I'm rather hoping that articles with two or more work groups will be dealt with by a bot. PC78 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OK then, Category:Biography articles with more than one work group needing priority parameter replacement contains a more modest 3,891 articles. Would there be any objections to having a bot update the priority parameters for these articles? PC78 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is A Correct Sort Value Important?

Category:Biography articles with listas parameter is being depopulated. Some editors do not see a use for the category and wanted it to be deleted. One of those has changed the the template so that it no longer populates the category. The alternative that has been offered is a "regularly-updated list". Who has the time to maintain such a list?

There is no category of Category:WPBiography articles. Why not? Other projects have a category that is populated by the talk pages of all the articles in the project.

Does anyone else care that the category is going away?

JimCubb (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:WPBiography articles may be useful but could possibly be even more useful with a bot report that just lists the pagenames and the listas values. Would have to be something that is downloaded and analysed offline though as would be quite big. Also, there are two items left in Category:Biography articles with listas parameter which need fixing. (Talk:Nu Jerzey Devil & Talk:P.M. (musician)). -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, with the Category:Biography articles without listas parameter would it be worth finding someone to do a bot which would take those articles with just two words in the titles & automatically adding listas parameters for them be swapping those words and adding a comma inbetween? -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To your first message -- There were somewhere around 2,000 articles in Category:Biography articles with listas parameter that had values for |listas= that were clearly wrong. The 600+ that came after "Zz" and the ones that had invalid characters in the second position. (The ones between "Az" and "B", between "Bz" and "C", etc.) I merely took the time to count them. I did not list them and now they cannot be found. The category has been successfully depopulated and has been marked for speedy deletion by teh

I do not understand the fascination with lists as opposed to categories. Lists have to be maintained manually. There are more than 700,000 articles in WPBiography. Who has the time to maintain properly a list of that size? Who has the time to analyse it when an editor adds 14,000 articles to the project in a weekend?

How many pages were left in the category when you spotted the problem pages? I have fixed the first and will fix the second some time.

To your second message -- If a bot were to do what you ask it would result in all the bands with two-word names, many Arabs and many east Asians having sort values that were completely wrong. Talk:Pink Floyd would be sorted as "Floyd, Pink", Talk:Abu Akash would be sorted as "Akash, Abu" and Talk:Wang Zhengwei would be sorted as Zhengwei, Wang". (All of those are in the category.) This would be worse than when an editor assigned sort values to the Ptolemaic kings on the assumption that Ptolemy was the given name, the Roman Numeral that indicated the king's order in the dynasty was the "middle name" and the king's "title" was the surname. Talk:Ptolemy I Soter was sorted as "Soter, Ptolemy I". I only found it because it created a Defaultsort conflict. There is no longer any way to find articles with incorrect sort values.

JimCubb (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the article trancluded in the talk page?

I noticed that WhatLinksHere appears the article to be transcluded in the talk when WPBiography is present. Is something wrong? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That is due to the banner code using the PAGESIZE function ({{PAGESIZE:{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}|R}}) to decide when to populate Category:Unassessed biography articles smaller than 1,500 bytes. See T20188 for more info. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Libellous inconsistency

The word libelous is spelled as the variant libellous in the template. But click on the link libellous that appears wikilinked in the template and the word there is spelled libelous. Someone please consider if libellous should be changed to libelous. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

My take on this is that the variant spellings are more relation to English variant usages between the US and British spellings. In that regard, unless the article is particular to one or the other nationalities, neither is right nor wrong, but based on the variant employed when the article was written. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's something you would have to bring up at Template talk:BLP, not here. PC78 (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. I'll bring it up there, and thanks, everyone, for commenting. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Book-class

I have made a request for the addition of the new Book-class to the template at Template talk:WPBiography/class. The proposal was made initially at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Book-class a few days ago but has received no comments other than my own. Hopefully this is considered a non-controversial edit. Road Wizard (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

To avoid split discussions I've redirected the /class talkpage here and I'm moving your request to this page. Hope this is okay. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Can the new book-class be added to this protected template please? Per the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books/Book-Class setup, the following code should be used to replace the existing template code:

Code
{{class mask|{{{class|}}} |topic=biography |topic1=biography (arts and entertainment) |topic2=biography (politics and government) |topic3=biography (royalty) |topic4=biography (science and academia) |topic5=biography (sports and games) |category=yes |disambig=yes |template=yes |book=yes }}

A proposal for the change was listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Book-class. As no other editors have commented on the proposal a silent consensus can be assumed. Road Wizard (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Silent consensus is all very well, but as this template is so highly used, it might be as well to leave this proposal up here for a couple of days before going ahead, to see if there are any comments forthcoming. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. I have removed the protected edit request for now to allow discussion to continue. It can be restored again in a few days. Road Wizard (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I'm for it, if only because WP Biography is much better equipped to handle problems like BLPs than WP Wikipedia-Books, and that there's a ton of biographical books in Category:Wikipedia Books. (And also I'm the one who proposed it, so it would be pretty weird for me to oppose :P). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As there was no opposition to this proposal, I have now added the Book-class. Would someone like to create the required categories? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think 4 days discussion for adding a new class is not enough. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to revert me, but it was first proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography a week ago. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have time to read the whole discussion. It just seemed to me as an important change and I was planning to read about it during the weekend. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said, you are more than welcome to revert and continue the discussion. I have no particular view on this new class and was just acting on what seemed to be unanimous support. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's not be too huffy and puffy about procedure, so far out of everyone approached, every project adopted the book-class (or didn't reply yet). It's been a week, and no one said anything against. At worse it'll be reverted. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Book class and living parameter

Can you please exclude book class from requiring the |living=? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean, "can Category:Biography articles without living parameter be removed from Book-class?" Or is there some other requirement that you are referring to? Road Wizard (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Only that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this has been happening since I updated Template:Pagetype a few days ago so that it recognised that books weren't articles. I checked a few and none of the books seem to be in that category now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Pagesize

I'm removing the {{PAGESIZE}} since it is flooding the job queue with refreshLinks jobs and making the site run slowly. -- Tim Starling (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't think it's being used much anyway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Priority

There is no priority assessment for general biographical articles, that are not part of any work group. I think there should be a general Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography priority assessment, and would like to request it be added to this template. Debresser (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. With so many articles tagged for this project, assigning priority ratings would be hopelessy arbitrary and be a huge, huge task to undertake with little real benefit. PC78 (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is little benefit to it, why do most WikiProjects have a priority assessment? And also, nobody said we have to do all articles at once. And criteria must have been developed on many other WikiProjects, and can be easily adapted to here. Debresser (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Because other projects find it useful, perhaps? It doesn't necessarily follow that it will be useful here, and I've already said why. Increasing the already huge assessment backlog by several factors for the sake of an arbitrary and subjective "priority" rating will not benefit this project. PC78 (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Some one decided, with no discussion that I have been able to locate, that each of the work groups had to have its own priority and changed the template to reflect that decision. I assume that the editor who made this change feels that |a&e-priority=, |filmbio-priority=, |musician-priority=, |military-priority=, |peerage-priority=, |politician-priority=, |royalty-priority=, |s&a-priority= and |sports-priority= should have valid values. Why should the articles that are not in a work group not have a valid value for |priority=?

On the other hand, just after the change was made there were roughly 92,000 articles in Category:Biography articles needing priority parameter replacement which was originally for those articles with an |importance= that needed to be changed to |priority=. There are now just over 100,000 articles in the category. I think it is safe to infer that the parameter is of little or no concern and should be eliminated from the template in all its forms. JimCubb (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Give it a rest Jim. That change was discussed and agreed on, any problem you may have with it doesn't change that. The decision made by this project not to use priority ratings is a longstanding one that goes back as far as 2006. Check the archives, it's all there. As for replacing the parameter, I was all for having a bot take care of it, but there was some opposition to the idea as I recall. PC78 (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Where did that come from?

You wrote that priority was not useful here. I merely provided additional evidence as to the perception of its usefulness here. I did not state an opinion regarding the template change that created work group priorities because I have none although in my very slow progress of adding values to |listas= I have been changing |priority= by prefixing with a work group when a work group has claimed the article.

Opposition to unleashing bots has been very effective in stopping the bots' owners in the past in my experience. Try AGF, you may like it. JimCubb (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You're a fine one to talk about AGF after some of your previous rants on this page. "Some one decided, with no discussion that I have been able to locate, that each of the work groups had to have its own priority and changed the template to reflect that decision." That's patently untrue. I made the proposal, several people agreed that it was a good change, and despite some reticence from Magioladitis no one opposed it. Like I said, check the archives. I don't see you providing any "evidence" for the usefulness of priority ratings, I just see you retreading ground we covered several months ago. PC78 (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why should I provide any evidence for the usefulness of priority ratings? As I have tried to say above and will state clearly here, there is no recent evidence that priority rating are considered useful by any one.

Why should I have to waste my time searching through the archives? You made the change. Shouldn't you have to provide justification for the change? I do not oppose the change. I merely take issue with the way it was done and its outcome. JimCubb (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"I merely provided additional evidence as to the perception of its usefulness here." Your words; I'm not suggesting you do anything, and frankly I don't think you even know what you're talking about. Search the archives to find where the change was discussed. If you're too lazy to do that then that's your problem, because I'm not going to repeat myself. How can you "take issue with the way it was done and its outcome" if you can't be bothered to look at the original discussion? PC78 (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

...some months later

As I understood form the new consensus we change th priority parameter with the new ones. I asked since December 2009 an update to AWB's code for that. What I don't understand is why ListasBot must do edits like this one. Can someone enlighten me? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

template used for fictional characters?

Hi, I have found a (stub) article about a fictional character, John Brock, with the WPBiography template on the talk page. I presume that this template is not supposed to be used, is there a template for fictional characters? Thanks, gaidheal1 ^{(talk♫contribs)} 19:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, this template should not be used for fictional characters. Check if the fictional character is part of any project. You can always improve the article without being part of any project though! -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

check category for nested parameter

Can someone add a category for banners still using the deprecated nested parameter? I would like to see how far are we from completely vanishing it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not doing any harm, so why bother? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to leave some messages to people still adding it. --Magioladitis (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It does no harm. Why bother? Especially when Yobot is still making errors that were supposedly fixed a month ago. JimCubb (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No it doesnt. Read my answer in my talk page. --Magioladitis (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Would there be any advantage in adding the tracking category to the meta template to find all usages of |nested=, or are you only interested in WPBiography? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in all but we could just track it for WPBiography to get an idea of what we are dealing with. For example, if we don't have many new additions we don't have to do any action, if they are all added by a single editor we just leave them a message, etc. --Magioladitis (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you interested in blank definitions (i.e. |nested=) or just those with a value (e.g. |nested=yes)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Both. --Magioladitis (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 Added. It's up to you if you create the category or not. I suggest we remove it when you're finished with it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

plea from ordinary person

i read this template, but i cant for the life of me figure out what it is for or what it looks like when you put it on your page and fill it out. i wouldnt mind doing that, if i had a bats chance of determining the basic fundmanetal facts about the thing. if someone might be so kind as to write up a little 'for dummies' thing, with maybe an example of what the thing looks like after you use it, or maybe some links to an example, then dummies like me would be much more inclined to fill it out and use it on the pages we create. im sure its a lovely template, once one gets the hang of it... thank you. Decora (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If the person is living, add {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes}}. If the person is not living, add {{WikiProject Biography|living=no}}. I'm not sure if there's a way to make it simpler than that. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I made Template:WPBiography#Basic usage clearer. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sort key for inherited articles

I think that this banner should replicate the auto-inherited sorting that is now live in WPBannerMeta This will make it easier to verify the higher classes that have been inherited such as FA,FA,GL... –xeno^talk 17:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Do we need Category:Automatically assessed (via inheritance) biography articles anymore? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason to keep it around (ditto Category:Automatically assessed (via pagesize) biography articles). They'll be sorted in the main one. –xeno^talk 14:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted that category. Updated the template, plus a few other things. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Listas for redirect class?

Should we suppress the categorisation of without listas for talk pages in the redirect class? Indeed should we, do we, have such a class, and should we do anything with it? Rich Farmbrough, 22:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC).

No redirects please. I don't think we have such class. I usually remove the WPBiography from talk pages of redirects. Every name has a lot of variations and we already have enough articles to deal with. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I also do not think we have such a class and hope that one is not created. I too remove the banner from talk pages of redirects with a summary that says something like "Removed banner from talk page of redirected article". I generally leave the rest of the banners alone, if there are any, but I generally remove the shell if there is one. JimCubb (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"*** is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) his been indentified..."

Would it read better if it said "*** is a featured article. This article (or a previous version of it) has been identified..." to reduce the "it"s ~ R.T.G 11:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think perhaps you are referring to a different template, like Template:ArticleHistory? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Work group for bands

So where do bands go? A+E or Musicians? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The latter. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the quick response! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

more categories for biographies

The WPBiography categories for biography articles needing images have become impossibly overcrowded -- for example, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople lists more than 13,000 articles, and contains everyone from cricketers to NASCAR drivers to professional poker players. Traveler100 and I have been discussing ways to improve the way these categories is organized. Traveler has written up a proposal at User:People-photo-bot. If you are interested in improving the categorization for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people and its subcategories, please comment. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Swedish or Marian symbol why?

Suggestion

Does anyone know why a little shield with the Swedish flag design, also similar to the Marian Cross, is used in this template for a large number of article talk pages where it appears? I was informed recently that it is used as an icon for Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, but it does not appear anywhere on that page. Two oddities which I would like to have explained as appropriate, if they are. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative suggestion for this icon? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I do, and I will upload it shortly and post it here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Suggestions: Replace the questionably relevant cross shield icon with the culturally neutral and more directly relevant image posted here, as per the discussion above in this section. Also add the image somewhere on the project page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility) which it represents here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Although this seems uncontroversial, let's give other editors a chance to comment. I'll make the change if there is no opposition or alternative suggestions within a day or two. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, fine by me. I still wonder why that other design was used in the first place. If I'm lucky, maybe someone will answer the original question. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

New icon  Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could make an SVG version of this icon like all the other task forces have. The JPEG is perhaps a little blurry. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I have no idea how to that. Anyone else? Please feel free to upload a new version to Commons! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editrequest}}

• 
  File:Crown for Royalty Project template 2010 (jpg).jpg
• 
  File:CrownForShield.svg

Can someone please replace the existing jpg icon with the new svg version? Thanks! PC78 (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Nice to see you back again. Was beginning to think we'd lost you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, that was quick! Dunno to what exent I'm going to get involved with things, but I was never planning to stay away for ever. Thanks! PC78 (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding the Biography of Living persons statement on article talk pages

I have initiated a conversation about a suggested change to the way we display the BLP banner on article talk pages at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Suggestion regarding the Biography of Living persons statement on article talk pages. Please take some time and leave a comment about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sports and games work group icon

Hi, could the image used for the Sports and games work group be changed from File:Soccerball.svg to File:Sports icon.png or File:Sports and games.png please? The current image used is inappropriate and also a symbol that the association football project and templates use extensively. The two proposed symbols are used for general sports and games topic already: Portal:Sports and games and WikiProject Sports.

Current:

Proposed: or LunarLander // talk // 18:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Could one of the balls in one of the suggested composite images be replaced with some long, thin item of equipment - a cricket or baseball bat, billiard cue, hockey stick, lacrosse stick, javelin etc? This is so that there is variety in the shapes. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just proposed to use what is already used elsewhere. If you can find/create such an image I'd support it. LunarLander // talk // 17:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that any replacement image should be identifiable at 25px. I think looks ok, so I would support a change to that image (since the other one is just sports, not sports and games). PC78 (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} In the absence any opposition to change and the absence of any other image suggestions, please could the image used for the Sports and games work group be changed to File:Sports and games.png? LunarLander // talk // 16:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. LunarLander // talk // 16:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Workgroups are mutually exclusive?

"filmbio-work-group=yes" seems to trump "a&e-work-group=yes", i.e. if one adds the former, the latter is ignored. According to an earlier discussion, this is by design, but to me it seems wrong: if someone is, say, a sculptor and a actor, then he or she should appear in both of these workgroups. GregorB (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

See, for example, Talk:Charles West (author) - he is both an actor (hence |filmbio-work-group=yes) and a writer (hence |a&e-work-group=yes), yet only the former has any effect. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's it. Such cases are certainly not rare. This is not a big deal, but I still think it should be fixed. GregorB (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea is that filmbio is a sub-group of a&e, so there would be a redundancy in tagging for both (i.e. articles tagged for filmbio are automatically part of a&e as well). I don't have a problem with changing this, but the a&e work group seems pretty lifeless so I'm not sure it's worth the bother. PC78 (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirect-Class

It would be very helpful to have a Redirect-Class for this template. I've been clearing out the NA-Class category, and it would be easier to separate out the redirect talk pages, instead of having to check every talk page in there, from an article. I'm finding several article talk pages that don't belong in NA, that should actually be stubs or lists, and to pull out the valid redirects would narrow down the pages that one has to keep checking to whether it's in the right category or not. The updated sandbox version for the /class subpage is here: [4]. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, but why not simply remove the banner from any redirect talk pages instead? Or just redirect the talk page if there is no other content? PC78 (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No, because the "Redirect" Class would actually serve as a category for articles needing to be created, and could be listed on the /todo pg of the project. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would the articles need to be created? Won't most of these talk pages be left behind from mergers and page moves? PC78 (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, some of the redirects, for instance, like one of the "Big Brother" contestants, redirect to a list page or a section of the TV show's page. So, if someone wants to create an article for that person, then looking in the redirect category is one way of finding possible subjects for articles. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Some actors who have only ever played one character, such as Alex Bain (actor), have the actor page redirected to the character page. If and when the actor portrays other parts, wins awards, etc., a full biog may become appropriate; but until then, there's little that can be said about the actor other than name, character played, possibly actor's birth details, all of which can go on the character page. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

While I don't ultimately have a problem with using Redirect-Class, I don't personally think it's terribly useful to be tagging redirects, and I think this notion that redirects = articles that need creating is mostly false. Looking at a few examples in the NA category:

• Grace Adams-Short: deleted, redirected and salted after AfD
• Amalswinthe: synonym of the target article
• K. C. Armstrong: was an article but merged and redirected
• Demetrius J. Atsalis: synonym of the target article
• Sarah Barrable-Tishauer: redirected after AfD

These are not articles that need creating; in fact, in some cases they are articles that we explicitly don't need. But if the goal is to have a category of articles we do need, would you not be better off with Needed-Class? PC78 (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In the extreme case we need a redirect then mark it as |class=NA and |non-bio=yes. We don't need a redirect class because normally redirects shouldn't be tagged with WPBiography. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you reminded me, I noticed the non-bio parameter on several redirects. However, that parameter is not currently in use in this template. So, maybe that should be added, instead of using the Redirect Class? --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI- Category:Non-biographical WikiProject Biography articles was deleted by User:MSGJ on 18Oct09, and the |non-bio=yes parameter was not added back to the template when it was converted to WPBM, also in Oct09. My question is: Do members of this project want to: a) use the class=na and non-bio=yes parameters (which would require adding it back to the template); b) use class=redirect only, with the Redirect-Class category being created by modifying the /class subpage; or c) remove the WPBio template from all redirect talk pages? I'd like to know what you're thinking, as I'm willing to remove the project template from redirect talk pages, if that's what you would like. Thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

My practise was/is the following: Remove any banners from redirects for three main reasons: we don't need to track redirects, we can't improve them, they are millions. In the rare cases that it was a redirect to a section from another article I was adding non-bio=yes to the redirect just to track it as potential article but I guess I can live without these class too. I recommend removing redirects from talk pages. Moreover, if banners is the only thing in talk pages and they have edit history only involving banners I would just delete the talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, removing the project template from the redirects make sense to me, as you said, there are probably millions of them out there. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

They are some other projects that use Redirect class. One of them is(?) WikiProject Video Games. I can ensure that WPBiography and WikiProject Greece don't use Redirect class. I can't say anything for all projects. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

IIRC we removed |non-bio= because it was redundant; anything tagged as NA-Class is by definition non-biographical. I'm not overly concerned what we do with these pages. I'm fine with removing the banners, but I also don't see any harm in leaving them. I just don't see much value in actively tagging rdirects as "Redirect-Class", it seems like tagging things just for the sake of it. By the same token I'm not convinced that we need Disambig-Class either. PC78 (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RAIL certainly uses Redirect-Class. To see what other projects use it, take a look at Category:Redirect-Class articles.

It should be noted that if a project banner is not set up to recognise Redirect-Class (and WPBiography is one such), then the use of |class=redirect, |class=redir or |class=red will be automatically translated into NA-Class. Thus, if at some point we turn on Redirect-Class, a whole heap of talk pages already tagged as {{WPBiography|class=redirect}} will move from Category:NA-Class biography articles to Category:Redirect-Class biography articles; but if the banner has an explicit |class=NA, they won't.

If the {{WPBiography}} has been placed on the talk page of a redirect, I personally think that Redirect-Class is useful, since it helps segregate true redirects from anything else that might end up as NA-Class (which for WPBiog means Files/Images, Portals and Projects, since Books, Categories, dab pages and Templates are already segregated). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)