Template talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please add zh:Template:WPBiography

This template has Chinese edition so please add [[zh:Template:WPBiography]] to the template.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Like most templates with a documentation subpage, Interwikis are held on Template:WPBiography/doc, which is not protected. Anyway, I've added it there. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved by David Fuchs (talk · contribs). Jafeluv (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


Template:WPBiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biography — Per the de facto naming convention used by almost all other WikiProject Banners. Standardisation here will bring consistancy, clarity and improved readability. Template name would also match the WikiProject name. PC78 (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Makes sense to me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral - while I am a strong supporter of WP:STANDARDIZE and have moved many templates to the WikiProject Foo form, I'm kindof torn about "WPBiography". It's in use on so many pages, and it's the most widely-known banner template. It's also got a bit of "unique" functionality (the "blp=yes" bit) so there's an argument that may be made to have a unique display in the wikitext on the talk page. –xenotalk 13:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for readability and consistency with other WikiProjects. —Tim Pierce (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • The banner is on 853,480 pages. There are 3,440,838 articles, almost one in four have this banner. I seriously doubt if any other project has even half as many pages. If conformity is necessary or even desired, then the other projects should conform to WPBiog.
    • Also oppose because a need to redirect has not been shown. Clarity and readability are purely subjective and possibly irrelevant. The outward appearance of the banner is no different from those with more verbose titles. (Is "I Like It" sufficient justification for a bot to start to make the change? Is the input of so few people sufficient "consensus" for making the change, especially when two them are not in favor of the change?) JimCubb (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
      • FYI, if this change were to go through, a bot would _not_ be deployed to change the links en masse (though bots might do so en passent). –xenotalk 20:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
        • SmackBot (talk · contribs) has been premature before and has been in trouble for that. I assume, from past experience, that Yobot (talk · contribs) will start changing links and many editors will complain about it.
Two afterthoughts:
An editor who is unable to discern that {{WPBiography}} produces the banner for Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography may also lack the skills necessary to make a positive contribution to an article within the purview of the project.
The template that forms the basis for {{WPBiography}} is no longer called {{WikiProjectBannerMeta}} but is called {{WPBannerMeta}}. The former name redirects to the latter name. The move was made on 11 February 2009 by PC78. (Isn't that interesting? I think it is) JimCubb (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Not that interesting really: I didn't move anything, merely created a redirect. The same argument could be made for moving {{WPBannerMeta}} I suppose, though that isn't a WikiProject banner in itself, merely a meta template to create WikiProject banners. This isn't relevant to the discussion though, and I'd appreciate it if your remarks focused on the nomination and not the nominator. PC78 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Use of {{WPBiography}} as a redirect on so many pages is not technically problematic, nor is it unprecedented. {{Image other}} is also a redirect, and that is used on over 500,000 pages. PC78 (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Tim Pierce. Jafeluv (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral I always thought of WPBiography as a special case since most people are entering with this name, it's very well recognised, etc, etc. In comparison WikiProject Biography wasn't that popular. Even WPBIO is more popular than it. Of course, I don't think this is a strong reason to keep it as is and I don't think that my arguments is stronger than standarisation. So I am ok if we rename. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Support after the discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support it's not a big deal for pages that have just one banner, the rest will move over the course of a few years, as articles get upgraded, have banners added or removed, etc. Regardless better to change now with 834000 uses than in two years time with over 1 million. Also, sure we are used to it, but there will be many years worth of Wikpedians using it after us. Renaming this is a baby-step to making it easier. Rich Farmbrough, 06:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
  • Support Its one of the few projects left that doesnt already follow the spelled out format and this will help make things more consistent. --Kumioko (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose This seems like a bunch of work for little perceived benefit. --Rschen7754 18:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rschen. Lots of work, no displayed benefit except consistency. Imzadi 1979  18:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
A big benefit: Newbies just have to remember that "WikiProject foo" means banner. This is a big benefit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hardly "lots of work" either: move the page (over existing redirect), then fix double-redirects, then edit the template and its doc page to say "WikiProject Biography" instead of "WPBiography". Much the same as any other page move, except that an admin needs to do it because of the protection level. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
But WikiProject foo in this case does redirect to the proper page, so the point is moot. --Rschen7754 21:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Not entirely, newbies will still see "WPBiography" and not be able to draw the conclusion that "WikiProject foo" is valid. For example
{{WPBiography|living=no|class=c|priority=mid|s&a-work-group=yes|listas=Stephenson, George}}
{{WikiProjectTrains|class=C|importance=high|UK=yes|UK-importance=Top|Scotland=yes|Scotland-importance=Top}}
{{WPNEE|class=c|importance=high}}

compared with

{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=c|priority=mid|s&a-work-group=yes|listas=Stephenson, George}}
{{WikiProject Trains|class=C|importance=high|UK=yes|UK-importance=Top|Scotland=yes|Scotland-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject North East England|class=c|importance=high}}
Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC).
Not to mention that when making bots/scripts and other tools its a lot easier to program WikiProject [insert the name of your favoriate project here] then trying to anticpiate hundreds of different names. --Kumioko (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Strongly agreed. PhotoCatBot relies heavily on deducing what photo categories an article belongs in by which WikiProjects it belongs to. Being able to match patterns like "{{WikiProject _____}}" is much more helpful than trying to parse abbreviations like "{{WPNEE}}", "{{WPNY}}" or "{{WPES}}". —Tim Pierce (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
But even if the templates are moved, you still get coding like the top unless you get a bot to change all the transclusions. Which you guys aren't planning on doing. --Rschen7754 22:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
No; change will be gradual, but it will happen. PC78 (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Since the proposed change does not affect what is displayed to a user only to an editor and there currently a feeling that such changes should not be made (see the discussions about capitalization within templates for example), if the change is made there may be serious repercussions should an admin who cares about the issue of edits that do not affect the rendered page notice the change and learn that it was made through a "consensus" of just over a dozen editors. JimCubb (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what repercussions you're concerned about. Can you say more about that? Is there some administrative or policy concern over "the issue of edits that do not affect the rendered page"? There's quite a lot of housekeeping activity on Wikipedia that seems to fall into that category, and I've never seen anyone object to it, so I'm interested to know if there's an ongoing concern about that kind of work. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding possible repercussions: I remember the stink that was kicked up in January this year when an admin unilaterally removed four parameters from a particular infobox. The template itself wasn't renamed, but another admin complained about the no-consensus edit; after much arguing, threats of WP:ANI were issued. The upshot? The original admin self-reverted 65 minutes after his original change (5 mins after the ANI threat), and never did get consensus for his change, although the discussion then dragged on for four weeks. During all this, a third user (not an admin) observed "also remember that each edit of this template invalidates the cache for 15,000 articles so no one should be changing the code on a whim". {{WPBiography}} is used on significantly more than 15,000 pages (it's presently no. 49 on Wikipedia:Database reports/Templates transcluded on the most pages, with 874,715 transclusions), so I imagine that the server load will be considerably greater, so we really do need a broad approval. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything? Nothing is being done on a whim here. The whole point of this discussion is to seek concensus for a change. PC78 (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
It has everything to do with it. Renaming the banner means moving the page, which means invalidating the cache for 800,000+ pages, which means slow servers for an indeterminate period. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Good point, but we have been told by one of the techs (Tim Starling I think) that moving a page does not invalidate cache. Rich Farmbrough, 22:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC).
Remember that all 800 Wikimedia projects, with all their simultaneous activity, are being delivered from the same set of servers. I just purged the cache for Template:!, which is used on 4,930,535 pages; note the lack of "slow servers for an indeterminate period". We are years past the time when edits to key templates could slow or crash the servers, or even impose a noticeable load. There are no performance considerations here. Happymelon 23:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Then what's the point? You don't need to rename the template to rewrite the transclusion link, since the redirect works just as well. You're going to have to go through all the talk pages and redo the transclusion, but this does not require renaming the template. The redirect exists and functions. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Other interesting points:
  • There are 874,715 transclusions of {{WPBiography}} and 874,720 transclusions of {{WPBiography/class}}
  • The project banner with the second largest number of transclusions is {{WPMILHIST}} with 123,446 transclusions. (Note that this is not {{WikiProject Milhist}}. Since 34,474 of these are biographies only 88,972 additional pages would be affected should this project also be "fixed".
  • The underlying template of almost all the project banners is {{WPBannerMeta}} which is on 3,483,652 pages. {{WPBannerMeta}} needs to be moved to {{WikiProject BannerMeta}} before any other banner is moved if the stated precedent of "WikiProject" over "WP" is to be true rather than an opinion.
Thanks to User:Redrose64 for the link to a reliable source. JimCubb (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
As I pointed out to you earlier, {{WPBannerMeta}} is not a WikiProject banner in itself, and renaming that template is not a prerequisite to renaming this one. You're quite welcome to start your own discussion regarding that template, though. PC78 (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
As has happened often before, you do not address my point. It may be because I did not state it explicitly and it may be because you choose to ignore it. The precedent is "WP" not "WikiProject". The three most transcluded project banners are "WP" not "WikiProject".
The most important point, beyond the fact that the precedent is "WP" and that the "WikiProject" name is without precedent and more difficult to type, is that the requested move would not appearance of the banner on the page. Please look at what happened to Rich for making changes to templates that did not affect the appearance of the template on the page. JimCubb (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The relevant precedent here is WP:STANDARDIZE. I really don't see that whether or not the change affects the appearance of the template is a significant factor at all. —Tim Pierce (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
And to followup to Tims comment just because it has been done, has been done often or has been done till now doesnt make it right. Also, This project is one of only about 4 or 5 left that still use the WP or something else besides WikiProject so the precedent has been established even if you choose not to accept it here for this project. I apologize if this last part sounds a little snarky but its pretty obvious to me that some members of this project want to keep it the same, but theres no need to hide behind the perception that there is no precedent or that its too much work because those 2 arguments are defunct. Just say we don't want to do it, we don't care what the concensus was with the other projects, or that we like the naming convention that has been deprecated and wish to keep it. Eventually though, whether next month or 5 years from now when the project has 2.5 million articles under it and we have all retired from editing the name will undoubtedly change to match the others. Its just a matter of doing it now or later IMO. --Kumioko (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
If one is to believe the relevant edit summary last May on WP:STANDARDIZE (properly Wikipedia:Banner standardisation), and I do not see a reason to disbelieve it, "This page failed to get consensus, and was actively opposed by multiple highly respected editors." The cited precedent is an essay, a mere suggestion. It is neither a policy nor a guideline. It is, at best, a soundly rejected proposal. JimCubb (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Again I point out that it is not soundly rejected throughout Wikipedia, only here and a couple of others. All the other projects have been standardized. Additionally I intend to keep eyes on any new ones (and I am sure others as well) and encourage them to follow the precedent that has been set by the other 1500+ projects and not the 4 minority holdouts. Your right that there is no "requirement" for this project to follow it if they insist they don't want too. As such I can live with the projects desire to maintain the status quo as long as its clear that the reason is because this project doesn't want it and not that there's no concensus or reason. Both have been established. --Kumioko (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree strongly with this. According to the current revision of Wikipedia:Banner standardisation/data, there are only four WikiProject banners left that do not follow this pattern, and only two that use the "WP" prefix. Regardless of any formal consensus process that WP:STANDARDIZE may lack, it seems apparent that its recommendations have been accepted by nearly the entire Wikipedia community. —Tim Pierce (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Two points. First, as a lower bound, there are at least 7,011,952 separate banners on talkpages, counting only projects which use the WP1.0 assessment scheme and not including wierd classes like Redirect-Class. Banners with quality assessment make up about 80% of all banners, but are likely to have a higher average number of instances; the total including non-assessed banners, non-Talk:-space banners and other miscellanea, is certainly over 8 million. Let's not pretend that this banner, large though it is, is in any way dominant in this area. Second, the name of {{WPBannerMeta}} was chosen specifically so that it would not follow any of the formats which were in existence at the time, especially "WikiProject Foo". WPBM is not a banner, it is a meta-template for creating banners; as such it is not in the banner namespace so that it would not conflict with, or be confused with, the banner for Wikipedia:WikiProject Meta or Wikipedia:WikiProject Banner Meta, if by some (admittedly remote) chance such a project were to be created. The ideal name would have been Template:WikiProject, but alas that was already in use; you could argue a case for usurpation there if you liked. Happymelon 23:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Nice attempt at information overload. However, this is a discussion about the {{WPBiography}} template not {{Cat handler}}, {{Cat handler/blacklist}}, {{Cat handler/numbered}} or any of the other eighteen templates that are in this section. Also, while it may be that consensus has changed, it should be noted that Wikipedia:Banner standardisation as a proposal crashed and burned. It did not become a policy. It did not become a guideline. It is an essay and has the force and weight of any other essay.
Despite that, I am almost certain that an editor who is well-versed in the writing of templates will tire of the discussion and change the template. There will be complaints but no one will be bothered to take the matter any further. JimCubb (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Some bugs in Biography articles with more than one work group needing priority parameter replacement

Category:Biography articles with more than one work group needing priority parameter replacement seems to contain pages that are only in one work group but have |activepol= on them. Example was Talk:Nessa Childers but probably I fixed it for the particular case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of hyphen

I propose that the hyphen be removed from between "recently" and "appearing", for this template to conform to the guideline at WP:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3, point 4. (I am adding this template and its talk page to my watchlist, and I will watch here for a reply or replies.)
Wavelength (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Where do you mean? PC78 (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
It is in the second large box on the page, where the text begins with the words "This WikiProject banner uses". You can find it by searching for the word "recently" with Control-F.
Wavelength (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh thats actually not this template thats the Metatemplate that is used to create almost all the WikiProject Banners. You would have to ask there but I believe thats just a documentation change and doesnt actually affect the template. --Kumioko (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I visited Template:WPBannerMeta, but I did not find the word "recently" on that page. Is it the right page?
Wavelength (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Its here Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage. --Kumioko (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much.—Wavelength (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
No problem but you probably should leave a comment on the talk pae first and see if it draws any comments. I doubt it will though cause the hyphen aint no good english the way it is. --Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
My opening message there is almost identical to the one here. I discovered that Template talk:WPBannerMeta/templatepage has fewer than 30 watchers and has received very few page views in each month of 2010. One week might be a reasonable period of time to wait for a reply.
Wavelength (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I am one of the 30 watchers. I don't think you need to discuss such a trivial change honestly. Just get on with it ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Happy-melon has kindly removed it.—Wavelength (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Needs-persondata

I rather agree with Magio that this parameter is basically depricated but I would understand if we keep it in WPBIo just in case some got missed. That would also give the bot a first place to look.--Kumioko (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Then we have to take it from the Rugby Union to Biography. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
...which I just did. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that we do the same for {{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom}}. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Needs-infoboxes

I cleaned ~10% of the pages having |needs-infoboxes= (i.e. more than 3,000 pages cleaned). I guess, if we stanrardisie the Infoboxed more I'll be able to remove more out-dated requests. Any suggestions of how to clean everything more efficiently are welcome. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the Biography articles, IMO, if we put a basic Infobox Person template with some basic info (maybe it could use the same is article about a person logic as the persondata, but if not just name would be ok with me) on articles without it that would be a big help. Then people could fill it in as needed. Of course some folks should be more specific like Military person, Actor, etc but I think Person is a good basis and most of the other person templates (inluding Military person) use it as its core now. I would say that we shouldnt drop the person template with every applicable field. Just the common ones, Name, Date of birth & death, place of birth & death and maybe a couple more. --Kumioko (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Actor is now merged with person. Probably we could merge more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I Believe Military person is as well but we might need to double check that. --Kumioko (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

needs-photo correction to template required

{{edit requested}} If needs-photo=yes is set and baronets-work-group=yes is set the article talk page is added to Wikipedia requested photographs of peers, which is correct, but is also added to Wikipedia requested photographs of people, which is not correct. See example Talk:Andrew Feldman, Baron Feldman of Elstree. Most other task-forces correctly add only to the specific sub-group, for example Talk:Robert Balchin, Baron Lingfield --Traveler100 (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

As the template says followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately - you will need to supply what line in the template needs altering to what. We are not all wiki code experts. I'll leave the request up - you might be lucky, don't hold your breath...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't get it either. Template talk:Convert/updates has some examples of the info we need to do this kind of edit. Tell us what to cut and/or paste specifically. I'll leave the request up too, but be patient. KrakatoaKatie 05:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you wish to remove the people photoreq category if it is set to "peerage-work-group" as well as "baronets-work-group"? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
If "peerage-work-group" or "baronets-work-group" is set that the page should be in Wikipedia requested photographs of peers but not in Wikipedia requested photographs of people. Looking at the source of the template the problem must be due to the multiple if statement of these two task force parameters as that is the only difference to other task forces, but as yet I cannot see the exact reason. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Fixed. The parameter name was incorrect. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, well spotted.--Traveler100 (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edit

The following appears at the beginning of the template:

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people....

This is grammatically incorrect; it should say, "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, to develop and to organize Wikipedia's articles about people...." What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathMaven (talkcontribs) 21:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, a later part of the template says, "All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion." What this says is:

All interested editors are invited to join the project; all interested editors contribute to the discussion.

That's not what this template is trying to say; it should say, "All interested editors are invited to join the project and to contribute to the discussion," which avoids the enigmatic usage of the present subjunctive. —MathMaven (talk | edits) 13:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Might be worth dropping by the ref desk to make sure that others agree with your analysis, as it might be an WP:ENGVAR thing? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Needs-photo=yes accompanying text for BLPs

Is there any possible chance we could somehow shorten the small-font non-free images reminder that accompanies needs-photo=yes on BLPs? I really dislike how it disproportionately enlarges the template. -- œ 16:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is excessive. All that is needed is a link to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Alternatively we could make it so that it always goes into collapsed mode when it displays this long message. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The link would be so preferable.. shall we go ahead per WP:BRD then? or wait for further comments? -- œ 17:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Well if there are no other comments forthcoming, I think we could trim it. What wording do you propose? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I also agree that would be an improvement. --Kumioko (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I was kinda hoping someone else could come up with the wording. I just think the link to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is all that's needed. -- œ 10:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Two Small Changes

I change the basic usage from horizontal

Template|parameter|parameter|parameter

to vertical

Template
|parameter
|parameter
|parameter

for both living and not living. They now fit on the screen better.

I also change the incorrect definition of the sort value for {para|listas}}. It did not seem a big enough deal to require permission first. JimCubb (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Kretschmann then moved to Malaysia in the summer to shot his scenes for the German I think the contributor meant to type 'shoot' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.57.116 (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Brian Clewer

I'm an old guy not good with computer stuff, so I'll leave the editing to somebody else, but the page gives his age as both 79 and 96. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.171.179 (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed this. Please use the original article's talk page for more questions like these about his article. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Living parameter - List articles?

How should the living parameter be set for list articles (and what articles should be marked with this template if they're list articles)? If everyone on the list is deceased, I would presume "no", but what about other cases? I'm guessing "yes" if any member of the list is still living? Or "no" but mark "blpo=yes" if any member of the list is still living? In some cases, it will be somewhat impractical to go through the list regularly and check to see if all are living - perhaps something could eventually be done like putting a notation of the latest birthdate and automatically assuming "no" if that's more than 125 years ago? Or a bot to regularly check the entries for each person in the list? Thanks! Allens (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, if it would be better to ask this on the Wikiproject Biography Talk page or someplace else, I apologize, and please let me know where to take this question; thanks! Allens (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages have a similar issue. If class=Disambig, then I'd expect the effects of living= to be overidden. Yet, it looks like Yobot (talk · contribs) has been using class=Disambig to sepecifically set living=no even if the dab contains living people [1]. I'm not sure this is harmful, but it does seem inelegant. Noca2plus (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Red flag/similar to show in template if no "living=yes/no" parameter?

As well as placement in the Category:Biography articles without living parameter, could something be done to cause a message and a graphical "red flag"/similar to show up in the template itself, to encourage people to go ahead and correct this? (That category is currently backlogged badly - I'm working on it when I have time.) The message should perhaps include some sub-portion of the BLP template text, to try to ward off libel/slander suits vs Wikipedia. (This is particularly acute regarding US law for relatively obscure people who are likely considered not "public figures" - these are also the ones most likely not to have been properly labeled as "living=yes", might not be in the "living people" category, etc...) Thanks! Allens (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Living = parameter for twins, duos etc.

As an example the article Viet and Duc Nguyen is about a pair of conjoined twins. Viet is now dead but Duc still lives. Should we put living=yes, living=no or do we need another parameter ? Racklever (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The parameter is not a method of classifying articles but to flag that an article contains information about a living person, therefore yes. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 


Reduce number of parameters?

I'm wondering if it would simplify things if we had just the one parameter for each workgroup, instead of the current two. For example, instead of sports-work-group=yes|sports-priority=Mid we could have (for example) sports-priority=Mid (alternatively, sports-work-group=Mid). Whichever parameter was chosen, the other could be phased out. Any non-blank value for the parameter chosen could automatically add the article into the relevant work group, and if it were a valid priority value it would also add it into the relevant priority category. I've seen something similar done for other templates, for example Template:WikiProject Football, where an article can be categorised into a task force and given an importance value for that task force, all using a single parameter. --Jameboy (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

More photos?

Proposal: For needs-photo=yes emit "a photograph or picture", but for needs-photo=more, emit "more photographs or pictures". --Lexein (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest another solution, namely use the {{Image requested}} template with the of parameter. The need-photo parameter in the Biography template has reached its limit as it places too many article requests in a single category. The Image requested template allows for placing in more specific sub-categories as well as being able to provide additional detail of the request. For example {{Image requested|baseball people|people of Iowa|of=clearer portrait}}.--Traveler100 (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, well. This is a wide-open topic with too many unknowns, and we can't solve everything at once, and certainly not here. --Lexein (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Religion work group

Is there no religion work group in which to add religious figures (e.g. priests, bishops)? Very surprised by this. --Jameboy (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Add Sports and games portal

I added the sports and games portal to the Sports and games work group to the template in the sandbox. Please implement. Kumioko (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Categories named after people

There seems to be a general rule that categories named after people (ie Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart) are not themselves placed in any categories, other than hidden categories, including the category structure known as Category:Eponymous categories. I understand that one of the reasons for this is that not every article in a person's category is about that person (ie their history, beliefs, etc), but includes articles about people associated with them, their biographers, their hometown, etc. I do know that this practice of not including eponymous categories in the regular category tree is not universally cleaved to. City categories are often placed in the category for their state. I want to know if it is official WP policy to not allow eponymous categories to be placed in larger categories, and if so, what steps are being taken to stop all such activity. I sympathize with the problem here, but i feel that such eponymous categories should just be placed in the regular category tree, despite this discrepancy. if i am in the minority, so be it, but i cant determine what we are doing. any directions to policy would be appreciated.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Incorrectly_tagged_WikiProject_Biography_articles

Question about a few of the cases where the template puts pages into this category. I'm working on clearing the Category and while a page like User talk:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Rick Schieke belongs in the category, I'm a little more hesitant about a page like Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Cassie Sumner or Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jorge Manuel Miranda Dias. However the ones that have me really confused are ones like Talk:Nitrozac. I finally figured out that the template objects to being placed on the talk page for a redirect, Nitrozac redirects to The Joy of Tech.


I'm willing to fix all of these, but what should I use for the explanation for the changes on pages like Talk:Nitrozac?Naraht (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Sports and games portal

Now is a red link. Could someone set to Portal:Sport. --Kasper2006 (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)