Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 10

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

Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11

Unassessed articles

As of February 20, 2007 there are approximately 135284 unassessed articles - which counts for almost half of the amount of articles linked to WP Biography. As wonderful as it is to improve already great biographies, these unassessed articles deserve to at least get the one over and boosted to at least a start (or in the one case I found - a Good Article). I know I will personally be going down the list alphabetically - giving the article a look through and in most cases upgrading them a stub class, on occassion a start or rarely a Good Article. --Ozgod 06:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Could this be done in any way by a bot? I mean, 130,000+ articles. That would take forever. Surely we can get a bot to look at the page, see if it is rated by another WikiProject, and have it apply that rating to the WPBiography tag. Should this request be made to WP:BOTREQ?↔NMajdantalk 22:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Problem is, in assessing articles I've come across a lot of pages where the rating by another wikiproject is not correct. - Mocko13 22:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I know, I understand that completely. But we're talking about 130,000 articles. What would you say the percentage of bad ratings is? We could have the bot only look at ratings of high-standard WikiProjects such as Military History. Or if two or more WikiProjects have given it the same rating. Anything to help get that number down. Even if the bot gets only 50% of the unassessed articles rated, that is still 65,000 fewer articles.↔NMajdantalk 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you have a point. But if we do this, I think we should have the bot also add a bit to the talk page explaining how to get an article re-assessed if an editor thinks the assessment is incorrect. Are you willing to put in the request? Mocko13 22:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but I probably won't get around to it until Monday. I've seen some banners have an "auto" tag that is used if a bot tags the article. Then we can always go back and review articles that were tagged by bots. I'll look into this as well.↔NMajdantalk 03:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
While by doing this by hand is extremely tedious, at the same time it gives us the ability to add some important tags to articles. While I'm assessing most articles I make sure to add the {{cleanup}} {{unreferenced}} {{expand}} tags so that is already getting a little bit of nudge in the right direction. I have actually come across one B class article that somehow got by without an class assessment since its rating. If we have enough people working on this backlog consistently we could wipe it out in a month - month and a half. --Ozgod 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
In terms of turn over time. 1 person doing 200 assessments a day, it would 3 1/2 years. 20 people doing 20 assessments a day would take 325 days. 200 people doing 20 assessments a day would take us approximately 33 days. It is doable if we have enough people behind us. I personally make an effort to assess around 200 articles per day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ozgod (talkcontribs) 23:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Requesting an opinion

Is the "Trivia" section really necessary in the Joaquin Phoenix article? Is it considered encyclopedic? Where are the cited references to these trivia alegations? If the alegations in the trivia section are verifiable facts, shouldn't they be worked into the article itself? I posted this concern in the articles talk page and I would like an honest opinion in the article's talk page from those involved in the bio project. Shouldn't unverified alegations in that particular "Trivia" section be considered as "original research" unless verified? Tony the Marine 16:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Liselott Persson

Why, hello! I come under the auspices of WikiProject Abandoned Articles, a project aimed at bringing articles that have not been edited for a number of years back to life. One such article is Liselott Persson, which needs expanding greatly, or else nominated for deletion. If you could spare some time to check it out, it would be much appreciated Lord Pheasant 02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Although Ms. Persson in clearly very wealthy, she appears otherwise to be non-notable (at least outside of Sweden). I have been unable to find any English-language biographical information on her with which to expand this stub. I will nominate the article for deletion.--Vbd | (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

several biographies marked NPOV without any related discussions

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

Place of birth

Quick question regarding biographies: What is considered the place of birth when birth is given at a hospital? The location of the hospital or where the parents live, which could be different? For example, if a couple lives in a city's suburb but drive in to the city to have the baby delivered, is the baby born in the city or the suburb? -newkai t-c 06:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think fact is fact. My parents lived in Huyton but I was born at Liverpool City Hospital, and I always say I was born in Liverpool. Andrew Dalby 13:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Small alteration to your banner

As some of you may know, there's been some discussion regarding the number of WikiProject banners on article talk pages. There are three projects underway that attempt to "reduce the clutter". The first, of course, is the "small" option - see Small option for more info. The second is {{WikiProjectBanners}}, which hides all the banners in a one-line box. As has been discussed on that template's talk page, this option has the disadvantage of hiding WikiProject banners, which defeats one of the purposes - to recruit new members. The third option is {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, which addresses that issue by reducing each banner to one line (with the option to view the full banner).

Now the reason I'm bringing this up is because adopting this third option requires a small alteration of a WikiProject's banner - to add the "nested=yes" parameter. I'd like to determine consensus within this project around the change and see if we can move forward with it. I've put together a sample of your banner with the new option coded in (code). As you can see, there would be no change to the banner if the "nested" parameter isn't there. If it *is* there, the banner would be part of the "within the scope of the following projects..." box.

Two projects that have already implemented this option are WP:MILHIST and WP:LGBT.

One additional issue that cropped up only in WP:WPBIO is that there are several parts of the project banner that lie outside the normal box. In the example, the BLP box (correctly) stays in place. But other parts of the banner - activepol, needs-infobox, needs-photo, and (especially) the workgroups - those are all in separate boxes and would need to be pulled in to the regular banner box.

Thoughts? Concerns? Would going ahead with the alteration be okay? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd much prefer that option to having the banner hidden. Mocko13 21:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea too. Setting "british-royalty=yes" seems to break the show/hide-functionality, though. Hemmingsen 18:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "british-royalty" and some of the other options seem to break it. Kirill Lokshin (the person that created the WikiProjectBannerShell) and a couple other editors are looking in to what is causing that and what can be done about it. If someone here has more experience with this template and can help, that would be great! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for ratings

Hello. I have amended the existing instructions for the assessment drive as follows to include simple criteria. See also talk. Changes welcome.

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

Assessment of Paul Collingwood article

Please would this WikiProject reassess your rating of the Paul Collingwood article.

It's been the subject of a massive and speedy expansion and improvement by a collaboration from the Cricket WikiProject, in advance of the forthcoming World Cup. The article is nominated for FA and I'd also welcome comments from the Biog specialists at the FA nomination page; after all, our foremost concern is to achieve an outstanding article. Those of you without cricket knowledge are equally or possibly even more welcome to contribute, as the article should be reasonably accessible to all; even if your technical knowledge of the sport is practically non-existent, you should be able to get the gist of the man's story.

Thank you, on behalf of the WP:CRIC collaboration. --Dweller 21:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Last Call for the Project Newsletter

The March newsletter will be delivered to user talk pages on March 1. Any last minute addition are welcome. - Mocko13 01:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Deaths by poisoning

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

  • Not everything needs to a category. See List of poisonings for an extensive list of people killed by poison.--Vbd | (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Commandments style

These guidelines are a bit too much in a MUST! DO THIS! DO THAT! style, that comes across like a bossy teacher.

While there is certainly good reason for almost all suggestions, remember that even biographies do not need to be perfect, and especially not from the start (always remaining notable and referenced, of course). MadMaxDog 06:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

THOU SHALT NOT CHALLENGE THE WISDOM OF THE WIKIGODS!!! No, just kidding, I agree. But wouldn't softer language lead to more confusion in implementation? - Mocko13 19:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

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

WikiBios

WikiBios is a project for creating biographies of all people on Earth -- regardless of notability. It's an awe-inspiring project; the idea that no human being should be forgotten is audacious in the extreme. Since WikiBios articles are GFDL-licensed, it may make sense to start some sort of dialogue between this Wikiproject and their community (see [1]). I think some points of contact might be synchronizing or linking biographies for notable people, and moving bios from Wikipedia to WikiBios when AfD decides the person is insufficiently noteworthy. --ESP 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter

I don't know who - if anybody - is holding the fort at the moment, but would they or someone be interested in getting a newsletter out? They're a good way of stimulating interest and there hasn't been one since September. --kingboyk 09:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I started on a new newsletter here, and am planning on working on it over the next few days to get it ready to go out. Do you know how we can do automatic delivery, or will someone have to deliver it to people by hand? - Mocko13 21:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see this question until a copy landed on my page today. Thanks for your efforts! I'd advise checking out WP:AWB for semi-automated edits, or asking a bot editor if they can deliver. (Next time!). --kingboyk 22:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard O'Connor FAR

Richard O'Connor has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 16:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Music Bands

I'm seeing more and more music bands that have been tagged with the project's banner. I think it's wrong and by definition a biography is of a person (real or fictional) and not a group of persons or some idea someone had. What is the project's official stance on this? Should these be included or not? My vote is no --Kimon 21:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Individuals in a band: yes; actual band: no.↔NMajdantalk 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
What if there are no separate articles for individual band members, such that the only biographical information about them is folded into the article on the band? - Mocko13 01:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Then those articles should be created. A biography is A personal life story, in other words, the story of a person. --Kimon 13:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Musicians has been integrated into this project and into the project banner. The musicians project explicitely deals with musicians and musical groups, so I think in the current joined state of the two projects, bands' articles should be included. BNutzer 13:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I still believe there should be a clear distinction between an individual and a group of individuals. Otherwise, every other group of people should also be tagged with the banner such as the 110th United States Congress, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the Republican Party (United States) & the Democratic Party (United States), sports teams, military units, etc. A biography is the life story of single individual, not that of a group of individuals. Musicians fall in the former group, bands fall in the latter. --Kimon 16:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. But per Nutzer's comments earlier, doesn't it make sense to keep bands under our tag unless and until WikiProject Musicians splits off under its own separate tag? - Mocko13 19:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It makes sense procedurally but, not if someone takes a step back and looks at it logically. --Kimon 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely 100% bands have to be tagged, but with musician-work-group=yes. We negotiated their joining forces with us on these terms, and sharing a banner is beneficial to both this parent project and WP Musicians. Of course, that doesn't mean that folks here with no interest in musical groups have to get involved with them! --kingboyk 22:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Small comment/question, can't an item like the "living=" or "needs-photo=" be added to the tag template right after "musician-work-group="? Essentially "musical-group=" that would ideally add a "This article deals primarily with a musical group and its history." tag and possibly also over-ride the mwg with "yes". — J Greb 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much any combination of parameters is allowed. I don't think a "musical-group=" parameter would be any help though; that the article is about a musical group should be obvious from the content of the article :)
Ultimately, musical groups are people, and they are the subject of biographies just like individuals are. They're not within the scope of the main project and needn't concern us here, but they're within the scope of our child project. Similarly, WikiProject British Royalty might want to cover topics like Windsor Castle, also not within the scope of the main project. With some 200,000 articles in main project scope you needn't concern yourself about these peripheral articles. --kingboyk 12:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox question

Is there a consensus as to whether a subject's infobox should use separate links for towns and states/provinces/whatevers or is it generally considered acceptable to put (for example) [[Austin%2C_Texas| Austin, Texas]]? Suriel1981 09:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC) (WP:PW)

Just 2¢ but... I would think that format should be acceptable, if the relevant city article or redirect exists. That article should have the links to the larger political regions. — J Greb 10:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW, you don't need the HTML-encoded text for the link. Austin, Texas works just fine. howcheng {chat} 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dream Theater

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians#.5B.5BDream_Theater.5D.5D. --kingboyk 14:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories by birthday?

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

Might actually get some use out of {{persondata}}.↔NMajdantalk 15:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Kingbotk Plugin

A quick overview for newcomers: The Kingbotk Plugin is a set of add-on tools for the wiki editor, AWB. In bot mode it offers robust templating for WikiProjects. In manual mode, it can also be used to help editors assess articles quickly and efficiently.

Per requests, myself and Reedy Boy (talk · contribs) have just released a new version of the Kingbotk Plugin which is compatible with the latest AWB. To make things even easier, the plugin now ships with AWB. You may also have noticed my bot running over the last few days, testing the new version.

Since your WikiProject is one of the few which are programatically supported it's important that you inform us of any important changes to your WikiProject's template which have occurred in the last few months.

  • The most important change we should know about is new redirects to your template. If your template could possibly be used on talk pages with a different name unknown to the plugin, double templating could result. Please take the time to check for redirects to your project's template - somebody might have created one without you noticing.
  • Deprecated or removed parameters. We don't want complaints that the plugin is using old syntax now do we? :)
  • Not critical in terms of annoying the masses, but for your own convenience you might want to let us know of any new parameters that the plugin needs to support. Remember, it only needs to support parameters which will be added by bots or which are useful in the article assessment process.

I hope you still find the tool useful. Comments, questions and bug reports to User talk:Kingbotk/Plugin. Cheers. --kingboyk 17:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC) PS I hope to have a new revision (version 1 release candidate 2) ready later today, for shipping with the next AWB release.

Genesis (band) FAR

Genesis (band) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 02:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert Oppenheimer FAR

Robert Oppenheimer has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 02:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cats to add to project

I don't know what bot tags articles for the project, but I'm noticing a lot of untagged articles in these two cats: Category:College football coaches and Category:College football players. Whoever knows what bot tags articles for the project should recommend to them to go through these cats.↔NMajdantalk 16:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, also, if the bot just goes through those categories, it might make sense to have it auto-add to the sports work group.↔NMajdantalk 17:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. A lot of Olympic related articles and footballers already tagged by the Football Wikipproject are coming up too. LuciferMorgan 18:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Suzanne Lenglen FAR

Suzanne Lenglen has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 18:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jacques Villeneuve

I've come accross a problem while assessing the Jacques Villeneuve article. When it comes to prioritising them, I usually give out "high" for those drivers that have won a World Championship (such as Damon Hill, Jim Clark, etc) and given "top" to those who have won four or more championships, excluding Ayrton Senna (such as Alain Prost, Juan Manuel Fangio and, of course, Michael Schumacher). But Villeneuve's article falls under two work groups: Arts and Entertainment as well as Sports and Games because of his music career.

So what I want to know is, should Jacques be considered "high" because he is a world champion or should he be "mid" so he doesn't end up in the "high" priority section of arts and entertainment. Thanks. --Skully Collins Edits 10:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible religious figures work group

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

Fictional people

Would the bios of fictional persons and deities fall under the scope of this project? For example, individuals such as Heracles, James Bond, Captain America, Zeus, etc. --Kimon 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No. --kingboyk 17:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Why? I understand that adding them would greatly increase the number of articles in the project but, why not?
And how about persons whose actual existence has never been confirmed? --Kimon 19:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
That's just what was decided - every project needs scope definition so as not to be open-ended, and ours excludes fictional characters and non-human animals. As for people who may have lived but we don't know for sure, well, they're probably within scope but I don't really know :) --kingboyk 13:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable --Kimontalk 14:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Frederic Back

I am Mr Back's archivist and I would like to put his biography on line. There is already a stub, but it would need to be expanded a lot. I have a CV\bio that is pretty much complete, as well as photos but I don't have the time to put it online and edit/tag it myself. Also it is in french... Can I upload it somewhere for somebody to work on it? Luc Da 21:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. Edit and expand the French Wikipedia article fr:Frédéric Back, which at present looks very similar to the English. If you do that, the stuff you want is on Wikipedia, in encyclopedic form, and someone merely has to translate it.
If you don't have the time to do that, maybe Mr Back needs to employ two archivists. Andrew Dalby 11:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

John Major FAR

John Major has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Moe Berg FAR

Moe Berg has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hildegarde of Bingen discussion

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

A question on notability

A while ago, I came across an article about a baseball player (I can't remember the name). The man had played one MLB game (and that was it), and he did nothing else notable from what was in the article at least. This leads me to my question: is a person notable just based on playing a game (or a few games), and nothing else? In my opinion: I don't think Wikipedia should have articles like that. As a similar example: articles I've noticed of so called "reality stars" (and so on)that haven't done much else, have gotten deleted. Why aren't these "one game" people getting deleted too? It would take a little looking, but I bet some exist at least. Making it to the major leagues (or NBA, NFL, etc) is an accomplishment: but if they played one game, it doesn't seem that worthy for an article. RobJ1981 05:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I may not be qualified to answer this, but I'll try. One possibility is that the individual was also notable for some of his other activity, possibly in the minors. If for instance someone won the (minor league) Player of the Year, but only played 1 game in the bigs, he might have been included more for his minor league notability than his major league notability. Also, possibly, he might be included on the basis of the notability of the game or something he did during it, like, for instance, between the X,000 strikeout of somebody, winning or losing game #Y to some other very notale player, etc., etc., etc. Also, unfortunately, the person will be included on the team roster for that year, so it makes a bit of sense to have some content related to him, and a separate article is probably the best way to go generally for team players. I repeat, though, that I probably don't know what I'm talking about here. John Carter 15:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Great (and important) question! WP has specific standards about what constitutes notability. It does not have to do with "fame" or "importance" or one's own subjective opinion. The basic guideline is:

"A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other."

I won't quote the rest, but this ball player's name appearing in a team roster would not be enough. If there are newspaper stories articles or something else of substance written about him, that would be different.--Vbd (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Article in sore need of more watchers

The article De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) was created by a user who likes to include fairly questionable content, like a reference to "Peter, considered to be the first divine person by church of Rome." Moreover, the user in question believes that the New Testament was written by Petrarch in the 14th century AD, and that various books contain "very special meanings" in need of being decoded. (See further the deletion discussion for 62 of his articles that were deleted this morning.) I am burning out trying to single-handedly steer De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) towards being a sound and encyclopedic article, and I hope someone else can start watching the page. I have no agenda and would welcome editors with very different views from mine; the page just needs honest and experienced participants, period. (It might also be worthwhile to explore Doug Coldwell's other contributions.) Wareh 17:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism by John Carter 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

William Monahan article at FAC

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

Archimedes Plutonium

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

New Work Group?

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

Richard Walter

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


Richard Walter seems to have been created with a large amount of false information, perhaps gathered from a phony/ anonymous press release posted at "www.richarddwalter.com". Walters's false testimony was actually confirmed in NY v. Robie Drake. In 2003 and again in 2006 his testimony was determined to be false, misleading and could be presumed perjurious on at least one point (perjury being a very specific type of false testimony) by a fedeal judge.

This is all confirmed in the judge's ruling at: "NY v. Robie Drake" (2006). The acrobat file here was obtained from United States District Court, Western District of New York. Just select judge John Elfvin's rulings for March 2006 re: the Drake case. You'll need to select more than 100 documents per page to see it. Get the drake file.

I editted the many factual inaccurancies in the page with references to the court record online and articles regarding Mr. Walter's false testimony. However an anonymous editor immediately swooped in and removed those edits. I have reverted the page and posted a warning to the anonymous editor. Now Buzzle45 (talk · contribs), an original anonymous creator of this false information page designed to rescue Walters flailing credibility, has stepped in to replace anonymous editor 24.240.17.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I am not certain these are two separate individuals.

At any rate, I expected that whoever created the page would change the edits and that this issue would become something that needed an official look - as there are quite a few dedicated and obsessed people determined to keep the actual substance of this court ruling from being public. It hurts Walter, and it hurts more than a few because of their association with him.

Anonymous editor 24.240.17.187 has removed the Richard Walter page at least six times aleady and has also removed this section from the Talk: Richard Walter page at least six times, since 3/18/07 to prevent me from even having a civil discussion about it with others. Buzzle45 (talk · contribs) has done the same. Not exactly actions that are conducive to resolution, let alone communication. They just don't want the ruling public because of their hero worship (that's assuming that one of the individuals is not actually Richard Walter -this a very distinct possibility).

This informaion is not libelous. It is corrective. It is the posting of a court's ruling using the court's own document. The Wikipedia entry currently states that Walters was exonnerated by the judge in the Drake case. This is not just false, it is beligerantly deceptive at this point.

Note please that I am the only person in this dispute who must testify in court on a regular basis, under oath - and that I am also the only one willing to be identified.

As it stands, the article is full of false and bloated information about Walters that is designed to prop him up despite the court ruling - so that those who use Wikipedia as their primary nfo source (and there are many too many) will be misled. It is a disgrace to the professional community, and it is the furtherance of a weakly crafted fraud.

Do not hesitate to contact me for further assistance.

Brent E. Turvey, MS - Forensic Scientist Bturvey 23:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Richard Walter article - Libel

Why is Mr. Turvey so relentless in trying to slander Richard Walter?


To accuse someone of perjury is a serious charge. Mr. Turvey makes that claim on his own websites, but that is a matter between Mr. Walter and Mr. Turvey to settle in civil court.

I hold Wikipedia to a higher standard.

In reading the court document, in the final ruling in the Drake case, the judge overturns the appeal.

In his opinion, the judge states that Mr. Walter "may" have committed perjury (which he did not), but he rules that such an issue is a moot point because Mr. Drake does not have the basis for appeal.

Thus, Drake's appeal, and all of its allegations are ruled false.

I welcome you to read the decision on Lexis-Nexis and not Mr. Turvey's version on his websites.

While on Lexis-Nexis, I would also encourage you to read about Mr. Turvey's false statements under oath in Mississippi last year and his previous false statements under oath regarding his employment by the Sitka, Alaska Police Department as a detective. (Mr. Turvey lost in court in his bid to claim that he was employed as a detective in Sitka).

Because Mr. Turvey was not allowed into the AAFS, he has spent his short career creating his own organizations and schools. His organizations are nothing more than him and a few of his former "students" posing as a substitute for the AAFS.

Still, the bitterness of rejection has never been exorcised from his soul. He maintains a website that lists several well-respected forensic pathologists as "frauds" (Mr. Walter is not his only victim).

With all due respect, his situation reminds me of a jealous child in the playground who wants to "take his toys and play on his own".


I suggest that the Richard Walter page remain permanently locked in its pre-March 17th state.

Please disregard Bturvey's threat to "show why wikipedia can't be trusted as a source in my class". He has many more enemies than friends; no one will stand in his defense.

02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Buzzle45 (talk · contribs)

Question regarding Saints

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

Mention of living person's religion and ethnicity?

There's some debate at Talk:Murray Gold over whether to mention that Gold is of Jewish descent. He is apparently a secular Jew, and Mr chuzzlewit (talk · contribs) (who may have a personal connection to Gold himself) has objected to the inclusion of Gold's Jewishness in the article. On the one hand, the matter may qualify as "contentious" enough to trigger WP:BLP, but on the other hand ethnicity is generally considered encyclopedic information about someone, isn't it?

Right now, no citation has been provided for Gold's Jewishness, so I'm OK with it being removed as uncited. But assuming a citation can be provided, what's the standard operating procedure for an issue like this? Any assistance at Talk:Murray Gold would be welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 21:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia biography statistics

I wondered how the biography statistics - in particular, the total number of biographies, including the unassessed bios - are calculated. Is the total number calculated from a list / lists, or from some aggregation of categories (e.g. people categorized by year of birth / death)? Dsp13 23:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A bot determines how many articles have the banner placed on them, and adds them to the articles assessed at a certain level. I think it does so on a daily or every-other-day basis. John Carter 15:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thom Hickey at WorldCat recently counted the number of biographical articles on Wikipedia using Category:Births by year and Category:Deaths by year, and reached the total 283,655 Dsp13 12:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

New WIKIPROJECT FILMMAKERS PROPOSAL

I am proposing a new wikiproject which if it was allowed to develop would become a major project. I have noticed that as a memebr also of WP Films that articles on actrors, film directors, producers, cinematogrpahers, etc are often to much for Biogrpahy to deal with. I strongly beleive we need an institution on wikipedia to take care of all Film people. I propose Wikipedia:WikiProject:Film biography. If I created the tag for this project each time you would mark it as WPFilmmakers it would automatically put it is Biography articles as well . Please let me know what you all think. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 14:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Anybody care less? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What about creating it as a subgroup/work group/task force under WP:FILM? Similar to the way WP:MUSICIAN is a work group under WPP:BIO.↔NMajdantalk 18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

hCard Microformat

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