Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 8

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

Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9

"Assessment Week"

Event proposal

I was recently talking to Thereen, and Thereen remarked to me about the immense backlog of unassessed articles. We both have been working over at the Musicians WikiProject and have noticed a similar increase in the musician-related backlog.

So, we thought it might be a good idea, if we could set a week of time where all (or as many as are available) of the users can get together and try to tackle some of the backlog. Thus the creation of an "Assessment Week." This event could even happen multiple times every year (if enough support was available).

If we could get a few users to leave notes on some of the members' talk pages, it would hopefully attract enough people to help make a dent in the backlog. Thoughts...? – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  04:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly I am in support of this idea. Assessing an article isn't hard, but it can be time consuming with the amount your project has accumulated, especially without adequate support. Our project has just over 2,000 articles of backlog. Your project, on the other hand, has more than 100,000 at the moment. Some of those unassessed articles must have been sitting there for quite some time. I see this as a chance to pitch in with those articles. We'd love some thoughts or feedback on this idea. Thanks for your time and Happy New Years, Thereen 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea, but personally, I'd prefer an "Assessment Day", where one day every week, we assess articles. I think we would get through the backlog faster that way, and I'd be less likely to get tired of assessing articles that way. Either way, I'd be joining in. - kollision 22:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand the reasoning, but I think that trying to get people to assess articles every week would be hard. We thought that having a "special" week would inspire more involvement and might attract more people. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  20:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Shamelessly plugging my own proposal, I was hoping with the "Wikipedia Week" proposed to begin on Wikipedia Day, the 15th, to get as many projects as possible to engage in some sort of special action to "celebrate" the time. This would clearly be one idea which would fit into that proposal. Badbilltucker 20:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people by name (2nd nomination) may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Mets501 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the project fading? An alert signal

During the last two months, namely during the time the heart and soul of this project, Plange, is inactive (for reasons I do not know), there are serious problems in the co-ordination and regular function of this project. Take into consideration the following examples:

  • No newsletter has been issued during the last two months.
  • In the peer-review section I am almost alone, since nobody ese reviews articles in a regular basis.
  • The side-bar of the project is not regularly informed and often includs inaccuracies.

So, I think that my question is logical? Where is this project going? During the last months it managed to collect an amazing noumber of users, but this had not helped it to remain vigorous. Something is obviously wrong, and something must be done, so that it starts again working properly. I'm willing to contribute to this effort, but is there any further interest? Does anybody else agrees that something here is not working properly? Is there a plan and an existing continuity of the project's function (despite Plange's inactivity) that I ignore?--Yannismarou 11:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as one of those users, I apologise, Yannis, for not being much help. I do in fact create and edit biographical articles (mostly ancient and medieval people). That's the way I contribute. I seem to leave it to others to set up projects, write newsletters, stick banners on talk pages, and do assessments and peer-reviews; in the limited time I have, I can't really join in. I admire those like you who are willing to do it. Andrew Dalby 13:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I am guilty as well. Odd as it might sound, I think we might want to consider creating a new group or project for the express purpose of updating newsletters, portals, and the like. Any opinions? Badbilltucker 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the group idea. The Military Project has a team of co-ordinators. I do not know if we need to re-produce exactly the same model. But, certainly, there should be some people dedicated to the maintenance of the basic aspects of this project (updates, newsletters, peer-reviews, portals, welcoming new members). Until now I have been self-"confined" to the peer-review section (whose I have undertaken the maintenance [because nobody else did! - not that I do not like it; I do!] after Plange's milder involvement and current inactivity). Being "confined" to this section, i do not know that well the other aspects of the project (neasletters, automation, outreach, portal etc.), but I'm willing to learn, to help and to participate to a collective effort, led by a group of people like the one Badbilltucker proposes. I do not know if this group is going to be unofficial or elected, if it is going to be called "co-ordinators" or not, but, definitely, something is needed to be done here, and this particular proposal seems to be towards the right direction.--Yannismarou 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Relevant MfD

As someone who writes some bio articles (although I haven't too date been active in this particular Wikiproject, which at some point I should change), my attention was caught by this MfD on what apparently is supposed to be an index to all the biographies on Wikipedia. The question has been raised in the MfD discussion as to whether this list continues to serve a purpose, and if so, whether its existence needs to be better publicized and/or how its functioning could be improved. It occurred to me that participants in the Biography Wikiproject might be in the best position to comment on these questions. Newyorkbrad 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Case sensitivity

Hello. It appears to me that your template switched case. "class=stub" results in "???" on Peter Samson and (where I saw the problem just now, because I copied Samson's there) on Steve Russell. I am almost sure that a participant in this project observed this. For now I changed the ratings on those two talk pages to "class=Stub". -Susanlesch 02:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried it, and it seemed to work fine. I cannot seem to recreate the problem. Also, discussion related to {{WPBiography}} would best be placed on its talk page. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  03:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Then I suppose someone fixed it on the fly, because last night these articles were rated "???". I mention it here because it affects the project. Thanks a lot for your reply. -Susanlesch 11:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Project Duties

If this project is to continue to function in the recent absence of the sorely-missed Plange, it will probably need individuals who can handle these particular duties.

  • Keeping the portal updated Partially met
  • Greeting new members
  • Project newsletter
  • Assessment/peer review people Partially met
  • Active responders to messages on talk pages Partially met

Personally, I could (maybe) handle some of the portal duties (with some help - I really dunno what I'm doing there) and some assessment and peer review. Regarding the newsletter, there is now a vague proposal of trying to start a general newsletter for all the projects at on the talk page of the WikiProject Council. Anyone interested in helping maybe put that out would be more than welcome. Anyone want to step up to the plate on other areas of the project? Badbilltucker 19:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Until now, I'm trying to keep alive the peer-revie section. In an above section I've expressed my worries for the current situtation of the project, and I am willing to help. Of course, I do not have a loooooooot of time (I'm also administrating the History of Greece wikiproject and I am editing articles), but I am willing to help. Let's be more specific:
  • For the peer-revie section, I need assistance, but do not worry; I'm there keeping it alive!
  • I've started assessing articles; thus I'm also in there now. I also proposed a fresh nomination procedure for A-Class candidates.
  • Project newsletters: I'm willing to assist, but where are we now exactly?! I need some kind of "briefing" about the current status, achievements etc. Being "confined" in the peer-review sections I've lost almost all the important developments here. Is there a bot carrying the letters?
  • Greeting new members: Definitely yes!
  • Active responders to messages on talk pages: Also willing to assist, under the term that I understand (as I said above) where the project exactly stands right now.
  • This idea for a general newsletter for all the projects at on the talk page of the WikiProject Council is very interesting, and I want to know more as an active member of WP:HOG, WP:BIOGRAPHY, and WP:MILHIST. As I said in a previous edit, I'm willing to participate in an official or unofficial group of people trying to administrate this project. I don't have the time to do the job alone (administrating such a big project is a huge task), but I can help on a collective basis. As I said in a discussion with Kirill Lokshin, I really felt sorry for the current standstill and stagnancy in WP:BIOGRAPHY, and that is why I officially raised the issue. "A project running so well, is now trembling IMO. And such a good work is going awaste! The program hasn't issued a newsletter for 3 months! If I was not doing the job, peer-reviews wouldn't be performed! Assessments are back!" Thanks!--Yannismarou 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT magic word

A great new feature's been added to Wikipedia's software. As mentioned at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-01-02/Technology report, we can now change the default sort key for a page like so: {{DEFAULTSORT:Washington, George}}. If this were in George Washington then all categories that didn't explicitly override it with their own sort key would put this article under "W". I've proposed adding it to {{lived}} and {{lifetime}}, but I figured I'd mention it here as well since I'm sure there are plenty of other biography-related templates that could perhaps use this. Bryan 04:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that, Bryan. I wouldn't have seen it otherwise. Andrew Dalby 14:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I've now implemented that magic word in both of those templates, if anyone wants to add it somewhere else you can look there to see an example of how it can work. Or let me know of a good target and I'll take a crack at it myself. Bryan 08:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Clementine Churchill, Baroness Spencer-Churchill

I came across this article and I wasn't sure about it so I figured this place is a good place to ask. Does being married to a notable person make the person notable, even if she didn't do anything else notable besides get married? Axem Titanium 03:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Two answers.
One, that isn't exactly the case with the above person, who as head of part of the Red Cross and as someone who has a hospital named after her, does qualify as significant in her own right. Having a biography of her published by a reputable publisher would also qualify.
Two, regarding the more general question, that somewhat depends on the amount of impact this potentially non-notable person might have had on the notable person, and on the amount of information available about that person in particular. Most spouses of US Presidents already have biographies here, because of their importance to the life of what is generally considered to be one of the more easily notable people in history. Also, as is the case with Mary Todd Lincoln and others to my personal knowledge, there is a lot of published data available on them, possibly too much to comfortably fit in a section of the bio of the notable spouse. In a case like that, it is reasonable to spin off that section into its own article.
Having said all that, however, if those circumstances aren't met, then probably no. I hope that makes at least a little sense. Badbilltucker 16:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
In the case of Clementine Churchill, I agree with Badbilltucker's points one and two. I don't think the article is adequate in clarifying her notability (I see it has an expand template on it) but her notability isn't really in doubt.
On the general point, it's worth noting that traditional historical materials (even from 20th century England! but particularly from earlier periods) often downplay or completely omit the influence of women, even those who were very close to major events. For that reason, I suggest it's good for Wikipedia to be inclusive in the case of women linked with historical events. Once a Wikipedia article exists, it can attract information that might otherwise have remained obscure. Andrew Dalby 16:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I see. Thanks, both of you. I suppose the same notability criteria would apply to some of her children linked to in her article (see Marigold Churchill, lol, and other "descendents" articles). Axem Titanium 16:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncategorized people

Hi. Category:Uncategorised people is getting quite large (about 2000 articles I think). People involved in the biography project might want to take a few whacks at it. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 07:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

New proposed project

Currently, this project lacks for some people to fulfill some of the directly project-related duties, with the absence of the project's creator Plange. There are several other projects which lack people to perform directly project-related activities as well, including such things as assessment, peer review, portal maintainance, etc. On that basis, I have proposed a new separate project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Project Support Services which, should it have sufficient interest, could help in such activities when the people who would ordinarily perform certain activities are absent, or to assist new projects which are just being set up. Any individuals interested should feel free to add their names there. Thank you. Badbilltucker 15:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi, Badbilltucker. In my short time on Wikipedia I have found the WikiProject Biography to be the best run. How would your proposal affect its operations? I wonder about inserting another layer of process. Thanks in advance. -Susanlesch 15:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Basically, I tend to agree about Biography having been run well while Plange was active. Right now, it is less so. In circumstances like this, when the backbone of the project is away for a while, a member or members of the project could make a request to the proposed project (if it were active) requesting that it maybe help update the portal, do requested assessments, or whatever until such time as the people who regularly do that return, or until the project chooses or has members come forward to take on the duties more regularly. I'm basically thinking of it as kind of a temp agency to do some of the things that a project generally does on its own but for whatever reason can't do at that specific time. Once the regular people do step forward/get appointed/whatever, then the members of the proposed project would basically leave the work to them, until and unless they're contacted again. Badbilltucker 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The project is badly ran right now. Or to be more accurate some parts of the project are badly ran because of Plange's absence. I'm not sure your proposal, Badbilltucker, will work. Let's say that the project is created, and that 10 inactive projects demand at the same time assistance. The members of the "support group" will have first to support their own project (which is alone a tough task), and then the projects with problems! And if one of the projects filing application is a big one like WP:BIOGRAPHY the problem of the "support group" will get bigger! One person cannot do the job. He will need the assistance of more members (Not even Kirill cannot do the job in WP:MILHIST; he has a team of elected assistant-coordinators to assit him). And then who's left to assist the other problematic projects? And the "support group" itself? I think that this project, in particular, should find the solution internally. It should have already found a solution already! This project has more than 200, and we cannot co-ordinate ourselves creating an internal support group! I cannot believe that! If Plange is watching us she must be bitterly disappointed by the current situation. I'm sure that individual users are doing their best right now to keep their project alive. But we need co-ordination and organization. IMO this is the best problem right now. If we had co-ordination and organization (and 2-3 more people) we would be able to fill the missing parts of the puzzle.--Yannismarou 16:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No real disagreement with the above. With the number of members we have, we should be able to do better. I only posted the proposal here because this is one of the largest projects and it currently is experiencing some of the problems the proposed project would address, not that it would necessarily be the perfect candidate itself. Also, I have noted that a number of new projects need a lot of help in setup, and they also could benefit from such a group helping out when they do start. Regarding the second issue, I think maybe the time has come to try to appoint/elect a board to help oversee this project. Basically, I think three people (the number Military history) has, should be enough. On that basis, I am adding a section below for candidates. Badbilltucker 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Hello all! I'm really really really sorry for my extended absense! Holidays snowed me under, plus temporarily not having an internet connection at home severely put a cramp in my ability to pull my weight! I'm definitely going to be back and make a concerted effort to participate fully again! I think BBT is correct though, that we should try to find some people to take ownership of certain areas so that my absense (or anyone elses) will not cripple the project... --plange 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear Plange, whatever you were doing continued to work. When I needed them most, assessments by Ceoil (one example) and Yannismarou (one example) were so well done and so prompt. Really stellar work. But I understand from comments above that you need more people. I would support Badbilltucker's idea if it is at the bottom of the organizational chart, a service provided to WikiProjects, and not an umbrella at the top i.e. over WikiProjects. Does that sound about right? -Susanlesch 01:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • SHE'S BACK!!!!! (for a note on my punctuation metehods, see [here]). You have no idea how many people were worried about you, lady. Anyway, that is rather less important now, unless the work just gets a bit too excessive, which it easily could. I hope everything's a bit better over there now, for your sake and ours. And, actually, the project proposal would be more like a "temp agency" available on call (if it ever gets off the ground), than as a bereaucratic entity. Sorry if I hadn't made that clear earlier. Badbilltucker 01:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank God! I go back to the peer-review and assessment departments that I know best! But my initial statement stays: if Plange needs further support in other parts of the project or if she decides to form a supporting group, I'm here to help. Cheers!--Yannismarou 08:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Project Activity Board

Here is a place where individual members of the project can volunteer to take on some of the project management duties, as well as a place where members can suggest other editors who might be able to assist in these matters. Please note that the individuals here are not being considered to be "managers," "directors", "supervisors," "little tin gods," or anything of the type, simply people who are considering becoming possibly a bit more actively involved in helping to manage a certain activity or function of the project. Any nominees or volunteers should be added below. Thank you. Current activities requiring help:

  • Assessment/Peer review
  • Portal management
  • Project management (response on talk page, collaboration, newsletter).
  • Ideally, I think we would want at least two people for each duty, in the event a person becomes temporarily prevented from performing a task. Any volunteers or suggestions should be added below. Badbilltucker 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm already active in Peer-review (but further assistance would be nice), and during the last days I've started working also in the Assessment section. My free time is not endless, but I can also - at least partially - help with the 3d bullet (response on talk page, collaboration, newsletter). My bigger problem there is automation; I'm not the best in automation, bots etc, but I'm a quick learner! I don't think I have time right now for the portal as well.--Yannismarou 17:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a standard format for the Awards section of a bio?

Could someone please link me to a recommended format for the Awards section of a biography? If there isn't a general standard then please recommend one or more quality biographies of highly decorated and/or multi-award-winning French people so I can get some ideas for best practice. Thank you. Random Passer-by 21:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Gerald Ford FAR

The template page hasn't been update in weeks, so I'm leaving messages here now.

Gerald Ford 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) 19:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Father Damien FAR

Father Damien 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) 19:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Joyce Kilmer

Please visit the talk page and review the recent edit-warring history for Joyce Kilmer and please comment on whether certain genealogical information (which I think is irrelevant and anti-policy) should be inserted into the article. —ExplorerCDT 00:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • As I see it, three questions are involved. Should biography articles at least mention: 1) the place(s) from which the subject's parents come? 2) the names and birth and death years of the subject's siblings? 3) the names and birth and death years of the subject's children? These least two questions are obviously only for cases where the subject had at least one sibling or child. Ruhrfisch 19:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that's an over-simplification of the issues at hand. The three questions should be. (1) Should an article mention the place where his parents come from when it's only from one u.s. state to another and it happened way too many years before the birth of the subject of the article? In the case of Barack Obama, it's relevant to discuss the Kenyan origins of his father to understand some of his worldviews, his coming-of-age, his identity and self-identity. But in terms of Joyce Kilmer, the fact that his father was born in Connecticut and his mother in New York offers nothing to the understanding of Joyce Kilmer except to say, in a modern way..."yeah, his parents moved to the suburbs." (2) Should the subject's siblings be mentioned, even after the article describes the subject as being "fourth and youngest" child of the parents when (a) the siblings are not notable; and b.) the siblings had no impact on his life's accomplishments; and c.) they aren't mentioned or discussed anywhere in the article? In the case of Napoleon Bonaparte, we should discuss his brother Joseph, and some of his siblings he made Kings and who lead divisions of the French Army. Joyce Kilmer's siblings did nothing in relation to his life except, perhaps, attend his wedding and show up for Thanksgiving. (3) As you said it. The answer to that is up in the air. Part of what makes Kilmer's children worth mentioning, especially his daughter Rose, is that her brief life had a considerable impact on his poetry and his hardcore conversion to Roman Catholicism. Same with Antonin Dvorak and his kid's deaths in relation to his composition of the Stabat Mater. But I don't think "dates" should be an issue. —ExplorerCDT 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I see two possible solutions. If there is already a consensus or style guideline at WikiProject Biography that siblings and children should be included (or not), then it is a no brainer. If there is no established consnsus or guidleline (and I could not find one) then I think focusing on Kilmer and the effect children or siblings had on him becomes the guide for their inclusion (as well as consistency, if you list one sibling or child's full name and birth and death dates, then I would list them all, with children and siblings decided separately). Ruhrfisch 20:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Henry VIII of England FAR

Henry VIII of England 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) 01:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Slayer

I will be nominating the article on the band Slayer for FA soon. I would appreciate it, if some of you could take a look and leave some comments on the peer-review if anything would stop it from obtaining FA status. Thanks. M3tal H3ad 09:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A general call for help at WP:BLPN

Hey everyone - I'd like to make a general call for help at WP:BLPN. Many issues posted are going for days or weeks without being looked at. Please consider taking an open incident or two and examining them. If the problem is severe and ongoing, make a comment to that effect. If it was a one-time report of vandalism, unsourced information that has been reverted, or a content dispute that is not a BLP issue, close the request. Any help would be appreciated. Anyone can help - relatively new users or long-time admins. Thanks. --BigDT 06:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

categorization / activists etc.

There's a CFD for Category:Animal rights activists; the members of an animal rights project don't want the subcat for "activists"; a couple of us who have been categorizing and diffusing various people categories (Category:People by occupation" and Category:Activists) think it's important to be consistent. Thoughts from other people-categorizers welcome, since this could set precedent for other movement pages. The discussion has gotten really bogged down b/w Wikiproject:Animal rights movement folks (generally opposed) and categorizers (generally in favor). Perhaps some biography-lovers could raise new points, make helpful discussions & generally shed some light on this unhappily irresolved discussion. --lquilter 16:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes and redundancy?

Is there a policy or guideline or whatever about whether information that goes into an bio infobox should or should not be repeated in the article's text? For example, the opening para. of a bio is supposed to include birthdate, place of birth, etc.; those items are also listed in the infobox. What about other information, like spouse or children or awards? Thanks. --Vbd 15:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali nominated for U.S. Collaboration of the Week

Please vote for Muhammad Ali at Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sly & the Family Stone FAR

Sly & the Family Stone 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) 16:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

categorization of people by political belief

Hi - another biographical categorization issue -- people by political belief. Please see CFD on American liberals and Categorization of people. --lquilter 16:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson (band)

Marilyn Manson (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. Jeffpw 21:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Anne of Great Britain

Anne of Great Britain 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.Jeffpw 09:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan 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.Jeffpw 09:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving and new design of this page

I added a header for this page (it seemed a little empty). I also think that because of the high number of posts, it might be useful to use Werdnabot to archive the older sections. Everything is set up already to use it, I just wanted to ask about the archiving. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  21:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


Big Five (orchestras)

Why does Talk:Big Five (orchestras) have Biography project tags? The article is not a biography. Finell (Talk) 04:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It was added by a bot (Kingbotk), apparently in error, so I've removed it. Random Passer-by 18:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't want to barge in and remove them myself, in case I was missing something. Perhaps I was not BOLD enough this one time. Finell (Talk) 03:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not especially bold and sometimes find it helpful to seek a second opinion from other editors. :-) Random Passer-by 14:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed subproject

Considering that individuals who found one religious movement generally arise from another one, and that their articles will be edited primarily by adherents of the faith s/he founded, not the one s/he arose from, I have proposed a new subproject to deal with these possibly difficult articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Religious leaders in the hope that we might be able to better ensure they be NPOV and have a global perspective. Any and all interested parties should indicate their support there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start the group in earnest. Badbilltucker 15:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

David Sereda deleted

The above named article was deleted as a copyright violation. If anyone could recreate the article without violating copyright, it would greatly be appreciated. Badbilltucker 18:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Igor Stravinsky FAR

Igor Stravinsky 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) 19:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Temptations FAR

The Temptations 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) 21:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fanny Blankers-Koen FAR

Fanny Blankers-Koen has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation conventions for film directors

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but a brief glance through Category:American film directors shows a wide variety of disambiguation conventions with seemingly none predominating. There is "filmmaker", "film director", "director", "film-maker" and "film". The first three variants are represented fairly equally, while I only found one case each of the last two. I propose deciding on one out of the three and sticking with it. Is this the right talk page to do this? Esn 23:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)