Template talk:WikiProject Biography

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

RfC: BDP in Biography template[edit]

Should the Biography template be adjusted to include the "bdp=" parameter? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it duplicates blpo=yes. Maybe change the wording of blpo slightly.--Racklever (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it does duplicate it; it doesn't neatly fit into either BLP or BLPO, as blp=yes adds it to a living persons category, whereas blpo=yes adds a banner saying "the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article", which works for actual BLPO articles, but not articles covered specifically under WP:BDP. I think a bdp parameter might be useful, especially if we can track when it's been added so that it can be changed when an appropriate amount of time has passed. Even if that's a little too much, however, I don't think changing BLPO's wording would be beneficial for any non-BDP article. - Aoidh (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe change the wording to "the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article unless they have recently died" --Racklever (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you (or anyone) see as the benefit of announcing that? The BLP banner says, in effect, "we must be especially careful with fairness and sourcing on this article." A "BLP doesn't apply" banner would say, in effect, "we can be less careful with fairness and sourcing on this article." I suppose that is true, in a sense, but I don't see much value to emphasizing the fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not what a BDP parameter would say, because BLP does apply to BDP articles, but the problem is that adding blp=yes to articles is also including them in a category for living people, and changing it to blpo=yes is saying that BLP doesn't apply to the subject of the article, which is inaccurate for articles of recently deceased subjects, especially controversial deaths. A bdp parameter would state that BLP applies without actually adding it to the living people category. - Aoidh (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I am neutral on this subject - I can see Aoidh's point but I am also sympathetic to Racklever's suggestion about changing the wording. Can someone who is against BDP clarify what the downside of adding a BDP parameter would be, other than the fact that it may be somewhat redundant? It seems to me that disambiguating between different categories of BLPO is not necessarily a bad thing, we can always just have the BDP flag transclude BLPO for now, and if in the future we decide that we want further disambiguation, the pages where BDP applies will already be appropriately tagged. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Couldn't a banner be displayed for "living=no" that explains that BLP policy may apply to this article? If people don't like that, then I guess bdp could be used. The issue doesn't seem critically important, but I guess such a feature wouldn't hurt anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have been working through adding living parameters to the articles in Category:Biography articles without living parameter and have stumbled upon the article about Alexei Devotchenko. Devotchenko is a good example of where a separate "bdp" parameter would be useful. Devotchenko died on 5 Nov 14. (Only 5 days have passed between then and the time of this comment.) His death is reported by The Independent, which I am assuming is considered a reliable source. In this situation neither the "living" nor "blpo" parameters are appropriate but there should be a notice of caution regarding the article subject, due to the contentious subject matter. Kind regards, Matt Heard (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Assesment[edit]

Hello,
could somebody please assess Frank Riethmuller, as I am not really familiar with the assessment criteria (as soon as an article obviously is better than start) - is this a C, B or perhaps even A-class article?
Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Results of |a&e-work-group=yes not displaying when |musician-work-group=yes is included.[edit]

On Talk:Mary_Hallock-Greenewalt, I have this:

|a&e-work-group=yes
|musician-work-group=yes

but, only "This template is supported by WikiProject Musicians" displays.

When I remove

|musician-work-group=yes

then "This template is supported by the arts and entertainment work group" displays.

Is this a bug? Any suggestions or work-arounds so it will display both?

Peaceray (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Peaceray: It's intentional - if either |filmbio-work-group=yes or |musician-work-group=yes is present, |a&e-work-group= and |a&e-priority= are ignored. There are several threads on the matter in the archives, the earliest is Template talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 2#musicians override arts and entertainment? and the latest Template talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 5#Workgroups are mutually exclusive?. It's covered by the first bullet at Template:WikiProject Biography#Work groups, although it doesn't actually say that they're mutually exclusive. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64 Oh, okay. Yeah, the precedence of |filmbio-work-group=yes & |musician-work-group=yes over |a&e-work-group is not spelled out at Template:WikiProject Biography#Work groups. It just says that if the article is about an actor or filmmaker, to use those work groups instead. I cannot agree that being a musician or a filmmaker disqualifies one as an artist, at least as far as work groups are concerned. I just heard Joni Mitchell on the radio today saying that she considers herself a painter who does music, & Jean Cocteau & Man Ray did both art & film. I don't agree, but at least I now understand the situation.
From the #ifexpr code in the template, it looks like the only workgroup that is overidden is the arts and entertainment work group if either the filmbio-work-group or the musician-work-group (or both) equals yes. I will add something to the documentation to note that when I get a chance.
Peaceray (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It's true about Joni Mitchell. She couldn't sell her paintings, so sang around bars and clubs to make money for paints and other materials. All her earlier album sleeves were drawn or painted by herself (no photos until Blue) - it was the only way to get her art over to a wider audience. Look at the way that the title of Song to a Seagull is made of dozens of tiny birds - so subtly that the UK record company overlooked it entirely and thought that the album was simply titled "Joni Mitchell" and marketed it as such.
Anyway, to get the behaviour of |a&e-work-group= changed needs a discussion involving many more than two of us, considering that it was set up that way several years ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Priority or importance?[edit]

There is a discussion at WT:WPBM#Very commendable guideline being virtually ignored about whether banner templates (particularly this one) should use the word "priority" rather than "importance" to describe articles. Please contribute over there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Persondata has been deprecated[edit]

Persondata has been deprecated by this RfC, in favour of Wikidata. The related parameter should now be removed from this template. I've already proposed the category that that sets for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Usage for talk pages of families?[edit]

I have a few questions questions:

  1. Should/Could this template also be used for asessments of articles about families (like in Talk:Hegardt and Talk:Schröder family) or similar categories (like in Category talk:Moltke family), rather than individual persons?
  2. If the answer to the first question is yes, should then the parameter "class=" be set to something reflecting the fact that the article or category concerns several related people rather than just one person?
  3. If the answer to the first question is yes, and if some but not all persons included are dead, should then the parameter "living=" be set to yes or to no, or be left unspecified?
  4. If the answer to the first question is no, do you then have a suggestion for alternatives? Could Template:WikiProject Genealogy be reasonable? JoergenB (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Yes; see for example Talk:Beverley Sisters.
  2. No - the |class= parameter indicates the quality of the article, not the number of subtopics. Only the values shown in the first column of this table are valid; for regular articles they are fa/a/ga/b/c/start/stub (note that if the page is in mainspace but is not a true article, the special values |class=fl |class=list or |class=dab may be used).
  3. If everybody that is covered is dead, set |living=no. If any one or more of them are still alive, |living=yes.
  4. There is nothing to stop you putting two or more WikiProject banners on a talk page, provided that all of them are relevant. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)