Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 74

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 72Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76→Archive 80

Should a biography have an infobox?

Whenever I have worked on a biography I have always made sure there is an infobox.

I do this so

  • The main points of the bio can been see quickly for those that don't want to read the whole thing
  • It shows the info in wikidata is matches the artical (which can then be used as the basis for translations of the bio)
  • It ensure that microdata is in place for any search engine crawlers coming past

The reason I ask is I have just an infobox on a artical I was working on removed with the comment No need for this nonsense so wanted to see what the consensus is from the biography community

For refence this is the artical https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Wilton&action=history

Back ache (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see MOS:INFOBOXUSE, which represents the consensus of the community: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." – SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Google and some other search engines tends to read the data in info boxes, so it can be helpful to data searches as they are classed are using precision data. Which suggests it's useful to use when the page has a lot of information on. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Nope. Search engines lift the data from the inglorious turd Wikidata - the repository of unsourced and deeply flawed trivia. And don't edit war to your personal preference Govvy. We have WP:BRD and various ArbCom cases about poor behaviour around IBs. - SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Edit-war? I don't see an edit-war, also why are you posting an ArbCom to my talk page? And why are you talking wikidata turd? Besides, I stripped the IMDB out, that's a big no on that article. Still not sure about some of the sources on it. Govvy (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You don't see edit warring, despite edit warring? Funny that. You need to read what I have written and try and join the dots. Search engines don't lift info from WP, they lift it from Wikidata - a place where unsourced and unsupported rubbish is king. As to ArbCom, I left the note on your page because you've started acting improperly in terms of IBs: it is a note to make you aware that there are ArbCom sanctions in effect. And why on earth are you wittering about IMDB? Of course it shouldn't be used, but it's not relevant for this discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You're a weird one aren't you, now I look back it seems you're the one doing the edit-war I guess. Saying I am acting improperly, pfft, don't push your luck. You must of heard of the term back-fire right? Govvy (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Charming. Please see WP:NPA. - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Govvy (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Govvy, WP:DICK. CassiantoTalk 17:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto You should probably retract that. Govvy (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, should I? If the cap fits. If you want me to redact that, perhaps you could redact "You're a weird one aren't you?" It's easy to throw around essays, without actually getting anywhere, isn't it. And that, together with the disgusting slur, based upon your perceived view of someone's mental health, makes your behaviour akin to WP:DICK. CassiantoTalk 22:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, biography articles should have an Infobox. All developed bio articles have them, so it makes no sense to exclude one. As long as the material in them is supported by citations, either in the Infobox itself, or where it is mentioned elsewhere in the articled, they are useful, and their widespread use would seem to constitute a consensus of the community. Nightscream (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"All developed bio articles have them" Really? I can show you a dozen or more featured articles without them. The consensus of the community is quite clearly outlined in the MoS (already quoted above - "neither required nor prohibited for any article"). Insisting on something that does not suit all biographies, let alone all articles, is not the way to improve WP. - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@SchroCat:, I would very much like to see them. Nightscream (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
For examples, go to Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music_biographies and work your way through. Charles-Valentin Alkan is the first of many in that section. I can point to numerous others once you’ve exhausted that section. - SchroCat (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The article in question (Nick Wilton) had an infobox when it was first created back in June 2011 by M.Mario (talk · contribs). It retained this (with occasional amendments) until July this year. The first edit that Back ache (talk · contribs) made to the article - at 08:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC) - was to alter {{Infobox person}} to {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} which may be seen as controversial, considering that Wikidata does not have a verifiability policy similar to ours. Rather than revert that edit, SchroCat (talk · contribs) (who also had no previous edits to the article) removed the infobox outright at 16:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC), with the aforementioned edit summary. SchroCat later invoked WP:BRD at 14:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC), yet I see no posts to Talk:Nick Wilton by either of these parties. Neither of them is a newbie: one has more than nine years experience, the other almost fifteen years.
My suggestion is that the infobox as it stood from 17 February 2020 to 13 July 2020 (i.e. prior to Back ache's first edit there) should be reinstated, and then its merits and deficiencies be discussed at the article's talk page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Redrose64, the Infobox was the Bold edit, the Infobox edit was Reverted, and the onus is on the person who added it to Discuss the merits for inclusion. What part of that don't you understand? CassiantoTalk 22:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Can you explain this more? 6 months stable till its removal - how is its removal now not the bold edit? Agree odd to invoke WP:BRD after a WP:BOLD edit. Wondering if more wording is need on the bold page so we dont have this odd problem of thinking old edits that have been stable are still bold after a certain amount of time. Hard for new editors or any editor to assume a 6 month old edit is now contested by bold.--Moxy 🍁 22:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Moxy, there was a "silent consensus" to remove it. Ask at ArbCom, they'll tell you. CassiantoTalk 01:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean ...how the hell is this editor or anyone to know this (link pls)? Looks like a flyby edit with zero consideration for those involved with the article.--Moxy 🍁 01:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Sure, silent consensus' are great at manipulating the situation into your favour. CassiantoTalk 07:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Moxy, are you talking to yourself? CassiantoTalk 05:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Evidently to no one that can explain.--Moxy 🍁 05:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Moxy, nope, illegible, sorry. CassiantoTalk 06:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Cassianto: You say the Infobox was the Bold edit, the Infobox edit was Reverted - but what do you mean by this? As I have pointed out, the infobox was there right from the start. The article then had 177 subsequent edits prior to the first edit made by SchroCat, and an infobox is present in every single one of those 178 (and yes, I have checked). This edit by MarnetteD (talk · contribs) was the last one involving the infobox prior to Back ache's first, so the infobox was stable for 4 months 26 days. The infobox continued to be present in every version until SchroCat's first edit. Now, if that edit was a revert, as you claim, which version does it revert to? Or, which edit(s) is it reverting?
I am aware that music biogs need talk page consensus for an infobox to be added to an article that doesn't have one (the pop music people love them, the classical music people tend not to); or for an infobox to be removed from an article that already has one. Two things stand out here: one, the subject isn't a musician, but an actor and scriptwriter; two, the article already had an infobox, and there was no talk page discussion (let alone consensus) for its removal. In fact, there has been no talk page activity since 07:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC). There has been no talk page discussion since 15:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC) - subsequent edits have all concerned the top section: WikiProject banners etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure the "music connection" is all that pertinent in this case. There is a wider question over whether those from the liberal arts or performing arts should have them at all. IBs work well when there is a career progression or statistics to encapsulate (so politicians, the military and clerical appointments are all very clear; those in sports have their playing stats present, for example), but for the creative fields? They're like an ashtray on a motorbike for all the good they do. Ezra Pound springs to mind, as does Noël Coward or Ralph Richardson as top rate articles in the "performing" field that all eschew the limitations of the box. - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Redrose64, "You say: "...the Infobox was the Bold edit, the Infobox edit was Reverted - but what do you mean by this?" -- exactly as it says on the tin. WP:BRD is a cycle, with BRD being in exactly that order. The first edit is always the bold edit. If there is no first edit, it cannot be bold. That goes for every edit, not just infoboxes. The next part of the cycle is "Revert". That is when an edit is reverted that has been added through someone being bold. Lastly, "D" is for discuss. That is for the person who reverted the bold edit to discuss why the bold edit was reverted, and from there is when a consensus is formed, either by way of local consensus or RfC. I don't think I can be any more specific than that. CassiantoTalk 12:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I know what BRD means, don't lecture me. What I want to know is which specific edits each of the three stages applies to.
Which was the bold edit here? The edit that added the infobox (which was way back in 2011) or the edit (you have a choice of three) that removed it?
Which was the revert here? One of the three edits that removed the infobox, or one of the two that restored it?
Has anybody involved with the article discussed the matter at its talk page in the last, say, six weeks? Hands up anybody with a fairly recent edit to the talk page. I'm waiting. None? Bad argument.
How many edits were made to the article where BRD was mentioned? I make that two: 1; 2. Both of them were by SchroCat (talk · contribs), and both removed the infobox. The first was debatable; the second was a bad BRD call, and indeed fell within WP:EW. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Redrose64, if you have to ask "which specific edits each of the three stages applies to", then I'd have to disagree that you know what BRD is. You should know that the IB was the bold edit. CassiantoTalk 14:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
the IB was the bold edit Do you mean that the first edit having an infobox was the bold edit? That was done at the time the article was created - so, on that basis, creating the article was WP:BOLD; and since at no point was the entire article either blanked or deleted, there has been no revert. Now, are you going to continue to be obtuse, belittling and otherwise disrespectful? You are aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions#Remedies, where it was resolved that you are indefinitely placed on infobox probation; I am 100% certain that you are aware of this resolution, because you were informed about it at the time. Now, please give a pair of straight, non-evasive, non-abusive answers to my two questions: (1) Which was the bold edit? (2) Which was the revert? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Redrose64, indeed it was bold. That's why we have an AfD area so things can be deleted (reverted). How do you suppose the cycle goes? Something needs to be bold for it to be reverted. Please tell me you at least understand that. CassiantoTalk 21:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Redrose64, why are you bringing up the ArbCom case? Do you hope to silence me through fear? You're very much mistaken if you think I give a toss about that particular committee's decision and how they handled that case. It's because of them that this poxy subject keeps coming up. Oh, and I think you'll find that I'm "allowed" to talk about IBs in general, just limited to one comment per specific article. Now, if you're aware of the case then you'll also know that it applies to you, too. Nothing further to say to you, so off you pop. Happy editing. CassiantoTalk 21:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Initially, I made some observations of fact, and as a neutral outside observer, I offered a compromise suggestion - but was met with patronising comments from the start. After that, all I have asked for was an indication of two specific edits - WP:DIFFs are excellent for that, such as those I used in my earlier posts here: alternatively, you could provide the timestamps of the edits concerned. I'm trying to work out your position on the article, which version you feel to be the most sensible; yet all I get is vagueness blending through obtuseness into hostility. "Nothing further to say to you, so off you pop.", straight after asking questions of me? That creates a dilemma: to answer the ArbCom question, or not? Oh well, here goes.
I wasn't the one who first mentioned ArbCom - four people (one being yourself) did so before me; and that prompted me to have a look - where I find that you are named directly, but I am not mentioned at all. The closest that it gets to me is All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general. Also, this discussion is about one specific article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Redrose64, you previously indicated that you believe that the long-term stable version of the infobox should be restored pending further discussion at the article talk page. Are you still of that opinion? I think we're both in agreement that the tortured distortion of BRD portrayed above doesn't make any sense. Is it time to restore the stable version and require a consensus before it can be removed again? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Working from "neither required nor prohibited", I can't imagine why anyone would argue that a given biography shouldn't have one, what valid reason there could be to remove one, once someone has created it. For my information, what reasons have people given for opposing the addition of an infobox or for favoring the removal of one? User:SchroCat mentions writers as a case in point. I don't know what distinction anyone makes between whether a given article "needs" or "doesn't need" an infobox, but there is, after all, an {{infobox writer}}, which someone created for, well, writers—and if someone added this to Ezra Pound, why would that make the article worse? Largoplazo (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Because they can be crass and misleading. Would such a box make the Pound article worse? Yes, of course it would. The factoids used to populate such boxes strip all context and nuance from a subject, meaning all that remains is a copy of the information in the first line of the article. The prose of even a poorly-written lead will always trump an IB in informing a reader about a subject. This is all rather moot: this project has no power to mandate IBs anywhere, so the MoS's "neither required nor prohibited" will, thankfully, be the default, rather than the knee-jerk mantra of too many that 'all articles/all biographies need an IB'. - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Largoplazo, Infoboxes should be used only occasionally and with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. In my opinion, infoboxes on the arts seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text.
Further reasons include:
  • Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)
  • Visual degradation: The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
  • Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all.
  • Disconnected particles. Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
  • Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
  • Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)
I think that's covered it. CassiantoTalk 13:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Should a biography have an infobox? Only if the biography is about a monarch, politician or sports figure. Otherwise, no infobox. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
At some point, we really need to have an RfC on this. This question seems to pop up at various articles once or twice a week, leading to a bunch of unnecessary arguments. Just have one big argument, let everyone put their views on the table, and then hopefully the community can arrive at a decision. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Lepricavark, what about the articles that have already had an RfC not to include an infobox? Would your RfC trump them? If so, why do you think this'll stop the arguments? If anything, it's more divisive. CassiantoTalk 19:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Fair point. I suppose any hypothetical RfC would need to account for prior discussions. It just seems to me that it would be better to avoid continuing to have numerous article-specific debates. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
There have been such RfCs before (from memory the last one was a year ago, possibly two. The consensus was that it’s too difficult to make a solid rule on the matter, so the “neither required nor prohibited for any article” consensus was confirmed as the best one to stick to. - SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Lepricavark, the reason this issue continues is because of the many incompetent ArbComs who have chosen to ignore it. They find it too difficult to fix, and buy not doing so have done a disservice to the project. CassiantoTalk 05:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this still going on, I still can't believe I didn't get an apology from you Cassianto, you clearly are below the belt type of guy, kinda makes me sad for you. All this arguments over who thinks what is right over an info box, info box data can be read by search engines without reading meta, search engines also read the first few paragraphs, however special needs browsers hate info boxes and a lot of those users don't like the output of the way they read info boxes. :/ Govvy (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it’s obviously still going on. Please don’t continue to insult other editors while playing the victim card at the same time. You’ve thrown insults at others, so don’t be surprised when they reply in kind. As has been mentioned above, which you may have missed, the idiot box doesn’t provide information for search engines: Wikidata does that job. You’ve already replied to the comment where I told you that before, so hopefully the information will stick this time. - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
SchroCat, I'm pretty sure search engines do use infoboxes for data. I was testing this a month or two ago. I don't have my detailed tests handy, but as a quick example you can Google "treforest railway station", look at the Google box for it, and compare it to the article's infobox, and look at the Wikidata entry at wikidata:Q3400263. The bolded words are fetched from the infobox, not Wikidata, some are manually set now but some don't exist on Google at all. The same effect is more visible with some other infoboxes. (some other examples: "King's Cross Thameslink railway station", "East Grinstead railway station"). I'm not entirely sure how it works in particular cases, but in my tests I found Google's box fetching data from WD, infoboxes, and (in some cases) the article lead itself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps a different approach would be best. - thus far its caused reputations to be tarnished and conflict with editor after editor.--Moxy 🍁 13:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Govvy, WP:DICK. CassiantoTalk 14:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes at this point I think it should be codified that biographies should have an infobox. In this specific case at Nick Wilton there was an infobox at creation so the onus is on SchroCat to find consensus to remove. Since their edit removing it was the bold edit, they should then discuss it on the talk page. PackMecEng (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Good luck with the centralised RfC to have that codified. The last few times it was tried, the idea was rejected. - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
      • That is a different story! I would probably support it should one come a long but it would be a long hard road to be sure. One seems to have been due since the original arbcom case from what I can see but nothing has really happened. PackMecEng (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The last RfC was 2018, so I doubt it is "due", except in the sense that IB warriors think that the best way to achieve ownership of the top right-hand corner of all articles is to keep smashing the question over and over again until people are either driven off the project or are so sick and tired of it that they capitulate just for some piece and quiet. But that's no way to run a circus, let alone what is supposed to be a collegiate project. - SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It would be a great idea to require infoboxes on biographies above a specific size. They are always helpful on large articles but aren't especially beneficial when an article only has three paragraphs. ~ HAL333 20:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. The anti-infobox warriors also will never give up. There is also a certain disingenuousness to their removal of infoboxes of long-standing stability, then edit-warring to declare that the people trying to keep them in are the “warriors.” This is a ridiculous bugbear of a debate, long resolved by the “infoboxes on a case-by-case basis” decision, which results inthe overwhelming majority of biographies having infoboxes, save for the walled garden of Cass and Schro’s classical music world (where even there a pro-infobox contingent exists. Let’s just tuck this away and stop wasting bandwidth on it. Schro and Cass, you need to just quit trying to systematically remove infoboxes from articles you have only minor concern about, and in return, the rest of us who favor infoboxes for all the long-debated reasons we’ve endlessly discussed shall just let you have your little gated community over in a few of the articles you’ve staked out as your turf. Montanabw(talk) 22:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Compromise

If this topic comes to an Rfc? Then a compromise would definitely be a collapsed infobox (see example: Frank Sinatra) for bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Worst of all worlds. Collapsed infoboxes are incredibly rare, and the cause of the collapse at Sinatra appears to be...
Besides, the status quo seems to work fine mostly, not sure an RfC is needed. imo just replace the infobox at the article of discussion and be done with this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Archive 70←Archive 72Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76→Archive 80

Nomination of Casey Calvert (actress) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Casey Calvert (actress) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Calvert (actress) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Notifying here, due to redlink turned to blue for pages:

  1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Film crew
  2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Film producers

Thank you, Right cite (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Julian Sands Filmography

Hello, I tried to modify Julian Sands' filmography but I can't get the table fixed correctly now... can someone help? Looks like I screwed up the alignment... I tried to get it undone but I can't figure it out. :/ Ultraouf (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ultraouf, All fixed, Unless a film should be 1994 and not 1993 then there were too many rowspans, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Chadwick Boseman image

Wrong venue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

thumb|upright|Option A thumb|upright|Option B There have been three discussions and endless edit wars between multiple parties regarding which image to use in the infobox on the Chadwick Boseman article. The images are included here.

Arguments for option A include being the most recent and best-lit photo. Arguments for option B include that it has no objects in front of the subject.

Since it's evident this issue can't be solved at the article's own talk page, and it primarily relates to creating a biography, I'm opening this RfC to get a wide consensus to stop the edit warring. Kingsif (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

B. Less distracting objects. And there's more tone in shadows. Since anything on Wikipedia has to be creative commons, as long as you attribute correctly, making adjustments to get the tones more presentable is ok. Graywalls (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue. Please don't use WikiProject Biography as place to host random RFCs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion about family members/children in individual autobiography

This is something stemming from Edward G. Faile. I am asking here, because I would like to know what's appropriate level of inclusion about the life of family members, siblings and children. When an article is about an individual and life event in their children or siblings don't tie into the life of the article subject, should it be included? The contents in question is: "On March 29, 1965, daughter Caroline married Dr. James H. Anderson. On October 19 the same year, daughter Harriet married John A. Crane. Both weddings were held at Woodside.". There is no context on how it relates to him and I don't think something like that ought to be included. What's the general consensus on this project?

Also, what about Jane Doe, daughter of [ [ Becky Smith ]] a celebrity most famous for some show, Lt. Col. John Schmoe who served honorably in the war... type thing? What is the recommended practice as far as how far we go on and on about family members? Graywalls (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, I certainly empathize with idea that wikipedia articles tend to digress into trivia. I don't think, however, that one short paragraph about two daughters is excessive. The context on how it relates is not just that they're his daughters, but that the marriages were shortly after his death, and took place in the family estate.
I think we also need to calibrate our notability meters to fit the times. In today's world, everything is recorded, everything is saved forever, everything is indexed. 150 years ago, not so much. So I think there's value in including tangential material which today might rightly be labeled as going on and on about his pet turtle's happenings. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Looking for help with article about former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin

The biographical entry for former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin contains redundant information scattered throughout, inaccuracies, and lacks important information for which Mr. Rubin is known. I've been hired by Mr. Rubin via TSD Communications to help improve the page. To that end, I have created a replacement draft that follows RS guidelines and aims to cover encyclopedic content in a neutral manner. Because of my financial COI, I will not edit the page directly. Does this interest any WikiProject Biography members? If so, I have one simple initial request for updates on the article's talk page. I'm happy to answer any questions over there. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@WWB Too:, I am not keen on COIs drafting the article in entirely. This tends to give them control in the tone, presentation and positioning of contents to best serve the interest of clients rather than information in encyclopedic nature. Personally, I prefer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Request_edit being used with specific inaccuracies to be corrected, suggested source and specific missing information you desire to be added. I am looking at your draft and the latter half of the first paragraph in his early career continues to lack references and I checked the BBC reference in the first part of the section doesn't support them either. I am seeing critical contents have been shrunk down and flattering contents like list of honorary degrees have been expanded. You didn't communicate about the relevance or accuracy of these contents, but critical reference like the "$1.5 billion default and subsequent bankruptcy" simply vanished in your proposed draft. My opinion as a reader is that his list of schools from where he has honorary degree is unimportant. These are things people tend to flaunt and they're usually details easily found on websites under their control. Prominent controversy, however are valuable salient information. I consider details like "James ("Jamie") Rubin, former Director of State Operations for New York Governor Andrew Cuomo" as "weighing it it down with unnecessary details." I know this talk isn't really for discussing "article specific" concerns, but I am replying here so as to address the big picture using examples in that article. By using request edit, which is explained in WP:COIEDIT, it allows people monitoring the backlog to see the request instead who exercises discretion to accept/decline/partially accept.

Graywalls (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Graywalls, I appreciate you taking the time to look at the article. Your concerns about COI drafts are reasonable, and I don't mean to insist that it must be adopted wholesale. My thinking is that the current organizational structure is a bit of a mess, as topics like Glass–Steagall and Citigroup are scattered throughout, and I think it will be more helpful to readers to keep this information together. The best way to show how that would work is to show what I had in mind in a complete revision.
I am more than willing to consider revising those other parts of the article, and you raise a few issues I'd be happy to address in more detail. For the moment, I'll respond to just one you mentioned to give a sense of my approach: the "$1.5 billion default and subsequent bankruptcy" of Orange County was not an event Mr. Rubin was directly involved in; it came from a Matt Taibbi article listing various effects of the financial crisis. It seemed to me that it was excessive to attribute this to Mr. Rubin, when many other factors were consequential. And I did give this general subject full treatment in a new proposed section, Regulation of derivatives.
Also, I have used the edit request template in the past, although the queue is hovering around 100 unanswered requests, and it does not appear editors are actively responding to it. That's why I reached out to editors at WikiProject Biography to see if I could find help.
Finally, returning to the section I had asked about: unsourced material was already unsourced in the existing version, in particular the passage mentioning how his time at Goldman overlapped with Jon Corzine and Stephen Friedman (see: relevant section from the last version before your edits). And I'm fine with how you've shortened it to match the BBC source: "He later ran their stock and bond trading departments and became co-chairman in 1990." I have copied that language back to my proposed version of the section. I still think that it makes the most sense to have these be separate sections, with Early life and education followed by Early career and Personal life at the end of the article, since that is the least relevant to why he is notable. Would you be willing to revisit the proposed changes? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Further discussions WRT this article will be at the article. Graywalls (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Awards

Sometimes biographies include a list of awards won by the subject. Sometimes awards are very notable, like the Nobel Prize, but lots of people seem to collect a lot of minor awards. When minor awards show up on Wikipedia, they end up sounding to me like someone's resume. I'm wondering if there's a Wikipedia guideline on how to sort how awards that should vs. shouldn't be included? If not, should there be? I'm currently puzzling over Paul M. English#Awards. -- Beland (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

That is my pet peeve too, especially when they're nothing more substantial than a pupil of the month in Mrs. Jones Grade 3 classroom with the source being none other than the award granter. @JzG: is currently building a draft towards a policy. Graywalls (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Graywalls, it's at Wikipedia:Awards and accolades, for reference. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Should there be a Wikipedia article about Kanye West interrupting Taylor Swift at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, or a West and Swift feud article?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:2009 MTV Video Music Awards#new page for kanye-taylor feud. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Find a grave template - discussion for deletion

Find a grave template is currently being discussed for deletion. Graywalls (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Kanye West/1

Members of this WikiProject might be interested in the above reassessment. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

List of redlinked New York Times obituaries?

Has anyone gone through the New York Times archives (or those of a similar paper of record for another country) and tried to create a database of all the redlinked people who have received an obituary? Since an NYT obit is a pretty good indication someone may be notable, I think we'd potentially discover a lot of important missing historical figures by doing this. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Bumping thread. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Belina Johnson on Airbnb's board of directors

Hello, Ali here with Airbnb. My colleague Jakob (who is currently on parental leave) submitted a request at Talk:Belinda Johnson to clarify she still serves on the company's board of directors. Could an editor here take a look and update the article body and infobox? Thanks in advance, AK Airbnb (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Donald Runnicles

I've added a source for Donald Runnicles' knighthood, but I don't know how to make it appear in a footnote like the other references. Can anyone here help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.36.69 (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Biography draft ready for publishing

I've identified a range of problems with the BLP of Nasser Khalili and have written a draft, which I think is clearly an improvement, in my user space at User:MartinPoulter/Nasser Khalili. I've listed the specific issues at Talk:Nasser Khalili. A conflict of interest prevents me pasting in the draft directly. I'm aware of the Request edit process but that seems logjammed. If anyone who takes an interest in the quality of BLPs could look over the draft for neutrality and paste some or all of it in to the article you'd be making the encyclopaedia better and I'd be hugely grateful. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Request now actioned. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID being used in place of WP:Article titles and for category arguments

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:GENDERID being used in place of WP:Article titles and for category arguments. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC about Sherdog.com at RSN

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Responses (Sherdog.com) regarding the reliability of Sherdog.com which is going to affect thousands of BLPs. I would like to hear your opinion on that. Thanks in advance. Best, Lordpermaximum (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject guidance on structure of articles

Recently I have been involved in a discussion about how to best structure a particular BLP article, and it arguably raises questions pertinent to other BLPs. (Relevant discussion is here and here.) At issue is how to handle the details of a notable person's life not directly related to why they are notable, e.g. material involving their parents and family background, early life, education, career prior to becoming significant, and aspects of their personal life, including spouse, family members, personal interests, and so forth. In this instance, the narrow question is whether all of the foregoing material should be dealt with in a single section, or discussed in separate "early" and "current" sections. To my knowledge, this WikiProject does not have a guideline or information page about this. My questions for editors coming across this message: is there something like this that I have missed? Has there been past discussion about creating one? If none exists, is there a reason why one should not be developed—or might there be some interest in figuring out what one might say? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Distribution of biographies by date ?

I have previously read a study of the numbers of biographies in Wikipedia according to the subject's date of birth, but I have tried and failed to re-find that data. I don't know if it was somewhere here, or somewhere external to WP that I read it. The number of biographies being heavily weighted towards living people, and within that to subjects whose notability has been established during the digital era IIRC, both simply because of editors' interests and because it is more difficult to find sources and establish notability for pre-digital-era subjects. Was there a project about this? Can you help, please? Monxton (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Antoine Le Picard de Phélippeaux

These is his only paint: 1. Please, someone can upload it? Thank you. --95.239.125.231 13:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.239.125.231 (talk)

Cherry Thin wikipedia page

Suggest deleting entire page. I could not find a single source to verify claims in Career. A search resulted in only that Thin has created music and distributed her music. Nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazzeledferret (talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Peter II, Count of Alençon

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_II,_Count_of_Alen%C3%A7on


Peter II of Alençon, called the Noble (1340 – 20 September 1404, Argentan), ...

Died 2 September 1404 Argentan

Did he die on the 2nd or 20th of September? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloidl (talk • contribs) 03:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

November edit-a-thons from Women in Red

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Rfc: lead of Wendy Carlos

An Rfc concerning the article Wendy Carlos is under discussion at Talk:Wendy Carlos#RfC on phrasing of her gender transition in lead. Your feedback would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Astronauts wives

Hello. I am watching the TV series on Disney+ The Right Stuff — which by the way is slightly below average — and out of curiosity I tried to look in wikipedia for the biographies of the wives of the original Mercury Seven astronauts. I was kind of surprised there is none, except Annie Glenn. These women have been portrayed in a number of books, movies and TV series — and of course in Life — and I was kind of surprised they have not been considered worthy of a wikipedia entry. Thanks Hektor (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Kellie Loder for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Bacon 20:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Asking for help...

Hello. I was kindly suggested by Tom (LT) to ask here for more help in relation to the new quotes and footnotes I have included in the draft about the biography of Dr. Juan Cabrera Garrido Draft Talk:Juan Cabrera Garrido, to verify if it´s been improved. Thank you in advance!. Best regards. Tulkas76 (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lida Fleitmann Bloodgood

Notice

The article Lida Fleitmann Bloodgood has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mathglot (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on succession boxes on US presidential biographies (and the future of succession boxes)

An RfC is occurring at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Succession boxes for US Presidents that concerns the inclusion of succession boxes in articles about US presidents. The RfC's outcome may have implications for the future of succession boxes more generally. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the village pump. Thank you. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

FAR for Paul Kagame

I have nominated Paul Kagame for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Musical groups/bands members section

Is there guidelines in regards to what should be and shouldn't be included in musical groups/bands members section and is the members section covered under BLP?

As some group members are not well known hence an article couldn't be created as there're not enough information to write beyond the lead section and infobox, can we include their stage name, birth name, date of birth, nationality and their position/roles inside the members section. Does this violates BLP guidelines? I just need some clarifications only. Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 14:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Please help improve David McBride (whistleblower)

Hi all

I just started David McBride (whistleblower) and have a lot of references but would appreciate some help in writing and structuring the article.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed source titling, references, and citations.

I've been finishing the bio of a French-American actor. Used public records on family, voting records, and called his acting agency for clarification and further information (Abrams Artist Agency NYC). Could someone just sew up the final editing and publish? I don't know any editors so it would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faits1789 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The only draft I see you've contributed to is this draft, which was blanked today under WP:G7, even though you also currently have an open AfC request and a long help desk conversation regarding this now-empty draft. Huh? - Astrophobe (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Ken James (Australian Actor) - Quality Reassessment Request

Hi all,

Over the past few weeks, I've gone to the effort of expanding upon Ken James. I was wondering whether the article's quality grading could be reassessed as plenty of content has been added since its initial grading as a stub. If this isn't the place to request a reassessment, could someone please redirect me to the relevant discussion board. Many thanks in advance ScoobyDoobyDoo1 (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not a stub. Good work! For future reference the official assessment queue for this wikiproject is here, but evidently that can take a good while. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Wendy Luhabe

Talk:Wendy Luhabe § This page needs to be watched for undisclosed paid editing I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 22:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hasekura Tsunenaga FAR

I have nominated Hasekura Tsunenaga for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Relevant discussion on including biographies directly in a category

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Feedback_requested:_should_this_be_a_container_cat? and please provide feedback. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on AMS fellowship selectiveness

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should the AMS count under WP:NACADEMIC criteria number 3? Footlessmouse (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I have noticed that some pages, such as Andrew Neitzke, rely on it as their only form of notability and was wondering if we can reach consensus on whether or not their fellowships are selective enough. I believe this talk page is the most relevant to post the RfC as it is a policy question for biography articles in general. I have tagged science with it as well and will make a note on that talk page. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Footlessmouse (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes: I think the American Mathematical Society is clearly "a major scholarly society", so the question is whether or not it "reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor". Apparently there are 46 fellows every year, and they are mathematicians "who have made outstanding contributions to the creation, exposition, advancement, communication, and utilization of mathematics". I believe that an outstanding achievement award given to a few dozen people every year by such a large society qualifies as highly selective, comparable to some of the medical awards and fellowships that count for presumed notability. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, I didn't exactly understand where you said you were going to list this Footlessmouse, but I suspect some people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics have strong preferences if not an implicit working consensus about this already, so I think it would be a good idea to notify them. I'd be happy to do that if you weren't planning on doing it already. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@Astrophobe: I can make a note on their talk page as well. I also wanted to ask about the American Physical Society but to keep it simple, was going to take it one step at a time. I searched through the archives and could not find past discussions on the topic. Yes, I was asking if their fellowships are selective enough. I apologize for not being more clear, I was trying to keep it short. You can see from the lists that most of them don't have articles, in contrast to other highly selective fellowships. From what I can tell, AMS and APS award fellowships too early in scientists' careers for there to be significant coverage of most recipients. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Awesome, sounds great! And no apology necessary, I was just trying to be as transparent as possible in my reasoning for the sake of consensus. :) - Astrophobe (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. The AMS is clearly the top research-based mathematics society in the US (there are other national mathematics societies such as MAA, NAM, AWM, NCTM but they are focused on other things than research), for whom fellowship is a selective honor that they reserve only for a small subset of members whose research they consider especially significant, exactly the type of society and type of honor described by WP:PROF#C3. There is something of a cult of youth in mathematics (see e.g. the under-age-40 requirement of the Fields medal) which leads the AMS fellows program to occasionally select some of its fellows at a more junior level of seniority than some other societies might (or, to put it another way, to recognize leading researchers while they are still leading instead of waiting for them to get old and start leaning on past glory), but nevertheless they only do this for researchers who have proven and published major results. The numbers of fellows elected (not counting the initial year of the program where they kickstarted it with a large number of fellows) appear more or less in line with other societies. And it is especially important in mathematics to have this form of recognition as a way for us to have some verifiable indication of the significance of a researcher, because our more usual indicator, citation counts, are so low as to be near-useless in pure mathematics. To forestall future discussions hinted at above: yes, the American Physical Society obviously counts too, at least for the APS fellows whose citation is for their research (most but not all of them). As for "most of them don't have articles", that is not actually a meaningful indication of whether most of them should have articles, and my impression is that one could say the same thing for IEEE Fellowship, which is explicitly written into the criterion as something that passes that criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: to be clear, I do not mean to diminish the rewards at all, but was simply asking if we could come to consensus on it, given the lack of significant coverage of many of the recipients. I am totally fine with consensus saying they count. I am pretty neutral on whether or not I think they should count, as I believe there are good arguments on both sides of the topic, though I lean towards them not counting. I am not on a crusade here and do not wish to be put in the middle of arguments, it is just a policy question. To answer your question of why it possibly would not count is, again, a total lack of significant coverage for many of the recipients implying they are not selective enough with their fellowships. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
We have consensus on WP:PROF and on its criterion C3. We do not need to revisit that for society after society in explicit addenda to the criteria. The current level of discussion of fellowships that do or don't pass in academic AfDs is already perfectly adequate. (For instance, FRSA has been generally deemed not passing, because handed out too freely.) Your repeated "lack of significant coverage" comments disturb me, though. They suggest that you are trying to fit these people into the wrong notability criterion, WP:GNG. That is not how academic notability on Wikipedia works. And your test case, Andrew Neitzke, is unquestionably notable by criterion C1 of WP:PROF, not just criterion C3, so he is evidence that both criteria are appropriately in line with each other in this case, and your claim that Neitzke is only notable through C3 is flat-out incorrect. Probably he is also notable as a Marshall Scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Again, I really don't feel as though there is a need to attack me here. If you believe consensus has been reached on this before, can you give me a link? If you have reliable sources for Neitzke showing he has had broad impact in his field, it would be awesome if you could post those on that talk page, so the article can be improved. I am not nominating it for deletion right now, this is a policy RfC. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not attacking you, merely pointing out that your wording here suggests an inaccurate understanding of WP:PROF. Your "reliable sources for Neitzke showing he has had broad impact in his field" is another piece of wording pointing to the same inaccurate understanding. Have you participated in many of the AfDs listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators? Criterion C1 is the most common criterion discussed there (both positively and negatively, depending on the case) and it is almost always discussed in terms of citation counts, for instance on Google Scholar, not in terms of published sources telling us what those citation counts are. This is not any different in principle from the way that GNG-focused discussions can turn on the number of published sources about the subject (and not on the number of sources that list other sources about the subject). The criterion does not ask for reliable sources telling us the citation counts, just as GNG does not ask for reliable sources that provide a bibliographic listing of multiple in-depth publications about the subject — in both cases, we accept the citations or the in-depth publications directly themselves as evidence of notability. To put it more bluntly: If you go to the Neitzke article, click on the Google Scholar profile link at the bottom, and look in the upper left corner of the profile, you will see that Google Scholar lists some 4200 publications about Neitzke's research, far more than GNG demands. Perhaps if you think the article needs expansion you could try reading those 4200 publications to find the ones that describe his research in-depth and summarize what they say about it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Please see WP:PROF: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." How is "reliable sources show they have broad impact in their field" a misinterpretation? It sounds to me that you think guidelines should be modified to be more inline with AfD, feel free to propose that. Also, that's not how GNG works, if anything, they could be used to build a page titled the scientific work of Nietzke, and only if they provide significant coverage of his actual work, not just referencing him which has never counted as coverage. This feels like I'm being attacked as all of this belongs on Nietzke's talk page and not here and you brought it up only to disparage my arguments. This RfC is not about that page and it is not my job to clean up other editor's messes, why would I be expected to read all those articles, you are being overly rude for no reason. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Academics are notable because of their academic publications, just as sportspeople are notable for their sporting accomplishments and politicians are notable for the offices they hold, not for irrelevant other aspects of their personal lives. We have 4200 "independent reliable sources" listed by Google Scholar that, collectively, provide evidence for the significance of Neitzke's publications. That's what C1 has been interpreted to mean in thousands of AfDs. If you still fail to understand that, after having it explained to you, then I don't see the point in continuing to try to inform you of how academic notability works. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: I will spend time reading more, but I'm done with all this. This really was a simple question that has nothing to do with NPROF C1. I rarely edit BLPs and confrontations like this are why. I realize you are an admin in mathematics so if this is really some policy that has already been dictated, you can close the RfC and leave a summary stating that, otherwise, I can pretty much guarantee consensus will say it counts, which you probably realize too—which makes your berating even more dumbfounding. I did not mean to offend anyone or push any buttons, I thought it was a straightforward question. I can see that I have angered people though, so this is my last post here. I have unwatched all related pages and projects and very much hope to avoid any future confrontations. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
How does it have nothing to do with PROF#C1? You added a dubious {{notability}} tag to a new article about an academic, when questioned you brought it here asserting incorrectly that C1 does not apply and that the only possible notability was through C3, and using your incorrect judgement of C1 as the basis for questioning whether C3 was appropriate for this society, and when it was pointed out that in fact the article also passes C1 you continued to quibble about whether that was even true. If your new-page patrolling had applied C1 in a manner consistent with its application in AfDs, this whole argument wouldn't have happened. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. The AMS fellowships were started in 2012 and, as David Eppstein writes, they are prestigious. For this particular example, Andy Neitzke has established an international reputation as a researcher in theoretical physics. His career has been distinguished, starting with his undergraduate time in Princeton, followed by a one-year Marshall scholarship in Cambridge, a Ph.D. under Vafa at Harvard, followed by a post-doc there, 3 years at the Institute of Advanced Studies, a professorship at Austin, the 2019 AMS fellowship and now a full professorship at Yale. (Disclosure: I knew Neitzke during his time in Cambridge, England.) Mathsci (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Note I struck out my first comment above, I am not contesting that page, I have removed it from my watch list to avoid any future confrontations. It would be great if we left this open and get consensus and have a summary written for it so that it is saved for future reference. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. The AMS Fellows program lets the AMS pick out the people that they think are notable. This seems, in my experience, to match up fairly closely with a strong pass of WP:NPROF C1 via citations, and the AMS fellows program otherwise appears to be sufficiently selective. In the cases where the case via citations is more marginal, we shouldn't second-guess the AMS unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Joan E. Goody

The Joan E. Goody article begins with “Joan E. Goody (December 1, 1935 – 8 September 2009) was a leading Boston, and well-known American architect known for her influence in the latter part of the 20th and early 21st century on Boston modern architecture and historic preservation.” What is meant by ‘leading Boston’? Bostonian? I looked through the history a bit, and it has been like this for over a decade with no clue (to me, at least) as to what was meant. Some editors have changed it here and there (not by adding, for instance, “citizen” after “Boston”, but by changing the sentence more significantly), but it kept being changed back by others. Is it possible I’m missing something that’s obvious to everyone except me? Thanks for any assistance. Hamamelis (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hamamelis: It's trying to say "a leading Boston architect, and a well-known architect in the rest of the U.S.", but using as few words as possible, I believe. It's also saying she's American because nationality should appear in opening sentences, even if they end up awkwardly forced. If you rewrite it, leave a note at the talk page that it was confusing and the editors should stop reverting it. Kingsif (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, that makes sense, and I think you’re correct. I’ve written things like this myself, which sounded fine to me (at the time). I’ll see what I can do. Hamamelis (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sam Sloan

Was wondering if some more editors could take a look at Sam Sloan and Talk:Sam Sloan? The article has recently been worked on quite heavily by an editor in what seems to be a good-faith attempt to clean things up, but there's still lots of unsourced or poorly sourced content that might need more eyes looking at it and assessing it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

December with Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Minor MOS:BIO consolidation proposal

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Proposal to better address "The"/"the" in names of performers (etc.) and groups thereof
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Finished MOS:DIACRITICS merge from MOS:CAPS to WP:MOS

FYI

For details, please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Finished MOS:DIACRITICS merge.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

See RfC on changing DEADNAME on crediting individuals for previously released works

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works
This potentially would affect a significant number of articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

For biography leads, do we prefer recent images or images from when the subject was most notable?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images § Preferred lead image time period. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Anti-LGBT politicians who were outed at CfD

Hey there. I listed Category:Anti-LGBT politicians who were outed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 2. --George Ho (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Jeff Zients page

I am posting this because while the top says "This page is not for comments on or corrections to a specific article, which normally belong on the article's talk page.", I think the entire WikiProject should be aware of possible efforts to influence political articles like Jeff Zients https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/03/wikipedia-page-bidens-new-covid-czar-scrubbed-442735 . However this can be further discussed at Talk:Jeffrey Zients WhisperToMe (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Old GA nomination

Hi members, if anyone interested please have a look at this GA nomination Sidney Hill for review. It was submitted on 30 May 2020. I have also notified about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity. Thank you — Amkgp 💬 18:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Dan Ammann

Hi! Sharing in case this is of interest to anyone here: a draft article about Dan Ammann, CEO of Cruise, is currently under review in the AfC queue. I have a COI here – Cruise is a client of my employer. Happy to answer any questions, and appreciate any feedback. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Lewis Heim

If somebody's looking for something to do, Lewis Heim is a really interesting biography which needs quite a bit of wikilove to bring it up to stylistic standards. In particular, there's a bunch of badly formatted references, some of which can be augmented with details from here. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Otto Hitler date of birth discussions

Members of this project may be interest in the related discussions here and here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

... and on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Hitler_family about the current version of the article Hitler family created by the thread starter. --KnightMove (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Roger de Streton

Whilst researching 1870 shipwrecks, I came across a piece in the Morning Post of 14 October 1870 which said that the tomb of "Roger de Straten" had been discovered in the nave of the Benedictine Abbey church of St. André, Bruges. De Straten had died in 1335. The tomb also contained his wife Mary and their unmarried son, also Roger.

Is "Roger de Straten" the same as Roger de Streton? Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Nicole (German Singer)

I've spent the last few days expanding the Nicole article. I've rewritten most of it and added some tables for her discography. Any feedback would be welcome. Up until a few days ago, I've mostly only done small edits on Wikipedia. GravityIsForSuckers (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thomas FitzMaurice FitzGerald Namespace

Hello, I would like to ask if I may why the page for Thomas Fitzmaurice, Lord OConnello is called Thomas FitzMaurice FitzGerald when he was not called FitGerald. I see this quite often and I think maybe its because the Author wants to show a link to the Fitzgerald Dynasty (The Geraldines) but that is not necessary as the links do that quite weel and in fairness his name is Thomas Fitzmaurice. Cheers, Joseph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefitzer (talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorrectly named namespaces/pages

Hi Folks, I would like to ask if I may why the following namespaces/pages are named incorrectly and if they can be changed:

1. Namespace/Page Name: Thomas FitzMaurice FitzGerald. Correct Name: Thomas Fitzmaurice, Lord OConnello, he was not called FitzGerald and this is very clear by wikipedias own pages. He was called FitzMaurice because his fathers name was Maurice i.e. Maurice Fitzgerald, Lord of Llanstefan. This was the naming convention at the time. 2. Namespace/Page Name: James FitzMaurice FitzGerald. Correct Name: James Fitzmaurice, he was not called FitzGerald and this is very clear by wikipedias own pages. He was called FitzMaurice because his fathers name was Maurice i.e. Maurice Fitzjohn, of Totane. This was the naming convention at the time. 3. Namespace/Page Name: John FitzGerald 1st Baron Naas. Correct Name: John FitzThomas, 1st Baron Naas, he was not called FitzGerald and this is very clear by wikipedias own pages. He was called FitzThomas because his fathers name was Thomas i.e. Thomas Fitzmaurice, Lord OConnello. This was the naming convention at the time. 4. Namespace/Page Name: John FitzGerald, 1st Earl of Kildare. Correct Name: John FitzThomas, 1st Earl of Kildare, he was not called FitzGerald and this is very clear by wikipedias own pages. He was called FitzThomas because his fathers name was Thomas i.e. Thomas Fitzmaurice, Lord OConnello. This was the naming convention at the time.

Additionally items 3. And 4. above appear to me to be the same person and Wikipedia’s own pages confirm what I am saying. If you need for me to send to you external references I can do this, please let me know. I have seen this issue quite often i.e. (Fitzgerald being tagged on to other names) and I think maybe this is done because the Author wants to show a link to the Fitzgerald Dynasty (The Geraldines) but that is not necessary as the links do that quite well and in fairness none of their names is FitzGerald so why should the page author be allowed to refer to the person with the incorrect name.

Thank you for your time and assistance and have a very Merry Christmas. Joseph.

Joefitzer (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Folks,

The following pages have no talk page because they belong to the Wiki_Project_Biography and WiKI_Ireland_Project.

I would like to ask if I may why the following namespaces/pages are named incorrectly and if they can be changed:

1. Namespace/Page Name: Thomas FitzMaurice FitzGerald. Correct Name: Thomas Fitzmaurice, Lord OConnello, he was not called FitzGerald and this is very clear by wikipedias own pages. He was called FitzMaurice because his fathers name was Maurice i.e. Maurice Fitzgerald, Lord of Llanstefan. This was the naming convention at the time. 2. Namespace/Page Name: James FitzMaurice FitzGerald. Correct Name: James Fitzmaurice, he was not called FitzGerald and this is very clear by wikipedias own pages. He was called FitzMaurice because his fathers name was Maurice i.e. Maurice Fitzjohn, of Totane. This was the naming convention at the time. 3. Namespace/Page Name: John FitzGerald 1st Baron Naas. Correct Name: John FitzThomas, 1st Baron Naas, he was not called FitzGerald and this is very clear by wikipedias own pages. He was called FitzThomas because his fathers name was Thomas i.e. Thomas Fitzmaurice, Lord OConnello. This was the naming convention at the time. 4. Namespace/Page Name: John FitzGerald, 1st Earl of Kildare. Correct Name: John FitzThomas, 1st Earl of Kildare, he was not called FitzGerald and this is very clear by wikipedias own pages. He was called FitzThomas because his fathers name was Thomas i.e. Thomas Fitzmaurice, Lord OConnello. This was the naming convention at the time.

Additionally items 3. And 4. above appear to me to be the same person and Wikipedia’s own pages confirm what I am saying. If you need for me to send to you external references I can do this, please let me know. I have seen this issue quite often i.e. (Fitzgerald being tagged on to other names) and I think maybe this is done because the Author wants to show a link to the Fitzgerald Dynasty (The Geraldines) but that is not necessary as the links do that quite well and in fairness none of their names is FitzGerald so why should the page author be allowed to refer to the person with the incorrect name.

Thank you for your time and assistance and have a very Merry Christmas. Joseph.

Joefitzer (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Joefitzer: Thanks for using the request edit template. The template is designed for users with a conflict of interest to ask other editors to assess their proposed changes. Since you do not appear to have a conflict of interest with these people, I have closed this ticket. However, you can still post your concerns on the article's talk page for editors to assess. More details are below.
I am confused when you say The following pages have no talk page. All articles on the Wikipedia article space have talk pages, but some of them only have banners because no one has started a conversation yet. I suggest that you post your concerns on the article's talk page under the banners so other editors can discuss your proposed changes. Also, it is important that you verify your changes with reliable sources so I suggest you include the external references in your proposal. If you need any help, please post on the help desk (click me!) or post a response below. Happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Caroline here with 3M, as disclosed on my profile and at both Talk:3M and Talk:Michael F. Roman. I submitted a draft article for Michael F. Roman, which was taken live (thanks again!), but an editor added a banner with the text: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". I've disclosed my conflict of interest as required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use, and I've worked to draft neutral text. I've tried to reach out to the editor who added the banner, both at Talk:Michael F. Roman and at User_talk:Bkissin#Banner_at_Michael_F._Roman, but I've received no reply. If there are no neutrality issues with the article's text, would someone mind removing the banner? Thanks for your consideration, CB at 3M (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@CB at 3M: That banner is still appropriate; if a close connection has written a large amount of an article, which is uncommon even if written neutrally, readers (and editors) deserve to know that it is basically a "subject-approved page" (something Wikipedia doesn't really want, as it is independent, etc.) It's not saying there's anything wrong, just that the subject has had more control over the Wikipedia article than probably expected. Kingsif (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Template 'Preferred pronouns' is available

For biographical articles, template {{Preferred pronouns}} is now available for Talk page usage. Please suggest any desired changes at the Template talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Archive_74&oldid=1164975835"