Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive March 2009

Infobox person

An editor has stated that the basic {{infobox person}} is not sufficient information to justify the usage of the infobox. Is this correct? See Stephen Ponsonby Peacocke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Martin Vahl (botanist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 76.66.193.90 (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not correct. The infobox is fine, though perhaps you can add more information to it. Regards. PC78 (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway project?

I am interested in starting am Ernest Hemingway project to improve content related to his life and works. Is there anything like this already going on. Would that be ok to do? kilbad (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

The main project is set up, but consider setting it up for each workgroup as well, I'm sure they would appreciate it.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WorkGroup Request

Is there a formal policy for creating a WorkGroup? Since, the Business and Retailing projects are either dwindling or dead...I wanted to re-list a number of business type people to a "business" group in the WP Banner. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Mostafa Mahmoud AfD

Mostafa Mahmoud has been nominated for deletion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Biography"

I've recently encountered several articles where this is used as a section header, which is deprecated. I've changed the ones I find, but would it be worth getting a friendly bot operator to convert == Biography == to == Life ==, or does this not solve the problem? --Rodhullandemu 20:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't even include "life". The whole article's about the person's life - that's what a biography is! If it's long enough to have headers then divide into shorter sections (e.g. Early life, Education etc). If it's not then just leave it without headers - there's nothing worse than headers inserted for the sake of it, which is sadly becoming increasingly common. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

List of premature obituaries FLRC

I have nominated List of premature obituaries for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

J. R. R. Tolkien FAR

I have nominated J. R. R. Tolkien 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your WikiProject banner on FAs

Further to User_talk:Magioladitis#Yobot_on_FAs, I strongly feel that your WikiProject's banner should not be topping the other banners on an FA article.

I'm content that there's a good argument for the BLP warning box to take precedence, but the next box down should be informing the readers that it's an FA. I'd add that in this case, the top WikiProject should be the one that actually did the work getting the article to FA, and is actively monitoring it, but that's a minor point. --Dweller (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:52, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

WP:AID

Wikipedia's article improvement drive is back up and running, and needs support. Participate. Secret ^account 22:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ray Hunt

The world famous horse whisperer Ray Hunt died a few days ago, and I was dismayed to see the Wikipedia article about him was a one-line stub. Biography is not my usual thing; could you help me improve the article? --Una Smith (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

AssessorTags

Hello! I thought that I'd bring to your attention a new script which I have created, AssessorTags, which helps to add WikiProject banners to talk pages. The banners for this project and its task forces have have now been included in the script, so it may be helpful when locating and tagging articles. Documentation for the script can be found here, and if you have any questions feel free to ask at my talk page. Please not that I will probably not be watching this page, so comments left here will not be responded to. –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad Iqbal FAR

I have nominated Muhammad Iqbal 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Template swap for Neuroscientist biography articles (no visual change)

The Manual of style recommends the easier to read and use {{birth-date}} and {{death-date}} templates over the former numeric oriented templates of the same name (without the dash). Explanation of the advantages of WYSIWYG date templates may be found on the Village pump.

Contributors are of course free to use whichever template they feel more comfortable with. Unless there are objections, I am going to be switching over the biography articles in the Category:Neuroscientists to use the new template. The visual appearance will not change in any respect. The change will result in more readable wikitext. To illustrate, in Santiago Ramón y Cajal:

template	birth	death
old	{{birth date|1852|5|1|df=y}}	{{death date and age|1934|10|17|1852|5|1|df=y}}
New	{{Birth-date | 1 May 1852 }}	{{Death-date and age | 17 October 1934 | 1 May 1852 }}

Thanks, -J JMesserly (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to show the link to the page where the actual consensus was determined for this actual change to the MOS. Not so long ago, less than three weeks ago, I was assured that this was a "survey [that] is not especially large and [covers] a few dozen chefs to and a few dozen criminals. I am examining variations in date usage and shall be moving to other person categories [and were] still far away from proposing large scale bot runs".[[1] Then without posting notification for a proposal to a change in the MOS that effects all biography articles, the change to the MOS was done. I continue to have concerns about the greater complexity of using this template and the resulting format of dating. This does not appear to allow user preferences to override the date as presented in the template nor does it appear to actually implement the df=yes parameter as I look at the article Albert Einstein. When you announced your intention on this talk page it was worded to imply that any project can opt to revert, but once this is put into the MOS, there is a much larger issue involved in simply reverting this change. Meanwhile, what I did see at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) was a lot of disagreement on issues regarding the template itself and change to it. So, how far apart is a proposed bot run to convert the templates and the change in the MOS?? Not very. I feel very much like this is being rammed down our throats with little to no input beyond the, excuse the term, computer geeks who understand the varities in coding. I will state for the record, once again, that this is an issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What greater complexity? Anyone can see from the example above a comparison between how you do day first. It is WYSIWYG. No df parameter, because it is irrelevant. If the user wants month first, they put month first. That's more complex? So I don't understand what you are getting at. How is the new template "more complex"? You want complexity, let's compare how the templates handle death dates.

Are you really contending the old template: {{death date and age|1934|10|17|1852|5|1|df=y}} is less complex that the new template?

Surely you are joking.

"A lot of disagreement" at MOSNUM? Really? There was one person that opposed deprecating the old template, but even that person did not contend that the old template is easier to use than the new template. Do you? Regarding MOSNUM guidance: on the contrary, I posted a notice to change the protected MOSNUM page, and although MOSNUM is an area of hot contention, there has not been a single word of protest about it. Contrary to your assertions, this subject has been discussed since January, so I am a little confused about the portrayal that there has been some sort of undue haste that has led to this rather modest proposal to upgrade what can't be more than 30 articles to the new template.

Let's get some perspective here. The old template has not been deprecated. Contributors can continue to use it all they want. Their choice. MOSNUM is not policy, and the changed statement you refer to regarded what the guidance is for best practice on template choice for birth and death dates. That's all. It does not say that people can't or shouldn't use the old template.

And as for this proposal to upgrade some articles, we are talking about switching 30 or so articles related to neuroscientists. That's it. -J JMesserly (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, I am not joking, thank you. I asked for a link to the page where consensus determined that a change to the MOS from the old template to this new one had been determined. I still do not see a link to where that consensus occurred being offered. This seems to be something that is occurring within the realm of those of you who speak in more complex coding talk than the majority of us use or understand but that doesn't mean that someone questioning should be brushed off when asking questions regarding it. I keep seeing code jargon that doesn't really tell me anything. You may have been discussing this since January in your circle/group/project, but when that discussion is something that will effect 624,144 articles out of 2,797,421, that is pushing 25% of all Wikipedia content. The example I mentioned with Albert Einstein is an example of how the other template is extremely helpful. Yes, it shows only what the user types in, even if the dates aren't put in consistently from the birth date template to the death date and age template. Nothing fixes that unless someone just happens along to fix it, while the other template normalizes the view depending on how the registered user sets user preferences. With the move away from otherwise linking dates, at least this allows users some choice in seeing birth and death dates.

While you mentioned that you're proposing adding these templates to about 30 or articles related to neuroscientists, there are still the 2500+ articles you've already added it to. [2] My issue at the time that I brought it to you before was that you are inserting something new into articles that are related to this overall project without really explaining that you made a proposal, and as can be clearly seen above, is introduced by stating that the MOSNUM recommends this template, and when I look to see when that consensus was determined, discover that it was changed, as you said, after you posted a notice to change the protected MOSNUM page, which in fact changed the recommended template, so I ask you again, where is the consensus for change to occur? Frankly, that is a bit of an evasion. The bottom line is that you asked for the template to be changed. So where is clear consensus that you change the template used for biographies without requesting specific input from the editors who work on those articles and therefore would presumably be implementing them? Meanwhile, you can say that something recommended by the MOS can be ignored, but the bottom line is that it isn't just an option. There is little to say in response to "that's what the MOS says to use" that doesn't require a huge amount of discussion and possibly dispute to just ignore the MOS. And again, changing MOS that effects over 22% of all articles, I think that needs a clear consensus, offered for comment on a wide enough basis to allow input from the projects it will effect, that can be readily referenced and shown when asked. That process has been subverted by explanations in edit summaries that it doesn't have a visual effect.

When I look at posts and requests, it at least appears to me that there are conflicting, or at least troubling, things occurring. Two weeks ago, at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MandelBot, the request says "It is anticipated that as particular wikiprojects approve upgrade from old style {{birth date}} and {{death date}} may be switched over to new syntax {{birth-date}}, then edits could number in the thousands." In response to the bot proposal which states "This date template is approved over the alternative by the vast majority of responders at Manual of style dates and numbers group." In reality the vast majority of responders happened to be from 5 opinions, with the only one person opposing only one out of five. That's hardly the overall consensus of the at least scores and perhaps hundreds of editors effected. The way that your posting here was presented, it sounded as if it was a foregone conclusion. It isn't particularly approval if no one responded to the posting. Proposals should certainly run more than 9 hours, which I saw in one instance (and if you insist on the link for it, I'll gladly find it for you). Meanwhile, your posting at the Village Pump also begins by mentioning the MOS has already been changed: "Use of  (2024-07-10UTC16:12:45) (age 2015) and  (2024-07-10UTC16:12:46) (aged 0) is currently recommended as best practice in the Manual of Style (dates and numbers), as the former templates are generally regarded as needlessly complex by the MOSNUM community. The new templates are currently in use in over 1000 articles." No, it's on over 2500, but, yes. Four out of the five of you have already decided this and the MOS was changed. Perhaps you don't realize it, but when you repeatedly open "discussion" and "proposals" with similar wording ("MOSNUM guidelines (discussion) state that the new template is preferred for specifying birth and death dates, but a large number of articles still use older numeric format template.") implies that there is no proposal. It becomes an announcement. At the risk of being repetitious, four people made that determination for over a half million articles covering projects that involve perhaps hundreds of editors.

It is more complex because a large number of editors are familiar with and used to using the template that has been in use for a long time. It's a issue of having to rethink how things are entered, it is an issue of losing the flexibility of the formatting it emits with the df= parameter, it is an issue of, I'd wager, the majority of editors who work on biographies not particularly understanding the coding jargon and applications of the discussion on the pages that aren't where the majority of us go. And it's an issue, because the train is already rolling away from the tracks and only four people are aboard. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not clear what you feel the problem here is. You can continue to use the old template, so what is the big deal?

I thought you were going to tell us how the other template was more complex to use.

"while the other template normalizes the view depending on how the registered user sets user preferences"

I believe you are mistaken. For example, Prince Aly Khan uses {{birth date}}. Go to preferences, set date to day first. The article still says Month first. If you see something different, please tell me what your browser is, the article, and the exact steps to "set user preferences". -J JMesserly (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I spent a good two hours looking through various pages on WP and reading postings and ultimately forming quite a large overall objection to the process that is occurring. I really expect to see the place where overall consensus was determined to make a change to the MOS which switched the templates in your request to make a change to a protected page. You're only responding to the relatively small portion devoted to complexity of templates. While I mentioned small points in that, that concern was overwhelmed by what I discovered looking through the pages. My issue at this point is with how the MOS guideline became altered, how that alteration became part of the presentation on this page and at the Village Pump, and how finally, the only consensus I found was one of four out of the five editors who engaged in a discussion on a project page. My issue at this point is that while the project notes are called proposals, the content posted on the talk page above here states it is a foregone conclusion because now, "the manual of style recommends the template", based on a consensus of 4 people. My issue is that once the MOS is changed, it is not an easy task to counter any objection raised to "choosing the old template" based on following MOS guidelines. I don't know the length of your involvement with Wikimedia overall, but on en.wikipedia, these are real issues that come up in editing the routine article. The fallback in disputes is following guidelines and policy. My experience over the years is that in the end, that is what will determine the outcome of a dispute or disagreement. One cannot just opt not to follow guidelines and policy, so no, one cannot just ignore them and do as one chooses. It takes consensus. Large scale changes require large scale consensus. A change that effects a large number of editors really needs to be approved by a large consensus, not a party of four. There are routinely WP wide requests for comment, straw polls, and consensus requests posted at the top of any page that one opens. At what point was even a WP Biography consensus request posted? All of this vastly overshadows the comments about complexity of use and is a WP wide issue. Not responding to my concerns with the process of how this is occurring and how this entire change is being represented is a huge issue. The majority of editors do not currently realize that this changeover is already in process, it started with the MOS change. Editors on a lot of individual projects don't answer or respond to postings right away. Waiting 9 hours and getting no objection in that time doesn't imply assent, especially when it is presented as a fait accompli - the manual of style recommends. And for the record, my user preferences already are set to day first, then month. One of the advantages of the extant template is that it is impossible to put the numbers into the template in the wrong order without either producing an incorrect date or an error message. As the formatting output of the newer template showed on Albert Einstein, it can be entered two different ways and produce different dates in the birth vs. death templates. It can easily produce disparate date displays. But that is almost an aside point. The issue is there is no overall community consensus for the change in the MOS that occurred with this change request. Why is there no response to these issues? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

←Your alarmist tone does not change the fact that the old template is not deprecated, editors are free to use the old one, that the new template is easier to use, that user preferences do not change the behavior of the display of the old template. It is true that the new template is used in a large number of articles, but if you look at them, you will see that these are the result not of a changeover, but of using the new templates in articles that formerly used no date template at all. You seem very concerned with process. You seem to believe very large scale issues are at stake here affecting the wide community. You know about the village pump posting, and yet you choose not that forum to voice your large scale objections, but here. So please, if you think something wrong happened with MOSNUM process, post there. If you object to broad WP wide issues, respond to the Village Pump posting.

I am not clear on whether you oppose the switchover of the neuroscientist articles. If so, it is unclear what your argument is. You asserted that the old template had the advantage that it responded to user preferences, yet this does not appear to at all be the case. You assert that there is some confusions possible on the Albert Einstein article using the new template, yet you provide no specifics. I would like to get to the bottom of these assertions you are making. Can you be specific about your assertions regarding user preferences and the confusion created on the Albert Einstein article? You claim: "it can be entered two different ways and produce different dates in the birth vs. death templates" Ok, which two different ways? "It can easily produce disparate date displays." Ok, details please. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the Albert Einstein article and it did have a non recognized df parameter specified. It is true that one editor could give a date in day first format, and the other in month first format. But that is true of the old template as well. With the new template, it is very clear how to correct the problem. With the old template, the contributor must know how to find the documents for the template (many don't know how to do this- or that the stuff in the curly brackets refers to a page prefixed with Template:). So I don't understand how the Albert Einstein article mixup provides support for your position. If any, it provides support for the new template- that template syntax should be as simple as possible so that such formatting errors can be corrected by anyone. -J JMesserly (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It occurred to me what you must have meant by date formatted by user preference. The date templates don't work that way any more. Perhaps you thought that {{birth date}} produced a link to month and day so that user preferences would change the formatting? That functionality has not been there since last June[3]. If that is what you find lacking in the new template, it is only because I am respecting the judgment of the community on that subject. Date linking (aka "user preference date formatting") could be trivially restored to both the old and new template families if the community reversed its decision on that matter. I know there is also an Arbcom investigation regarding date linking and how that decision came about. I am agnostic on the subject and don't really care which way they decide, but if they decide that date linking should be restored to the old templates, then I shall add it to the new templates. Really, it is a trivial detail to add. -J JMesserly (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) My "alarmist tone"? It is alarmist to object to the changing of the MOS surreptiously and outside of the consensus of the wider community beyond the discussion of four persons? You are evading answering the specific questions I have asked about the process that occurred, and is occurring and I'm an alarmist. No, J JMesserly, as I have said twice before and will say again, once you've managed to change the MOS, you have removed editor ability to disregard MOS guidelines and just do what they want. You've removed the concept of community approval. Yes, I do think that changing the MOS regarding this template subverts the community approval process, and that is an issue effecting a broad number of the community. However, I do not think the Village pump is the place for voicing these concerns. I am actually trying to determine right now what board, person or group besides your community of four, that this wider issue needs to go. I'm not going to go through over 2500 articles to determine if indeed each and every change of template was the insertion of new ones, albeit ones that haven't been approved by the community as a whole. Insisting on community approval over the votes of 4 people is not alarmist. I am still waiting for you to post a link to the page where consensus was determined by the community to change the MOS to recommend your new template. It is a wider issue, as I said, that ultimately effects close to 25% of the articles in this project. Yes, I object to your changing/adding the new template to the bio articles of any more sub-projects until that community consensus occurs. Insisting that the process is followed is not alarmist nor is it incorrect. It is the process. That you got the MOS changed and then announced ... what were they? ... proposals that reference that the MOS recommends this template, negates discussion of the merits of a proposal.

I don't care to continue to delve into the specific issues with the template. It is easy for you to understand and work with, you either helped to, or developed it, yourself. The myriad of editors who have worked on biographies don't have problems working with the extant template, it's the new editors who don't know how to use any templates who have the issues. At this point, having discovered the pages leading up to this, my issue has become how this has occurred and the implications as the efforts continue without wide community consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that unlike the old template, the new template allows use of date links necessary to allow date formatting by user preference?

EG: {{birth-date| May 5, 1980 | [[May 5]] [[1980]] }} displays as 5 May 1980 with preferences set to day first, and May 5, 1980 with preferences set to Month first. Try it: May 5 1980 (1980-05-05)

Now try {{birth date|1980|5|5}} This produces: (1980-05-05)May 5, 1980. It displays month first regardless what your date preferences are set to.

Regarding consensus, you are already aware of the discussion where consensus was reached at MOSNUM regarding the superiority of the new templates. I understand your pov that the process was deficient. I'd recommend taking this up with MOSNUM if you feel there was undue haste or that you have some points that were not considered. MOS guidelines are not immutable. If there was an error, then it is correctable. Let's work together to fix it. -J JMesserly (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) These changes from {{birth date}} to {{birth-date}}, etc., would massively delink dates in infoboxes in a non-reversible way. It is in direct violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Temporary_injunction prohibiting any more date linking or delinking until the case is resolved. 62.147.38.252 (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Again I have several issues with this, not least of which is we already have too many date templates out there now. I think from a microformatting standpoint only this new format fixes that, BUT, I do not agree that it is easier to read, in fact I think it is a step backwards. I also think that by saying that users can pick the template they prefer and then someone else goes back and changes it to this one is a waste of an edit. If we need the birth, death templates to include microformatting we should make that change in the existing templates, not create a whole new one. I also do not think that this change meets the consensus requiresments and the MOS manual was improperly modifed to reflect that this new template is preferred.--Kumioko (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why we are having this discussion here rather than at the village pump thread where the note on this template has basically gotten zero attention. But whatever.

62.147.38.252 this is mistaken. No delinking is involved. Here is an example: [4] Any links present are retained, because the new template unlike the old one supports links if the contributor elected to use a link or template in the right hand parameter.

Kumioko: First of all, the new templates are far far more flexible than the old templates. Take a look at the village pump thread, and you will quickly see that this functionality cannot be crowbarred into a numeric oriented template. For example, how do you propose to include time zones like CST, PST, EST? Is that going to be the 12th parameter? Oops- contributor1 put in a double pipe because the 11th parameter was seconds, which they didn't know, then contributor 2 comes along and realizes it was CST not PST but messes up and didn't notice that it was a double pipe and left only one. Come now. The numeric approach with implicit parameters is a house of cards. Next, you need to consider consistency. Birth date may have trivial syntax, but consider the entire family of templates that do time. This new family is based on {{start-date}} and {{end-date}}. Are you proposing that {{start date}}'s syntax for time is simple to understand? Consider the examples in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_120#Free_form_way_of_specifying_dates.

If you feel your issues were not covered in the prior extensive discussion, it sounds like we should reopen the discussion on MOSNUM. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after having given this much thought, I do believe this change violates the arbcom injunction. As you said above, if date delinking is overturned, then all that needs occur to the first birth/death templates is a change to the template itself. No one has to go back through and check to see if a user opted to add the parameter that links dates on your template. De facto, if a user does not add the linking parameter to the template when adding it, delinking is automatic and there is no way to quickly and efficiently correct this should the arbcom case overturn delinking. That you've added the templates to 2500+ articles and changed the MOS in turn extends that to what should be occurring according to MOS and the infobox per project, which is indeed widespread. Effectively, it violates the injunction and I am beginning to think that the arbcom case may be where this needs to be discussed. I've seen you say that no one objected or questioned this, but that's not true, the more I look, the more I find questions by editors. Instead of really answering those questions, we keep getting thrown a lot of technical jargon that at first read, even to those of us who have extensive education, seems far too complicated to know how to address.

The Village Pump is not the place for a long and extended discussion or to work out extensive issues and as you note, your post didn't get much response. There is a reason for that - it isn't something that people who read and post to that page are accustomed to debating. Also, your posting has been archived for a few days now, so it is no longer there. MOSNUM is not the place to discuss it, as you can see, nobody was aware this change was occurring except for what basically was 5 people. That's not community.

I believe the MOS change was done surreptiously, citing a consensus that is not clear to anyone of whom I have asked opinion and there certainly was never a consensus to go ahead and request a change to the MOS or by extension, the infoboxes for individual projects. Projects have never been approached about this aspect of your template. Nobody knows. You have already gone through and changed far too many infobox template doc pages which changes the recommended infobox formatting for a myriad of individual projects. The change essentially mandates delinking because it can't be undone if the parameter is missing. Meanwhile, this is a birth and death date issue. There has never been a need for time zone distinctions, the adding of hours or seconds anywhere I have ever seen in regard to the date of birth or death in a biography article. It is meaningless and unnecessary in that sense. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Images question

Hi all. I've recently been going through portraits by Wenceslas Hollar on Commons and identified a number of portraits that appear to be of the same or very similar-looking women (below); based on the titles assigned by the University of Toronto and text in the images, I've identified three possible candidates for these images:

• Catherine Howard, Countess of Suffolk
• Frances Stewart, Duchess of Richmond and Lennox
• Elizabeth of Bohemia

My question is, which of these images is which of these women? Could some of the unlabeled images be someone else entirely? I've included any text from their labels. I've ordered a catalog of Hollar's works to help identify these images. I'm especially confused about the last one, which is clearly labelled "Princess Elizabeth" but I have no idea which one - Elizabeth of Bohemia looks very similar, but would have been 54 in 1650. Thanks for any help. Dcoetzee 19:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Dorothea Comitissa de Suffolck
• 
  1648
• 
• 
  1652
• 
  1648
• 
• 
• 
  1650
• 
  1645
• 
  1646
• 
  1650, Serenissima Princeps Elisabetha, Filia secunda, Caroli Magna Britt: Fran: & Hib: Regis. etc.

Syed Ahmed Khan

I have nominated Syed Ahmed Khan 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

Gilad Atzmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an RFC about a dispute on this WP:BLP, a jazz musician by trade, regarding his political views (cf WP:BLPN). Since some editors have notified related WikiProjects (Israel and Judaism) whose contributors are likely to weigh in on one political side of the debate (they notably didn't post here or Wikiproject Jazz), I thought I'd post here, a presumably neutral venue. Responses to the RFC welcome. Rd232 ^talk 21:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

BLP question

Just wondering... has it been hashed out on how BLP interacts with:

• "By nationality" categories
• "Born in" categories
• Birth date in general and within infoboxes

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a question for this board. However, I don't see how those can be WP:BLP issues when the categories are supported by the article and the article is sourced when something is contentious or disputed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeb Corliss

Eyes are needed on this page becuase it appears that one or more invovled parties are using it for thier own purpose. Being in school, I lack the time to give full attention to the matter, and being a non-project member I am unsure how such incidents are handled here. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've chopped out unsourced info and editorial. An extra sentence on the details of the legal battle may be appropriate, but not much more. Rd232 ^talk 23:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

POV/public relations/COI at Gordon Campbell (Canadian politician)

These are my deletions/edits on this article just now, which admittedly I was a little pithy in my edit comments over, but "all true". This article is and remains a p.r. piece for this notoriously media-obsessed politician, I've taken out a lot of banal personal detail, and repeated unnecessary mentions of his name advertising style and fluff like "the first of his many literary initiatives"....cites were provided by a POV website, also. There's tons more work to be done here to bring this article to NPOV and to remove all taint of COI/p.r. agency activity. The political section I and others have "take na go at", and it's notably still absent of critical opinion on the many measures/agenads of his it's intended by its writers to promote. Earlier editions of this article saw wholesale deletions of much "real" material, and were substitued instead by the heart-warming struggling-from-poverty-and-Dada's-suicide and worked-his-way-through-Dartmouth-with-a-summer-job bunk. i've taken out a lot of "unencyclopedia material", and admit to my own POV opinions of this man's political morality and suspect agenda, so for the most part I've recused myself from major edits to it. It needs a cool eye, preferably from outside Canada, to give some thought to the bio material that remains and its over-written style. the political section is something Canadians and BCers have to contend with - there's an election coming soon and it's not secret that Wikipedia bios are used as election-filler....NB under briitsh Columbia law third-party materials, not just advertising but p.r. materials, are strictly regulated and it this article isn't brought into proper NPOV it could - theoretically - come under interdiction of the BC Elections Commissioner (interestingly, he passed the restrictive third-party legislatino to muzzle dissent by his detractors, who are many). Perhaps to an outsider the politicaly-policy section might not seem so POV; to those familiar with BC politics it's incrediblyi one -sided. As far as I know, Wikipedia bios are NOT supposed to be election brochures. if this one continues to be, again, theoretically Wikipedia could be fined by BC Elections = many political columnists feel muzzled by his legislation, please note, I'm not just making this up.....even the Stephen Harper article (another media-obsessed politician) isn't this self-serving; for comparison read the article version before what I took out, then read the after-cut. There's more to go, I'm done for the night; except to state that I try to stay away from current politicians' bios because they're so damn nauseating. I feel dirty just from having read it. I know there are other BLP parameters to be observed/applied, but I'm not that familiar with them, and admit to a strong POV regarding this individual (see BC Legislature Raids and its talkpage as to why; one of many reasons. In coming weeks, btw, this article is likely to see a lot of edit warring by IP users adn SPAs, and will ilkely need a protect as we get closer to the election....Skookum1 (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ziaur Rahman FAR

I have nominated Ziaur Rahman 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)