The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Neutral - while I am a strong supporter of WP:STANDARDIZE and have moved many templates to the WikiProject Foo form, I'm kindof torn about "WPBiography". It's in use on so many pages, and it's the most widely-known banner template. It's also got a bit of "unique" functionality (the "blp=yes" bit) so there's an argument that may be made to have a unique display in the wikitext on the talk page. –xenotalk13:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The banner is on 853,480 pages. There are 3,440,838 articles, almost one in four have this banner. I seriously doubt if any other project has even half as many pages. If conformity is necessary or even desired, then the other projects should conform to WPBiog.
Also oppose because a need to redirect has not been shown. Clarity and readability are purely subjective and possibly irrelevant. The outward appearance of the banner is no different from those with more verbose titles. (Is "I Like It" sufficient justification for a bot to start to make the change? Is the input of so few people sufficient "consensus" for making the change, especially when two them are not in favor of the change?) JimCubb (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, if this change were to go through, a bot would _not_ be deployed to change the links en masse (though bots might do so en passent). –xenotalk20:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
SmackBot (talk·contribs) has been premature before and has been in trouble for that. I assume, from past experience, that Yobot (talk·contribs) will start changing links and many editors will complain about it.
Two afterthoughts:
An editor who is unable to discern that {{WPBiography}} produces the banner for Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography may also lack the skills necessary to make a positive contribution to an article within the purview of the project.
Not that interesting really: I didn't move anything, merely created a redirect. The same argument could be made for moving {{WPBannerMeta}} I suppose, though that isn't a WikiProject banner in itself, merely a meta template to create WikiProject banners. This isn't relevant to the discussion though, and I'd appreciate it if your remarks focused on the nomination and not the nominator. PC78 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Use of {{WPBiography}} as a redirect on so many pages is not technically problematic, nor is it unprecedented. {{Image other}} is also a redirect, and that is used on over 500,000 pages. PC78 (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Neutral I always thought of WPBiography as a special case since most people are entering with this name, it's very well recognised, etc, etc. In comparison WikiProject Biography wasn't that popular. Even WPBIO is more popular than it. Of course, I don't think this is a strong reason to keep it as is and I don't think that my arguments is stronger than standarisation. So I am ok if we rename. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support it's not a big deal for pages that have just one banner, the rest will move over the course of a few years, as articles get upgraded, have banners added or removed, etc. Regardless better to change now with 834000 uses than in two years time with over 1 million. Also, sure we are used to it, but there will be many years worth of Wikpedians using it after us. Renaming this is a baby-step to making it easier. RichFarmbrough, 06:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Support Its one of the few projects left that doesnt already follow the spelled out format and this will help make things more consistent. --Kumioko (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hardly "lots of work" either: move the page (over existing redirect), then fix double-redirects, then edit the template and its doc page to say "WikiProject Biography" instead of "WPBiography". Much the same as any other page move, except that an admin needs to do it because of the protection level. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=c|priority=mid|s&a-work-group=yes|listas=Stephenson, George}}
{{WikiProject Trains|class=C|importance=high|UK=yes|UK-importance=Top|Scotland=yes|Scotland-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject North East England|class=c|importance=high}}
Not to mention that when making bots/scripts and other tools its a lot easier to program WikiProject [insert the name of your favoriate project here] then trying to anticpiate hundreds of different names. --Kumioko (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Strongly agreed. PhotoCatBot relies heavily on deducing what photo categories an article belongs in by which WikiProjects it belongs to. Being able to match patterns like "{{WikiProject _____}}" is much more helpful than trying to parse abbreviations like "{{WPNEE}}", "{{WPNY}}" or "{{WPES}}". —Tim Pierce (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
But even if the templates are moved, you still get coding like the top unless you get a bot to change all the transclusions. Which you guys aren't planning on doing. --Rschen775422:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Since the proposed change does not affect what is displayed to a user only to an editor and there currently a feeling that such changes should not be made (see the discussions about capitalization within templates for example), if the change is made there may be serious repercussions should an admin who cares about the issue of edits that do not affect the rendered page notice the change and learn that it was made through a "consensus" of just over a dozen editors. JimCubb (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what repercussions you're concerned about. Can you say more about that? Is there some administrative or policy concern over "the issue of edits that do not affect the rendered page"? There's quite a lot of housekeeping activity on Wikipedia that seems to fall into that category, and I've never seen anyone object to it, so I'm interested to know if there's an ongoing concern about that kind of work. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding possible repercussions: I remember the stink that was kicked up in January this year when an admin unilaterally removed four parameters from a particular infobox. The template itself wasn't renamed, but another admin complained about the no-consensus edit; after much arguing, threats of WP:ANI were issued. The upshot? The original admin self-reverted 65 minutes after his original change (5 mins after the ANI threat), and never did get consensus for his change, although the discussion then dragged on for four weeks. During all this, a third user (not an admin) observed "also remember that each edit of this template invalidates the cache for 15,000 articles so no one should be changing the code on a whim". {{WPBiography}} is used on significantly more than 15,000 pages (it's presently no. 49 on Wikipedia:Database reports/Templates transcluded on the most pages, with 874,715 transclusions), so I imagine that the server load will be considerably greater, so we really do need a broad approval. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything? Nothing is being done on a whim here. The whole point of this discussion is to seek concensus for a change. PC78 (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
It has everything to do with it. Renaming the banner means moving the page, which means invalidating the cache for 800,000+ pages, which means slow servers for an indeterminate period. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Good point, but we have been told by one of the techs (Tim Starling I think) that moving a page does not invalidate cache. RichFarmbrough, 22:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC).
Remember that all 800 Wikimedia projects, with all their simultaneous activity, are being delivered from the same set of servers. I just purged the cache for Template:!, which is used on 4,930,535 pages; note the lack of "slow servers for an indeterminate period". We are years past the time when edits to key templates could slow or crash the servers, or even impose a noticeable load. There are no performance considerations here. Happy‑melon23:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Then what's the point? You don't need to rename the template to rewrite the transclusion link, since the redirect works just as well. You're going to have to go through all the talk pages and redo the transclusion, but this does not require renaming the template. The redirect exists and functions. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The project banner with the second largest number of transclusions is {{WPMILHIST}} with 123,446 transclusions. (Note that this is not {{WikiProject Milhist}}. Since 34,474 of these are biographies only 88,972 additional pages would be affected should this project also be "fixed".
The underlying template of almost all the project banners is {{WPBannerMeta}} which is on 3,483,652 pages. {{WPBannerMeta}} needs to be moved to {{WikiProject BannerMeta}} before any other banner is moved if the stated precedent of "WikiProject" over "WP" is to be true rather than an opinion.
As I pointed out to you earlier, {{WPBannerMeta}} is not a WikiProject banner in itself, and renaming that template is not a prerequisite to renaming this one. You're quite welcome to start your own discussion regarding that template, though. PC78 (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
As has happened often before, you do not address my point. It may be because I did not state it explicitly and it may be because you choose to ignore it. The precedent is "WP" not "WikiProject". The three most transcluded project banners are "WP" not "WikiProject".
The most important point, beyond the fact that the precedent is "WP" and that the "WikiProject" name is without precedent and more difficult to type, is that the requested move would not appearance of the banner on the page. Please look at what happened to Rich for making changes to templates that did not affect the appearance of the template on the page. JimCubb (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
And to followup to Tims comment just because it has been done, has been done often or has been done till now doesnt make it right. Also, This project is one of only about 4 or 5 left that still use the WP or something else besides WikiProject so the precedent has been established even if you choose not to accept it here for this project. I apologize if this last part sounds a little snarky but its pretty obvious to me that some members of this project want to keep it the same, but theres no need to hide behind the perception that there is no precedent or that its too much work because those 2 arguments are defunct. Just say we don't want to do it, we don't care what the concensus was with the other projects, or that we like the naming convention that has been deprecated and wish to keep it. Eventually though, whether next month or 5 years from now when the project has 2.5 million articles under it and we have all retired from editing the name will undoubtedly change to match the others. Its just a matter of doing it now or later IMO. --Kumioko (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
If one is to believe the relevant edit summary last May on WP:STANDARDIZE (properly Wikipedia:Banner standardisation), and I do not see a reason to disbelieve it, "This page failed to get consensus, and was actively opposed by multiple highly respected editors." The cited precedent is an essay, a mere suggestion. It is neither a policy nor a guideline. It is, at best, a soundly rejected proposal. JimCubb (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Again I point out that it is not soundly rejected throughout Wikipedia, only here and a couple of others. All the other projects have been standardized. Additionally I intend to keep eyes on any new ones (and I am sure others as well) and encourage them to follow the precedent that has been set by the other 1500+ projects and not the 4 minority holdouts. Your right that there is no "requirement" for this project to follow it if they insist they don't want too. As such I can live with the projects desire to maintain the status quo as long as its clear that the reason is because this project doesn't want it and not that there's no concensus or reason. Both have been established. --Kumioko (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree strongly with this. According to the current revision of Wikipedia:Banner standardisation/data, there are only four WikiProject banners left that do not follow this pattern, and only two that use the "WP" prefix. Regardless of any formal consensus process that WP:STANDARDIZE may lack, it seems apparent that its recommendations have been accepted by nearly the entire Wikipedia community. —Tim Pierce (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Two points. First, as a lower bound, there are at least 7,011,952 separate banners on talkpages, counting only projects which use the WP1.0 assessment scheme and not including wierd classes like Redirect-Class. Banners with quality assessment make up about 80% of all banners, but are likely to have a higher average number of instances; the total including non-assessed banners, non-Talk:-space banners and other miscellanea, is certainly over 8 million. Let's not pretend that this banner, large though it is, is in any way dominant in this area. Second, the name of {{WPBannerMeta}} was chosen specifically so that it would not follow any of the formats which were in existence at the time, especially "WikiProject Foo". WPBM is not a banner, it is a meta-template for creating banners; as such it is not in the banner namespace so that it would not conflict with, or be confused with, the banner for Wikipedia:WikiProject Meta or Wikipedia:WikiProject Banner Meta, if by some (admittedly remote) chance such a project were to be created. The ideal name would have been Template:WikiProject, but alas that was already in use; you could argue a case for usurpation there if you liked. Happy‑melon23:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Nice attempt at information overload. However, this is a discussion about the {{WPBiography}} template not {{Cat handler}}, {{Cat handler/blacklist}}, {{Cat handler/numbered}} or any of the other eighteen templates that are in this section. Also, while it may be that consensus has changed, it should be noted that Wikipedia:Banner standardisation as a proposal crashed and burned. It did not become a policy. It did not become a guideline. It is an essay and has the force and weight of any other essay.
Despite that, I am almost certain that an editor who is well-versed in the writing of templates will tire of the discussion and change the template. There will be complaints but no one will be bothered to take the matter any further. JimCubb (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Some bugs in Biography articles with more than one work group needing priority parameter replacement
I propose that the hyphen be removed from between "recently" and "appearing", for this template to conform to the guideline at WP:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3, point 4. (I am adding this template and its talk page to my watchlist, and I will watch here for a reply or replies.)
—Wavelength (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
It is in the second large box on the page, where the text begins with the words "This WikiProject banner uses". You can find it by searching for the word "recently" with Control-F.
Oh thats actually not this template thats the Metatemplate that is used to create almost all the WikiProject Banners. You would have to ask there but I believe thats just a documentation change and doesnt actually affect the template. --Kumioko (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I visited Template:WPBannerMeta, but I did not find the word "recently" on that page. Is it the right page?
No problem but you probably should leave a comment on the talk pae first and see if it draws any comments. I doubt it will though cause the hyphen aint no good english the way it is. --Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
My opening message there is almost identical to the one here. I discovered that Template talk:WPBannerMeta/templatepage has fewer than 30 watchers and has received very few page views in each month of 2010. One week might be a reasonable period of time to wait for a reply.
Right now pages about rugby players have |needs-persondata= in {{WikiProject Rugby union}} and not in {{WikiProject Biography}}. I suggest we move it to the latter for consistency. In the past, we did the same for some pages having |living= in other templates.
I rather agree with Magio that this parameter is basically depricated but I would understand if we keep it in WPBIo just in case some got missed. That would also give the bot a first place to look.--Kumioko (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I cleaned ~10% of the pages having |needs-infoboxes= (i.e. more than 3,000 pages cleaned). I guess, if we stanrardisie the Infoboxed more I'll be able to remove more out-dated requests. Any suggestions of how to clean everything more efficiently are welcome. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
In regards to the Biography articles, IMO, if we put a basic Infobox Person template with some basic info (maybe it could use the same is article about a person logic as the persondata, but if not just name would be ok with me) on articles without it that would be a big help. Then people could fill it in as needed. Of course some folks should be more specific like Military person, Actor, etc but I think Person is a good basis and most of the other person templates (inluding Military person) use it as its core now. I would say that we shouldnt drop the person template with every applicable field. Just the common ones, Name, Date of birth & death, place of birth & death and maybe a couple more. --Kumioko (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
As the template says followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately - you will need to supply what line in the template needs altering to what. We are not all wiki code experts. I'll leave the request up - you might be lucky, don't hold your breath... Ronhjones (Talk)02:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you wish to remove the people photoreq category if it is set to "peerage-work-group" as well as "baronets-work-group"? /ƒETCHCOMMS/23:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
If "peerage-work-group" or "baronets-work-group" is set that the page should be in Wikipedia requested photographs of peers but not in Wikipedia requested photographs of people. Looking at the source of the template the problem must be due to the multiple if statement of these two task force parameters as that is the only difference to other task forces, but as yet I cannot see the exact reason. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The following appears at the beginning of the template:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people....
This is grammatically incorrect; it should say, "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, to develop and to organize Wikipedia's articles about people...." What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathMaven (talk • contribs) 21:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Similarly, a later part of the template says, "All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion." What this says is:
All interested editors are invited to join the project; all interested editors contribute to the discussion.
That's not what this template is trying to say; it should say, "All interested editors are invited to join the project and to contribute to the discussion," which avoids the enigmatic usage of the present subjunctive. —MathMaven (talk | edits) 13:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there any possible chance we could somehow shorten the small-font non-free images reminder that accompanies needs-photo=yes on BLPs? I really dislike how it disproportionately enlarges the template. -- Ϫ16:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Well if there are no other comments forthcoming, I think we could trim it. What wording do you propose? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
for both living and not living. They now fit on the screen better.
I also change the incorrect definition of the sort value for {para|listas}}. It did not seem a big enough deal to require permission first. JimCubb (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Kretschmann then moved to Malaysia in the summer to shot his scenes for the German
I think the contributor meant to type 'shoot' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.57.116 (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Brian Clewer
I'm an old guy not good with computer stuff, so I'll leave the editing to somebody else, but the page gives his age as both 79 and 96. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.171.179 (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
How should the living parameter be set for list articles (and what articles should be marked with this template if they're list articles)? If everyone on the list is deceased, I would presume "no", but what about other cases? I'm guessing "yes" if any member of the list is still living? Or "no" but mark "blpo=yes" if any member of the list is still living? In some cases, it will be somewhat impractical to go through the list regularly and check to see if all are living - perhaps something could eventually be done like putting a notation of the latest birthdate and automatically assuming "no" if that's more than 125 years ago? Or a bot to regularly check the entries for each person in the list? Thanks! Allens (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, if it would be better to ask this on the Wikiproject Biography Talk page or someplace else, I apologize, and please let me know where to take this question; thanks! Allens (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages have a similar issue. If class=Disambig, then I'd expect the effects of living= to be overidden. Yet, it looks like Yobot (talk·contribs) has been using class=Disambig to sepecifically set living=no even if the dab contains living people [1]. I'm not sure this is harmful, but it does seem inelegant. Noca2plus (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Red flag/similar to show in template if no "living=yes/no" parameter?
As well as placement in the Category:Biography articles without living parameter, could something be done to cause a message and a graphical "red flag"/similar to show up in the template itself, to encourage people to go ahead and correct this? (That category is currently backlogged badly - I'm working on it when I have time.) The message should perhaps include some sub-portion of the BLP template text, to try to ward off libel/slander suits vs Wikipedia. (This is particularly acute regarding US law for relatively obscure people who are likely considered not "public figures" - these are also the ones most likely not to have been properly labeled as "living=yes", might not be in the "living people" category, etc...) Thanks! Allens (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The parameter is not a method of classifying articles but to flag that an article contains information about a living person, therefore yes. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Reduce number of parameters?
I'm wondering if it would simplify things if we had just the one parameter for each workgroup, instead of the current two. For example, instead of sports-work-group=yes|sports-priority=Mid we could have (for example) sports-priority=Mid (alternatively, sports-work-group=Mid). Whichever parameter was chosen, the other could be phased out. Any non-blank value for the parameter chosen could automatically add the article into the relevant work group, and if it were a valid priority value it would also add it into the relevant priority category. I've seen something similar done for other templates, for example Template:WikiProject Football, where an article can be categorised into a task force and given an importance value for that task force, all using a single parameter. --Jameboy (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
More photos?
Proposal: For needs-photo=yes emit "a photograph or picture", but for needs-photo=more, emit "more photographs or pictures". --Lexein (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest another solution, namely use the {{Image requested}} template with the of parameter. The need-photo parameter in the Biography template has reached its limit as it places too many article requests in a single category. The Image requested template allows for placing in more specific sub-categories as well as being able to provide additional detail of the request. For example {{Image requested|baseball people|people of Iowa|of=clearer portrait}}.--Traveler100 (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, well. This is a wide-open topic with too many unknowns, and we can't solve everything at once, and certainly not here. --Lexein (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I added the sports and games portal to the Sports and games work group to the template in the sandbox. Please implement. Kumioko (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a general rule that categories named after people (ie Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart) are not themselves placed in any categories, other than hidden categories, including the category structure known as Category:Eponymous categories. I understand that one of the reasons for this is that not every article in a person's category is about that person (ie their history, beliefs, etc), but includes articles about people associated with them, their biographers, their hometown, etc. I do know that this practice of not including eponymous categories in the regular category tree is not universally cleaved to. City categories are often placed in the category for their state. I want to know if it is official WP policy to not allow eponymous categories to be placed in larger categories, and if so, what steps are being taken to stop all such activity. I sympathize with the problem here, but i feel that such eponymous categories should just be placed in the regular category tree, despite this discrepancy. if i am in the minority, so be it, but i cant determine what we are doing. any directions to policy would be appreciated.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a module (Module:SortName) which attempts to create a sortable name out of a page's title for use in this template's |listas= parameter. If this code were added to the doc page—{{subst:#invoke:SortName|sortname}}—then people copy/pasting the template code would get the |listas= parameter filled in automatically. From the pages on which this template is transcluded, the module looks like it would output a good sortable name on about 90–95% of the articles. You can see various outputs on the module's testcases page. The other 5–10% of articles may take a human understanding of the subject, although the module may be refined further with input from others. — Bility (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm in the early stages of developing a Lua-based replacement for {{WPBannerMeta}}, and I would appreciate peoples ideas for features. If there is anything that you have wanted to do with your WikiProject template, but haven't been able to due to limitations in the meta-template, I would be very interested to hear it. The discussion is over at Template talk:WPBannerMeta. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪12:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Changing the icon
Current iconOption for a new icon
The person icon for this template has remained the same since its creation in 2006 (File:Crystal personal.svg - a faceless, peach-skinned, presumably male person in a tie). I'd like to change the icon to reflect a different skin tone, gender, or style of dress. Perhaps we can have a woman of color icon for a while. Commons has a number of other icons in Category:People_icons or a new icon could be created. Just as an example, I think the lower image on the right (File:Etno icon.png) demonstrates how this icon could be more worldly and inclusive of different genders/ethnicities. Gobōnobō+c19:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
could somebody please assess Frank Riethmuller, as I am not really familiar with the assessment criteria (as soon as an article obviously is better than start) - is this a C, B or perhaps even A-class article?
Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it does duplicate it; it doesn't neatly fit into either BLP or BLPO, as blp=yes adds it to a living persons category, whereas blpo=yes adds a banner saying "the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article", which works for actual BLPO articles, but not articles covered specifically under WP:BDP. I think a bdp parameter might be useful, especially if we can track when it's been added so that it can be changed when an appropriate amount of time has passed. Even if that's a little too much, however, I don't think changing BLPO's wording would be beneficial for any non-BDP article. - Aoidh (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe change the wording to "the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article unless they have recently died" --Racklever (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
What do you (or anyone) see as the benefit of announcing that? The BLP banner says, in effect, "we must be especially careful with fairness and sourcing on this article." A "BLP doesn't apply" banner would say, in effect, "we can be less careful with fairness and sourcing on this article." I suppose that is true, in a sense, but I don't see much value to emphasizing the fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
That's not what a BDP parameter would say, because BLP does apply to BDP articles, but the problem is that adding blp=yes to articles is also including them in a category for living people, and changing it to blpo=yes is saying that BLP doesn't apply to the subject of the article, which is inaccurate for articles of recently deceased subjects, especially controversial deaths. A bdp parameter would state that BLP applies without actually adding it to the living people category. - Aoidh (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I am neutral on this subject - I can see Aoidh's point but I am also sympathetic to Racklever's suggestion about changing the wording. Can someone who is against BDP clarify what the downside of adding a BDP parameter would be, other than the fact that it may be somewhat redundant? It seems to me that disambiguating between different categories of BLPO is not necessarily a bad thing, we can always just have the BDP flag transclude BLPO for now, and if in the future we decide that we want further disambiguation, the pages where BDP applies will already be appropriately tagged. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't a banner be displayed for "living=no" that explains that BLP policy may apply to this article? If people don't like that, then I guess bdp could be used. The issue doesn't seem critically important, but I guess such a feature wouldn't hurt anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I have been working through adding living parameters to the articles in Category:Biography articles without living parameter and have stumbled upon the article about Alexei Devotchenko. Devotchenko is a good example of where a separate "bdp" parameter would be useful. Devotchenko died on 5 Nov 14. (Only 5 days have passed between then and the time of this comment.) His death is reported by The Independent, which I am assuming is considered a reliable source. In this situation neither the "living" nor "blpo" parameters are appropriate but there should be a notice of caution regarding the article subject, due to the contentious subject matter. Kind regards, Matt Heard (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Results of |a&e-work-group=yes not displaying when |musician-work-group=yes is included.
@Redrose64 Oh, okay. Yeah, the precedence of |filmbio-work-group=yes & |musician-work-group=yes over |a&e-work-group is not spelled out at Template:WikiProject Biography#Work groups. It just says that if the article is about an actor or filmmaker, to use those work groups instead. I cannot agree that being a musician or a filmmaker disqualifies one as an artist, at least as far as work groups are concerned. I just heard Joni Mitchell on the radio today saying that she considers herself a painter who does music, & Jean Cocteau & Man Ray did both art & film. I don't agree, but at least I now understand the situation.
From the #ifexpr code in the template, it looks like the only workgroup that is overidden is the arts and entertainment work group if either the filmbio-work-group or the musician-work-group (or both) equals yes. I will add something to the documentation to note that when I get a chance.
It's true about Joni Mitchell. She couldn't sell her paintings, so sang around bars and clubs to make money for paints and other materials. All her earlier album sleeves were drawn or painted by herself (no photos until Blue) - it was the only way to get her art over to a wider audience. Look at the way that the title of Song to a Seagull is made of dozens of tiny birds - so subtly that the UK record company overlooked it entirely and thought that the album was simply titled "Joni Mitchell" and marketed it as such.
Anyway, to get the behaviour of |a&e-work-group= changed needs a discussion involving many more than two of us, considering that it was set up that way several years ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Persondata has been deprecated
Persondata has been deprecated by this RfC, in favour of Wikidata. The related parameter should now be removed from this template. I've already proposed the category that that sets for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits12:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
If the answer to the first question is yes, should then the parameter "class=" be set to something reflecting the fact that the article or category concerns several related people rather than just one person?
If the answer to the first question is yes, and if some but not all persons included are dead, should then the parameter "living=" be set to yes or to no, or be left unspecified?
No - the |class= parameter indicates the quality of the article, not the number of subtopics. Only the values shown in the first column of this table are valid; for regular articles they are fa/a/ga/b/c/start/stub (note that if the page is in mainspace but is not a true article, the special values |class=fl|class=list or |class=dab may be used).
If everybody that is covered is dead, set |living=no. If any one or more of them are still alive, |living=yes.
There is nothing to stop you putting two or more WikiProject banners on a talk page, provided that all of them are relevant. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Robert Chuter
This profile is missing out one of the most important elements of this director's career - his theatre direction. Also someone keeps on changing essential pieces of information. There is also inaccurate information.
regards
Chris Pender — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.121.36 (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
i see you are striping out all priority or importance for biographies. why? you understand that you cannot then do any project management of biographies, (or enter contests). Duckduckstop (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Update Free Image Search Tool link
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Since the Free Image Search Tool has moved to Labs, could someone please update this template to change the link from http://toolserver.org/~magnus/fist.php... to https://tools.wmflabs.org/fist/fist.php... ? I have made the proposed change in the sandbox. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Adding a task force to a WikiProject banner like {{WikiProject Biography}} is not difficult (here are four that I did a few months ago at {{WikiProject Brazil}}); but WikiProject Biography has a huge scope - possibly the biggest of all the WikiProjects - so the impact could be great (it could affect half of the 1.3 million articles using this banner); therefore, before proceeding, we need to know that there is consensus for the addition. We can then discuss details. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I don't know how to proceed with that so will advise WikiProject Women of your response and see what next steps need to be taken. SusunW (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
As part of a nearly-completed shift to distinguish requests for photos from requests for images in general, it is requested that this template be modified to place talk pages in "Wikipedia requested images of..." categories, rather than the old "Wikipedia requested photographs of..." categories. As such, please supplement all references to "photo(s) of..." and "photograph(s) of..." with "image(s) of..." in both the template and its documentation, while maintaining backwards compatibility for the old "photo" parameters. In particular, change "photograph or picture" to simply "image". Note that the "Wikipedia requested images of..." categories have already been created. Thank you! — s w p bT15:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Can we please change the first line of this template's advisory from -
"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons."
TO
"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it may not be a biography, because it contains material about living persons."
I have added a great deal to the entry on Franklin Rhoda based on extensive research including old diaries in my personal possession. Franklin Rhoda is my Great Grandfather. In recently updating my family tree and reading Franklin Rhoda's diaries I thought there should be an entry in Wikipedia for him. I went to Wikipedia and found that there was already an entry. But this entry was essentially limited to his work during three summers as a topographer in the Rockies. Given that he accomplished a great deal during the other part of his life, I decided to amend the entry drawing heavily on research of others especially historian Dr. Mike Foster who published many articles about Franklin Rhoda. But as Franklin's Great Grandson I admit that I must be biased. I welcome the edits, corrections, deletions and other input on the current entry on Franklin Rhoda. Thank you.
My name is John Truscott. I am English and trained as an actor at the Central School of Speech and Drama, London. I acted in two films: The Spy Who Loved Me and Taxandria. I notice that in your biography of John Truscott the Australian designer you have attributed my filmography to him. This is distressing to me. Please note that Taxandria was made in 1994, the year after the designer John Truscott died. Will you please alter your biography of the designer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytruscott (talk • contribs) 11:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
There are a lot of Televisions directors and TV hosts. I can't use the WikiProject film, cause they don't work in the cinema industry. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Bad JSON format. You can cancel this operation so you can correct it, delete the current <templatedata> tags and try again, or continue to replace the current TemplateData with a new one.
@Christian75, I'm getting the above error when I attempt to edit TemplateData via the edit page button. Do you want to try to resolve the error rather than reverting the changes you made in late May? (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar09:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
We have had the same icon of the little white guy with a tie forever. I've tried to start a conversation about changing it before, but maybe it is best to just be bold. I'm not particularly attached to the cowboy-Inuit-geisha trio, so any suggestions would be welcome.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It looks like these categories were emptied many years ago, my recent edits brought them back to use. If you want to use them, I will restore the categories. If you don't want them, I will depopulate them again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, whether they get used or not is a matter for the WPBIO community - which I'm not part of, I'm just part of the gang working on the SWC backlog. But on the assumption that they were brought back from the dead inadvertently and not because WPBIO wanted them back, then it would appear they should be disabled to reverse the breach of WP:REDNOT. Le Deluge (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Can this be set to auto-collapse, or at least have an option to collapse to hide the numerous projects? Having a massive block of projects listed at the top (some of which are only of tangential connection to the subject) is time consuming and tiresome. Some are the entire height of a screen on a desktop, and it's just annoying. I've tried what seem like they might be logical (hide=, collapse(d)=, etc) but nothing obvious seems to work. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I recall that the requested photo parameter, when used, used to generate more detailed information about obtaining photos for BLPs. It's much simpler now (although I can't manage to get the revision history to work given all the changes in the area). Was that intentional, or were important details lost as part of the standardization that we should seek to restore? {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography
