Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 18

Proposal: Worldcat link
Worldcat is a catalog of the works available on 57,000 physical libraries around the world. The catalog is now freely available online. It is far and away the largest such resource. They have recently add a usable "identities" feature. I got interest in worldcat through the work User:Dsp13 did. I have added a template: template:worldcat id

To use this template, first do a worldcat identies lookup. Enter the person's name (e.g, Samuel Phillips.) This will often lead to a list of possible matches. Select the correct link (e.g., "Phillips, Samuel 1752-1802") and click on it. This will lead to the correct page on worldcat. The id is the string after the last slash in the URL, e.g., lccn-n85-221132. Now, fill in your template as follows:
 * or
 * if the article name is not the name you wish to display
 * if the article name is not the name you wish to display
 * if the article name is not the name you wish to display

This yields
 * [//worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n85-221132 Works by or about Samuel Philips, LL.D.] in libraries (WorldCat catalog)

Here is the question: should we encourage the use of this template? User:Dsp13 tried to introduce worldcat links a year ago and got a lot of push-back from the folks who worry about link spam. I think that worldcat links are perhaps the most useful links there are, and are not by any means spam. I see this as part of a "grand unification" of two major web resources. but I would like to see a consensus before proceeding.

I feel that the justifications for worldcat are clear:
 * With one link, we add a massive bibliography an article.
 * The worldcat bibliography is biased, but the bias is at least based on the consensus of thousands of librarians throughout the (mostly english-speaking part of) the world rather than a few Wikipedia editors.
 * A high number of library accessions as subject or author is prima facie evidence of notability and the link makes it trivially easy to verify the notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arch dude (talk • contribs) 14:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The easy availability of this link may encourage editors to actually go find the real books rather than just surfing the web for references.
 * Worldcat is starting to link to Wikipedia. We should return the favor. The community that uses worldcat should be enticed to become Wikipedia editors as they are likely to be knowledgeable.

If we reach a consensus that worldcat links should be encouraged, It should be relatively easy to use a semi-automated technique to add the templates to the articles. Based on User:Dsp13's lists, we have articles on all but 37 of the 1500 subjects with the largest library presence, and I suspect a very large percentage of our pre-1990 biographies have worldcat bibliographies.

About myself: I've been editing for about 1.5 years. I spend a fair amount of time adding links to Project Gutenberg, and I have created a modest number of biographies of PG authors, but I never joined the bio project because I'm a lone wolf. -Arch dude 13:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Collegues:
 * Since I have received no response here, I am assuming that linking to WorldCat is obviously a worthwhile idea and it implicitly has the imprimatur of WikiProject Biography. :-)


 * But seriously, folks: I copied this proposal to the Village Pump at Village pump (proposals)‎. If you want to stop me from undertaking this mad adventure, please comment, either here or at the aforementioned village pump link. Please note that after about 2007-10-29 I intend to take a lack of comments as an unconditional endorsement, and I will start adding the templates and claiming the imprimateur of this project, unless I see an objection. This is likely to become contentious when I create the second link (Jesus Christ). Oddly enough, it is unlikely to be contentious after about the tenth link. -Arch dude 01:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review
WikiProject Biography/A-class review could use some more reviewers. Anyone willing to do so is more than welcome. John Carter 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Edward Teller FAR
Edward Teller is currently being subjected to a Featured Article Review. If you want to contribute to this discussion, please do. Regards, Daimanta 20:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Edward Teller has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Anne Frank FAR
Anne Frank has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- linca linca  04:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

changing to redirects
When changing articles on minor figures to redirects, what should be done with the workgroup box and the categories on the article talk page? I just now changed Thomas Rindom and Philip Rindom to redirect to the article on their mother, Countess Desirée of Rosenborg and do not know if I should remove the categories and box altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 17:11, 30 October 2007
 * Under the circumstances, I think the talk pages of the redirects could have the banners removed from them. As long as an article contains content on a living person, the BLP template should remain in place. Right now, the mother is still living, so there's no real problem. Upon her demise, whenever that happens, if the content on her sons remains in place in her article, then just keep the BLP tag in place. Otherwise, I can't see any requirement for keeping either the banners or talk pages on the current redirects. John Carter 13:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Department re-organisation
These departments are very disorganised. I propose merging A-class review and Peer review into one department. There's no need for two pages. See here and here for other project organisations. I also suggest doing away with Vandalism entirely. There's no need for it because of the number of RC patrollers we have. Maybe it could be turned into a task force in conjunction with WP:CVU--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 15:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta FA
Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Help please


What is Tag & Assess MMVII? It's part of a Wiki-wide call for volunteers. A month or so back, we ran a script to list all the articles in categories related to military history. This gave us about 165,000 articles. Some of these are already tagged and assessed as military history; some are military history but not yet tagged and assessed; some are not military history articles at all. This huge project — working thorough 165,000 articles — is called Tag & Assess 2007. To make it manageable, the list has been broken down into 330 ranges each of 500 articles. This is where youcan help.

Just... adopt-a-range from the available worklists then keep track of your tally on participants' list. The tagging is easy, just follow the simple instructions. Afterwards, as our way of thanking you, you'll be presented with service awards and barnstars based on the number of articles you process. Remember... the ranges are broken down into sub-sections of ten articles, so you work through them at twenty or thirty articles a day if you wish. To make Tag & Assess 2007 a success, we need your help. Please sign up now. Thanks. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 09:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance backlog help
The is a new bot User:Erwin85Bot that will count article sin a category and output the total into a table. The WikiProjects Australia and Aviation have used it to create WikiProject Australia/BotStatistics and WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance. To give you an example of how your project can use this bot, I've created WikiProject Biography/Maintenance/Backlog. This page will be updated by the bot at 12:00 UTC. If you wish to use this bot, or have any questions on its operation, you can contact the owner, or myself. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Karl Dönitz FAR
Karl Dönitz has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Peter Andersen 22:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Style when refering to a (still living) widow and children.
A minor style dispute has arisen over the correct style to use in a biography of a deceased person, in mentioning his widow and children, over the correct tense to use.


 * X is survived by his wife Z and children A and B

OR


 * X was survived by his wife Z and children A and B

The latter style is the default tense when talking of a deceased person, however it can be argued that, as the wife and children are still alive, they continue to survive the subject, and that the present tense is appropriate, and that it is also the style routinely used in off-wiki obits.

Thoughts?

Mayalld 12:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth I of England
Is now at Featured Article Review, so please take a look, and help the article keep its featured status! Judgesurreal777 21:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Football player notability guidelines
Hi, over at the football wikiproject we have been discussing new notability and deletion guidelines regarding football biographies. The original discussion can be seen here. The current suggestion can be found at here. Any comments from this project would be welcome. Any other suggestions on where to post this would be welcome as well. Thanks. Woodym555 00:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ludwig Wittgenstein FA review
Ludwig Wittgenstein has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. One Night In Hackney 303  16:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Anne Frank FAR
Anne Frank has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --RelHistBuff 16:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Mann needs additional cites
Thomas Mann is in need of additional cites. -- 201.53.4.206 19:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter I of Russia needs cleanup and cites
Peter I of Russia needs cleanup and additional cites. -- 201.53.4.206 21:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to expand WP:BLP to include images
For the benefit of anyone here who doesn't have WP:BLP's talk page watchlisted, I have proposed an amendment to the policy here regarding the use of appropriate images in biographical articles. In short, I'm proposing a BLP policy to protect against the use of Creative Commons and public domain images that may serve to demean or disparage the subject, particularly images that are so obviously of an unattractive nature (wherein common sense comes into play, not POV). Comments in support or opposing are welcome. 23skidoo 21:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Small problem
Hey, a newcomer keeps removing the infobox from the Banksy bio. I would appreciate some help from this project in explaining why infoboxes are a necessity in biographical articles. Thanks, Van Tucky  Talk 01:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess the best answer is they aren't a necessity, but rather a content guideline. I wish someone more experienced than me were here, but so far as I know here goes. The purpose of the infobox is to basically supply the basic information from the lead in a more concise manner. The big question regarding a lot of these articles is that they can be rather long, and the basic information one might be seeking won't necessarily be presented as quickly and obviously in the article. This article might not have the required content to need an infobox, but it is definitely useful, and basically if unofficially required, to have in the event an article ever hopes for a GA or FA rating. John Carter 01:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Common sense also applies. The infobox in this case is embarrassing. "Training: The street"? The infobox tells you next to nothing and looks horrible. My advice - bring the infobox back when it has been redesigned so it looks nice and can actually communicate its information in a reasonable manner. Carcharoth 01:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * VanTucky, there is no consensus on the use of infoboxes with biographies. Many of the best biography writers on wikipedia despise them, because they attempt to simplify the complexities of any individual into a couple of fields. There is usually nothing that can be said in an infobox that can't be summarized in the lead of the article. John Carter, it is not accurate to say that they are "required" or "preferred" in good articles or featured articles. –Outriggr § 01:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to amend WP:MOSBIO
I have proposed an amendment to the Subsequent uses of names section of Manual of Style (biographies) to the effect that when an article deals with two or more people of the same surname—for example, married couples and family members—it is acceptable to refer to them by their first or given name. A great many articles already use this approach so updating the guideline is merely reflecting widespread current practice and providing a clear standard to follow for future articles. The proposed text and discussion is here. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 07:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

periodic poke
I see that is, if anything, bigger than ever, without even any attempt to systematically populate it. Anyone have any thoughts of working on these? Would this make more sense if split out by work-group, or would that just be shoving things around to equally little result? Alai (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Village Pump proposal: splitting Category:Year of birth missing and Category:Year of death missing
I have proposed splitting Category:Year of birth missing and Category:Year of death missing, two categories within the scope of this WikiProject. Please join the discussion at Village pump (proposals). A ecis Brievenbus 00:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Carl G. Fisher FAR
Carl G. Fisher has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Epbr123 (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)