Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 72

Birthplace, nationality, and citizenship bio infobox parameters with matching values
Please see WT:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, an RfC opened after initial discussion fizzled out with too few participants. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Question about "notable gallery" in context of WP:NARTIST
Articles_for_deletion/Anne_Savedge When we're dealing with sources, we refer to perennial sources list or RSN. One commentator suggests being a line item in a bankruptcy proceeding in "Polaroid Collection" counts as being a part of "notable gallery". How do we determine if a gallery is a "notable gallery" or run of the mill, or vanity gallery? Does being a line item of a bankruptcy asset list like above count as such? Graywalls (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Appearing in a legal document still appears like a trivial mention (in a WP:PRIMARY source, at that, which shouldn't be used for notability anyway), the coverage needs to be about the article subject, not some other random topic where the subject happens to be mentioned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , let's continue the discussion on the comment you left about this at the AfD. Graywalls (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sure. Do you have a question about the Polaroid Collection, the Westlicht Museum, or galleries in general? To address the sale of the Polaroid Collection, that has received coverage in the media. The guardian wrote about it when it was auctioned, and there's more news coverage after the sale here. There's likely more, but just is just from searching for 15 seconds. Vexations (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , for this particular source, I consider this to be like an estate sale/liquidation that has received significant attention. I feel that it isn't appropriate to count towards notability for absolutely everything that appears in the inventory sheet of this. In this particular instance, Savedge just happened to be a few of many thousands of items whose existence was limited to an inventorying list. I'm saying for future such situation, significant media coverage of asset A and handful of items within asset A, doesn't mean a separate primary source document that itemizes everything in asset A should be considered as a notability point for every name/item that appears in the list. Graywalls (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Featured article length & Laura Harrier
FAC Laura Harrier is currently in a standstill. One editor supported the promotion to FA status but the current editor believes the article is too short to be a Featured Article. Could anyone assist with this article or quickly look over it for a review, or if not interested in reviewing it, let me know if it is indeed too short please? Factfanatic1 (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no set minimum length for an FA. FWIW, Halkett boat is an FA and is somewhat shorter than Laura Harrier (currently a GA). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox for a physician-scientist
Which infobox should be used in the case of physician-scientists? Template:infobox scientist or Template:infobox medical person? Or maybe would it be better to embed one in the other?  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 23:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the instructions given in the documentation pages, I think the best course of action for your purposes would be to use these as modules of infobox person. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that I looked at it more closely, I actually think just using infobox medical person would work because it has a parameter for "|research_field="  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 02:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment about Greta Thunberg
If you are interested there is a request for comment about Talk:Greta Thunberg. AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft Shamsher Singh (Journalist)
Hello! I want to get a feedback on the article and some suggestions to improve it. If you think that no improvements are required then please help me by Approving the article. It has all references and is properly linked to other Wiki pages. SinghPurnima72 (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Idea: Create Category:Cause of death disputed
This has been brought up in my home wiki and I can't decide it's a good idea or not but I can't find a category here (or any discussion of deletion of such category). Do you think it's a good idea? Should I be bold and start it as a subcategory of Category:Deaths_by_cause? Ladsgroupoverleg 12:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What would you envisage the scope of this being, and what would you consider the use case? Such a category would need to be strictly defined or we'd end up tagging half the biographies on the project every time some crank posts an "Elvis faked his death" or "Georve VI was killed by the Lizard People" conspiracy theory on Twitter. (Just "Coronavirus is a hoax" alone would draw a significant number of biographies, and don't get me started on the holocaust deniers.) We should probably be looking at it from the other angle, of "what purpose does Category:Deaths by cause serve and should it exist at all?". Taking three of the categories there completely at random—Deaths by falling out of airplane, People who died in ATV incidents and Deaths from pulmonary hemorrhage, plus the top-level Accidental deaths, |Category:People_who_died_in_ATV_incidents|Category:Deaths_from_pulmonary_hemorrhage|Category:Accidental_deaths all of the sub-categories get so little traffic as to statistically be zero, and even Accidental deaths—a relatively 'juicy' topic with which one might think readers might be interested—averages all of seven clicks per day. To put that in perspective, I've been virtually inactive this year but nonetheless |User_talk:Iridescent my talkpage averages 36 times the pageviews of Category:Accidental deaths, while even the top-level Category:Deaths by cause consistently gets less interest than Cats That Look Like Hitler|Category:Deaths_by_cause. BrownHairedGirl is usually the best placed person to advise on which categories are and aren't worth creating. &#8209; Iridescent 16:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, Iridescent. I agree with most of your scepticism here.
 * Cause of death is rarely a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Most people die of natural causes (heart attack, stroke, cancer) some time after they have stopped doing whatever made them WP:Notable.
 * Other causes of death are rarely WP:DEFINING unless the death ends an active career (John Smith, Shane McEntee), or the cause of death is itself newsworthy (e.g. Steve Fossett, John Denver).
 * There is some significance where the death is occupation-related, such as soldiers killed on active service, or major event-related (the Holocaust, tsunamis, etc) .... but that's a small proportion of biographies.
 * I could see a case for Category:Cause of death disputed for those biogs where such a dispute is actually WP:DEFINING (e.g. Jeffrey Epstein). But the problem is that the category would fill up not just with the conspiracy theorist examples which Iridiscent cites, but with an even greater number of articles where there wasn't a definitive autopsy, but the uncertainty is not a notable issue.
 * We do have Category:Unsolved deaths, which may cover some of this territory. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We do have Category:Unsolved deaths, which may cover some of this territory. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)