Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 73

Josh Gates Tonight/sharkweek2020
I HAVE TO WIN THE SHARKDIVE!!! I know he’s married, but I’m in LOVE with Josh Gates and I love ALL his shows. He’s an extraordinary host and has a great sense of humor... He absolutely rocks and I’m his BIGGEST FAN (well besides his wife) It would be a dream come true to actually meet him someday!!!!!! He’s very knowledgeable and I have learned so much from watching his shows. Josh Gates has my vote for president (if he ever decides to run) lol Anncarr842 (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Felix Rossignol


The article Felix Rossignol has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "It does not meet the notability criteria for biographies."

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Brandon Adams Article
While I am not the original writer of the Brandon Adams article, I would like to make one suggestion. I think it is only befitting that there be mention of the murder of Merlin Santana included in the article as Brandon Adams was the driver of the car that Merlin was in the night he was murdered. Whoever wrote the Merlin Santana article mentioned this information but they listed Brandon as Brandon Q. Adams. There is a hyperlink over Brandon Q. Adams' name in the Merlin Santana article which reverts you to the Brandon Adams article, but there is no mention of the shooting/murder of Merlin there. The suspects were not only charged with murdering Merlin but also in the attempted murder of Brandon, and I just feel that that needs to be mentioned on his article.

Age is impossible
How can he be a member of Royal Serbian army and fight in world war one (1914-1918) when he was born in 1941 ? Its wrong information, please check the facts, this is ridiculous !

Kindly remove Tarbuj of Maharashtra from Devendra Fadnavis's Wikipedia
Someone added Tarbuj of Maharashtra in Devendra Fadnavis's wikipedia page Someone added without reference, Kindly remove as soon as possible.

Hans Gross, "Criminal Investigations, a Practical Textbook" and the Inspector Ghote books by HRF Keating
The fictional detective Inspector Ganesh Ghote frequently refers to "Criminal Investigations, a Practical Textbook" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_Ghote HRF Keating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._R._F._Keating 2.30.142.170 (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

John Alexander Carroll
I am pretty sure, Dr. Carroll served on the USS Nevada at Pearl Harbor, not the California. He ran away from his family's ranch in Wyoming when he was 16 and joined the Navy in San Diego. According to Dr. Carroll he told the recruiter he wanted to get as far away from Wyoming as possible, and was assigned to the Pacific fleet aboard the USS Nevada.

During the attack at Pearl Harbor he received an eye wound which he underwent a number of surgeries throughout the remainder of his life. He vividly talked about watching the Arizona blow up in front of him - that's when he was wounded. After the war, he served on Truman's Presidential Yacht in DC, where he began his undergraduate studies at Georgetown. He received his BA, MA and Phd from Georgetown.

While a professor at UCLA, he acted as a double for Clark Gable in the movie Across the Wide Missouri. Anytime you saw Gable from a distance on a horse, that was actually Dr. Carroll who learned to ride in Wyoming.

He also spent time at Troy University in Alabama. Would teach his classes without the use of a text book, as an outline for him or for his students to read. Revered by most of his students, he wore silk suits, a wide-brimmed hat and spats almost every day and spoke about historical events as if he was there. 2600:1702:1FC0:54B0:B5D8:BBB8:AAED:178B (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on tagging BLP with template messages signaling COI and OWN
There is an RfC on the following link: Talk:Boris_Malagurski#RfC_on_Template_messages_and_Article_sections. It concerns dispute over tagging the BLP article with template messages which point to the possible COI and OWN issues that plagues the article for more than a ten years.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  01:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

CAT:NN
CAT:NN has a crazy backlog, including over 13,000 biographies some of which have been waiting almost 12 years: Can you please help? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Zak Smith
There is a current RFC on Zak Smith that the project may be interested in weighing in. Chetsford (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Jean-Michel Jarre GAR
I am doing a GAR on article about of the greatest and most essential electronic musicians of all-time: Jean-Michel Jarre. Participate in this link here: Good article reassessment/Jean-Michel Jarre/1.  ias :postb□x 13:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Jonguxolo Sandile
I've done a little bit, but I am was wondering if there are any other language articles to link up with. Thought I post here to get peeps to help build the article. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

J. W. Dunne
There is a disagreement at J. W. Dunne over the semantics of describing his father, who was born in Ireland of Irish stock but served as a General in the British Army. Any contributions to the discussion at Talk:J. W. Dunne would be appreciated. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Berkay Çatak
I am really not sure what to make of this article, I see nothing remarkable that makes me think it should be on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Multiple careers and publications
Carl Sargent had two distinct careers, dealt with in separate sections. Each career produced several publications. To me, it makes sense to include the publications relating to each career as subsections within each career section, along the lines of: However the article has a separate main section for publications, with subsections for each career. Thus, each career is effectively scattered across biographical topics, like this:
 * Career1
 * Career1 publications
 * Career2
 * Career2 publications
 * Career1
 * Career2
 * Publications
 * Career1 publications
 * Career2 publications

Is there any good reason not to rearrange the article (and others with the same issue) as I first suggest? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

How to record nationality on Wikidata?
I invite your feedback on a property proposal for nationality as a cultural identity over on Wikidata. The proposed property is meant to offer an alternative to "ethnic group" and to nationality as defined by citizenship. Your comments are welcome. Thank you. Qono (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

John E. Kelly III
Hello! On behalf of IBM and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I have drafted a Wikipedia article for John E. Kelly III (Wikidata entry), the "father" of Watson (computer) who has also received multiple notable awards, including the IEEE Frederik Philips Award and IEEE Robert N. Noyce Medal. Mr. Kelly's career is well-documented, and I've worked to draft a neutral article using only reputable sourcing. IBM has reviewed the accuracy of the text, and I should also note, there are red links requesting creation of this page at List of Dublin City University people and List of Union College alumni, among other pages where he is mentioned. Before I submit to AfC, I wanted to see if any editors here might be interested to review this entry and potentially move into main space?

Thanks in advance! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This request has been answered, so I've marked this section as resolved. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Rating review requested
An editor has proposed that the current C-class rating of Husayn ibn Ali should be upgraded. Bio-article ratings aren't my area, so I'm just passing along this request for help from others. DMacks (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter? There are only a few ratings that matter: "stub", because it categorizes the article as needing attention; any non-stub quality rating, because it removes the article from categories that imply it needs attention; "GA", because it requires a formal review; and "FA", because it's our highest quality standard and has many rules surrounding it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't get me started on how I feel about that general aspect of WP ratings, or the talkpage system of listing them. DMacks (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Musicians
Template:WikiProject Musicians has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Chris Gragg FAR
I have nominated Chris Gragg for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
I have started a discussion here on the usage of maiden vs. married names on the article Maddie & Tae. Please weigh in with your thoughts. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Move request discussion: Title for the Suicide of Kurt Cobain article
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Suicide of Kurt Cobain/Archive 1. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Anne Frank
There's an RfC regarding Anne Frank that this WikiProject might be interested in. Loki (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Move request discussion. Opinions are needed on the merger of William Dickson (Falklands) to Antonio Rivero
The discussion is on the talk page of Antonio Rivero, the basic issue is whether sources exist for the murder victim Dickson to be considered notable. --Boynamedsue (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Biography of Rev. Robert Wright Lee lV
Wikipedia is receiving numerous edits regarding the Rev. Robert Wright Lee 4th. I think we should have a discussion of the facts of who this person is so that his claim to be the 4th great nephew of Robert Edward Lee is verified by facts.

Rev. Robert "Wright" Lee lV shares the same name with his father, grandfather and great grandfather. They all were from North Carolina. His 2x great grandfather was John Osborne Lee and his 3x great grandfather was Robert Scothrup Lee, both were from Alabama. Finally, his 4x great grandfather was Col. William Lee originally from Georgia and then settled in Alabama. What I found is not one of these men are related to the Lee's of Virginia and certainly not related to RE Lee. So I decided to check into his claim a bit further.

I contacted the Lee's of Virginia DNA Project to see if they had any of these men proven via DNA to be related to RE Lee but they could not verify a connection. I then researched 55 trees on Ancestery that Rev. Lee's grandfathers and great grandfathers appeared in but not one of them included any Lee's of Virginia in their trees. So I researched numerous trees that RE Lee was a relative and not one of them included any of Rev. Lee's relatives.

I then found the obituary's of Rev. Lee's 2nd and 3rd great grandfathers and no mention of a family connection to RE Lee was within those obits.

Then I viewed an article written by Tim Stanley, Staff Writer at the Tulsa World Media Company http://www.tulsaworld.com, where Rev. Lee stated the Lee relative he "descended" from was Charles Carter Lee, the eldest brother of RE Lee. That's a red flag as you cannot be a "descendant" as a nephew at any level. I then reviewed Charles Carter Lee's male children because if Rev. Lee was a great nephew, one of Charles Carter's sons would have to be one of Rev. Lee's grands or great grands. However, none of his sons, George Taylor, Henry, Robert Randolph, William Carter or John Penn are part of Rev. Rob's family.

Are we to believe Rev. Rob's claim to Robert E Lee which he uses to help spread his message? Shouldn't Rev. Lee's ancestry be verified before he is given these platforms to express his beliefs? Certainly he has a right to express his opinions but does he have the right to falsely claim the heritage of the Lee's of Virginia and RE Lee in particular to help give credibility to his narrative. It seems this is a critical element of his message and one that I hope that writers will research before posting future articles.

I hope other's will join in this discussion and create a narrative that will lead to either the proof that Rev. Lee is related to the Lee's of Virginia or will lead to his ceasing to use the heritage that is not his own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6200:3850:60D8:9E61:E83D:81E6 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Question about the first section of a biography: “Early life” or “Early life and education”?
A question has recently come up about the title for the first section of many biographies. I am under the impression that “Early life and education” is used so commonly here it is virtually standard. User:Nightscream disagrees, saying it is not standard and that they commonly remove “and education” when they see it, because they regard it as redundant. A third user, User:KidAd, joins me in preferring “Early life and education,” pointing out that a person’s education very often extends into their mid or late 20s.

My question for the members of this project: Is there a preferred or standard title for this first section? If so, is the preferred title “Early life” or “Early life and education”? Or is it “Early life” with “and education” allowed in some cases, such as where a person obtained additional education in midlife? Or is it a matter of preference/personal choice, suggesting that we leave it in whatever format was used by the person who first created the article? Thanks for any input. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As I said on User:Nightscream's talk page, I believe that anything less than a two-pronged heading in biographies is needlessly vague and limited in scope. Specifically in the biographies of politicians (also musicians, authors, actors, etc.) early life and education typically begins with infancy and ends after a bachelor's degree is earned. However, for those who earn advanced degrees or experience momentous life events before the formal start of their professional career, this section can become overlong and clunky. In addition, an individual's higher education is not automatically pertinent to their professional or work history, as most college students are not members of the workforce. I have only used a more limited heading when a segment of the broad category is missing from reliable sources. For example, if I cannot find information on an individual's birth place, hometown, or high school, I will use only education. If no information is available on colleges attended or degrees earned, I will use only early life. One size does not fit all here, but a precedent has essentially been established, and it works fairly well. KidAd (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I second KidAd here. ~ HAL  333  20:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I forgot to make clear here that I am mostly talking about biographies of professional people, scientists, politicians - people for whom their education is an important and standard part of their resume. I have come to regard "Early life and education" as standard because those are almost entirely the kind of biography articles I write and edit. But as KidAd points out, this kind of consideration might not come into play for other types of biographies. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * For the record, KidAd, I'm male. :-)


 * When the phrase used as the title of heading servers as the descriptive umbrella for each or most of the major elements or subtopics described in that section, taking one of those elements and singling it out as a separate qualifier in that title makes no sense. Let's imagine for example that we did this with other headings. Take Kamala Harris, for example. The "Early career" section in her article describes three posts she had during that period: Deputy district attorney of Alameda County, San Francisco District Attorney, and head of the Family and Children's Services Division of San Francisco. Now imagine if someone decided to change the heading so to "Early career and Family and Children's Services". Would that make sense? No, it wouldn't. And the reason for that is that it implies that that job was in some way not a part of her Early career, even though it's in the Early career section, as it is simply one of the three positions described in it.


 * The same holds true for Education. Early life sections tend to describe all the things that are typically associated with a person's early life, even things that are technically not specific to it, like parentage, siblings, and where applicable, ancestry. It also describes those things that typically do take place in one's early life. And yes, a person's twenties are indeed part of their "early life", especially when were're talking about a person in their 60s like Geoffrey Berman, whose article spurred this discussion.


 * Now does all education take place in one's twenties? No. But I have no problem with including a specialized heading in cases of subjects who completed secondary degrees later in life, or who attained notability as children, such as child actors, child activists, royalty, etc. Outside of these exceptions, education usuually occurs in one's early life.


 * As for the idea that a one-pronged title is "vague", this is false as a question of definition. If you ask anyone what they would think is in a section on a person's "early life," they would naturally understand just that: That it pertains to the things that occur in a person's early life. The phrase is self-explanatory, and entirely clear, which is the opposite of "vague." To argue that there's something inherent more clear about a title simply because it has two prongs is to not only engage in non-sequitur, but ignores the fact that most of the most common headings are one-pronged, including both category-specific ones like "Career," and layout-recurrent ones like "References", "See also", "External links", etc. Nightscream (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some flexibility as unless their early education is particularly defining I wouldn't have in in the text and instead in wikidata. Back ache (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think there’s room for both, as it depends on the life circumstances of the subject. In some cases, particularly of historic figures, a person’s education is either unknown or almost non-existent, so the heading “Early life” is more than adequate. In other cases, their education may be such a significant part of their life that a separate “Education” section may be needed.  While a standard guideline or outline is helpful, WP:IAR clearly applies to these style decisions.   Montanabw (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC on content in Notes column of filmography tables in Singapore artistes BLPs
There is a current RFC on removal of certain content in Singapore artistes BLP articles that the project may be interested in weighing in: Requests for comment/Content in Notes column of filmography tables in Singapore artistes BLPs. – robertsky (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi project members, would like your inputs on this. Thanks! – robertsky (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

How do I archive all of the references in the article Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis?
So the article Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis apparently has more references than are allowed to archive. Is it possible to request that a bot archive all of the references, please? I tried the "Fix Dead Links" tool thorough the article's Page/History. The tool told me there are too many dead links for that tool to work. Factfanatic1 (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You can put in a request at IABot. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tried IABot numerous times in the past two months for the article Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis to no avail. Am I doing something wrong? All that I do is that when I click on the IABot link, I simply enter "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis" and then I press "Submit" on the bottom. That's all that I do, correct? If so, I've tried doing the same thing in the past at least 15 times. Is there any other way to archive all of the references? Factfanatic1 (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , are you using the link I provided? This puts it in the queue, and is different to the immediate single page run. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am using the link you provided, and I've used the same link in the past. As I mentioned, I've been trying to do this using IABot for the past two months now with no results. How long is this supposed to take? Again, I'm just worried that references will be lost. Factfanatic1 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is 6426. might be able to tell you how long it takes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the queue is stuck right now. I need to unjam it. — CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 16:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! How long will it take to unjam the queue? And after it's unjammed, how long will Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis take to be archived? Thanks again. Factfanatic1 (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I won't get around to fixing today. It will be Monday at the earliest for both time estimates. — CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 16:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Factfanatic1 (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Should be unjammed now. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 20:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. I really appreciate it. Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Araki, Toichiro
Good afternoon!

I've been trying to expand my research on Araki, Toichiro on here but with little success. He is put under writers and the arts, but he wasn't much of a writer but more of an engineer, and successful business consultant in Japan between the years of 1928, up until the late 50s, I believe. Maybe a little longer.

If I could more researchers to help me uncover some more information about his past, that would be helpful. There is a 2 part biography somewhere (I believe in the Tokyo Library) about him, but I haven't any idea on how to access it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBarcus88 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Martin William Ashley
I have a feeling this LP might not be notable. I've done all the usual searches and turned up nothing. I've pondered the barrel scrapings, like notability through being recipient of a notable award, presumed notability by virtue of post. I'm not convinced, but also BLPs aren't my area of expertise. I thought i'd test the waters here rather than go straight to AfD. I hope i'm wrong about the notability, there's a redlink i'd like to retarget and some linkrot to fix! Thank you, Zindor (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck myself, as i seem to be implying that i'm on a canvassing mission, which is untrue. I'm just after a discussion on the article's talk page re this subject. Ping me there if you have a reply please. Regards, Zindor (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

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

I do this so


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

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

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

Back ache (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see MOS:INFOBOXUSE, which represents the consensus of the community: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." – SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Google and some other search engines tends to read the data in info boxes, so it can be helpful to data searches as they are classed are using precision data. Which suggests it's useful to use when the page has a lot of information on. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. Search engines lift the data from the inglorious turd Wikidata - the repository of unsourced and deeply flawed trivia. And don't edit war to your personal preference Govvy. We have WP:BRD and various ArbCom cases about poor behaviour around IBs. - SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit-war? I don't see an edit-war, also why are you posting an ArbCom to my talk page? And why are you talking wikidata turd? Besides, I stripped the IMDB out, that's a big no on that article. Still not sure about some of the sources on it. Govvy (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't see edit warring, despite edit warring? Funny that. You need to read what I have written and try and join the dots. Search engines don't lift info from WP, they lift it from Wikidata - a place where unsourced and unsupported rubbish is king. As to ArbCom, I left the note on your page because you've started acting improperly in terms of IBs: it is a note to make you aware that there are ArbCom sanctions in effect. And why on earth are you wittering about IMDB? Of course it shouldn't be used, but it's not relevant for this discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're a weird one aren't you, now I look back it seems you're the one doing the edit-war I guess. Saying I am acting improperly, pfft, don't push your luck. You must of heard of the term back-fire right? Govvy (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Charming. Please see WP:NPA. - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Govvy (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:DICK.  Cassianto Talk  17:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You should probably retract that. Govvy (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , should I? If the cap fits. If you want me to redact that, perhaps you could redact It's easy to throw around essays, without actually getting anywhere, isn't it. And that, together with the disgusting slur, based upon your perceived view of someone's mental health, makes your behaviour akin to WP:DICK.   Cassianto Talk  22:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, biography articles should have an Infobox. All developed bio articles have them, so it makes no sense to exclude one. As long as the material in them is supported by citations, either in the Infobox itself, or where it is mentioned elsewhere in the articled, they are useful, and their widespread use would seem to constitute a consensus of the community. Nightscream (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "All developed bio articles have them" Really? I can show you a dozen or more featured articles without them. The consensus of the community is quite clearly outlined in the MoS (already quoted above - "neither required nor prohibited for any article"). Insisting on something that does not suit all biographies, let alone all articles, is not the way to improve WP. - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would very much like to see them. Nightscream (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For examples, go to Featured_articles and work your way through. Charles-Valentin Alkan is the first of many in that section. I can point to numerous others once you’ve exhausted that section. - SchroCat (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The article in question (Nick Wilton) had an infobox when it was first created back in June 2011 by . It retained this (with occasional amendments) until July this year. The that  made to the article - at 08:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC) - was to alter  to  which may be seen as controversial, considering that Wikidata does not have a verifiability policy similar to ours. Rather than revert that edit,  (who also had no previous edits to the article)  at 16:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC), with the aforementioned edit summary. SchroCat later invoked WP:BRD at 14:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC), yet I see no posts to Talk:Nick Wilton by either of these parties. Neither of them is a newbie: one has more than nine years experience, the other almost fifteen years.
 * My suggestion is that the infobox as it stood from 17 February 2020 to 13 July 2020 (i.e. prior to Back ache's first edit there) should be reinstated, and then its merits and deficiencies be discussed at the article's talk page. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the Infobox was the Bold edit, the Infobox edit was Reverted, and the onus is on the person who added it to Discuss the merits for inclusion. What part of that don't you understand?  Cassianto Talk  22:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you explain this more? 6 months stable till its removal - how is its removal now not the bold edit? Agree odd to invoke WP:BRD after a WP:BOLD edit. Wondering if more wording is need on the bold page so we dont have this odd problem of thinking old edits that have been stable are still bold after a certain amount of time. Hard for new editors or any editor to assume  a 6 month old edit is now contested by bold.-- Moxy 🍁 22:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , there was a "silent consensus" to remove it. Ask at ArbCom, they'll tell you.   Cassianto Talk  01:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean ...how the hell is this editor or anyone to know this (link pls)? Looks like a flyby edit  with zero consideration for those involved with the article.-- Moxy 🍁 01:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, silent consensus' are great at manipulating the situation into your favour.  Cassianto Talk  07:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , are you talking to yourself?  Cassianto Talk  05:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Evidently to no one that can explain.-- Moxy 🍁 05:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , nope, illegible, sorry.  Cassianto Talk  06:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You say the Infobox was the Bold edit, the Infobox edit was Reverted - but what do you mean by this? As I have pointed out, the infobox was there right from the start. The article then had 177 subsequent edits prior to the first edit made by SchroCat, and an infobox is present in every single one of those 178 (and yes, I have checked). by  was the last one involving the infobox prior to Back ache's first, so the infobox was stable for 4 months 26 days. The infobox continued to be present in every version until SchroCat's first edit. Now, if that edit was a revert, as you claim, which version does it revert to? Or, which edit(s) is it reverting?
 * I am aware that music biogs need talk page consensus for an infobox to be added to an article that doesn't have one (the pop music people love them, the classical music people tend not to); or for an infobox to be removed from an article that already has one. Two things stand out here: one, the subject isn't a musician, but an actor and scriptwriter; two, the article already had an infobox, and there was no talk page discussion (let alone consensus) for its removal. In fact, there has been no talk page activity since 07:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC). There has been no talk page discussion since 15:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC) - subsequent edits have all concerned the top section: WikiProject banners etc. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the "music connection" is all that pertinent in this case. There is a wider question over whether those from the liberal arts or performing arts should have them at all. IBs work well when there is a career progression or statistics to encapsulate (so politicians, the military and clerical appointments are all very clear; those in sports have their playing stats present, for example), but for the creative fields? They're like an ashtray on a motorbike for all the good they do. Ezra Pound springs to mind, as does Noël Coward or Ralph Richardson as top rate articles in the "performing" field that all eschew the limitations of the box. - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , -- exactly as it says on the tin. WP:BRD is a cycle, with BRD being in exactly that order.  The first edit is always the bold edit. If there is no first edit, it cannot be bold. That goes for every edit, not just infoboxes. The next part of the cycle is "Revert".  That is when an edit is reverted that has been added through someone being bold.  Lastly, "D" is for discuss.  That is for the person who reverted the bold edit to discuss why the bold edit was reverted, and from there is when a consensus is formed, either by way of local consensus or RfC.  I don't think I can be any more specific than that.   Cassianto Talk  12:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I know what BRD means, don't lecture me. What I want to know is which specific edits each of the three stages applies to.
 * Which was the bold edit here? The edit that added the infobox (which was way back in 2011) or the edit (you have a choice of three) that removed it?
 * Which was the revert here? One of the three edits that removed the infobox, or one of the two that restored it?
 * Has anybody involved with the article discussed the matter at its talk page in the last, say, six weeks? Hands up anybody with a fairly recent edit to the talk page. I'm waiting. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Wilton&action=history None?] Bad argument.
 * How many edits were made to the article where BRD was mentioned? I make that two: ; . Both of them were by, and both removed the infobox. The first was debatable; the second was a bad BRD call, and indeed fell within WP:EW. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you have to ask "which specific edits each of the three stages applies to", then I'd have to disagree that you know what BRD is. You should know that the IB was the bold edit.   Cassianto Talk  14:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * the IB was the bold edit Do you mean that the first edit having an infobox was the bold edit? That was done at the time the article was created - so, on that basis, creating the article was WP:BOLD; and since at no point was the entire article either blanked or deleted, there has been no revert. Now, are you going to continue to be obtuse, belittling and otherwise disrespectful? You are aware of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions, where it was resolved that you are indefinitely placed on infobox probation; I am 100% certain that you are aware of this resolution, because you were at the time. Now, please give a pair of straight, non-evasive, non-abusive answers to my two questions: (1) Which was the bold edit? (2) Which was the revert? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , indeed it was bold. That's why we have an AfD area so things can be deleted (reverted).  How do you suppose the cycle goes? Something needs to be bold for it to be reverted.  Please tell me you at least understand that.   Cassianto Talk  21:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , why are you bringing up the ArbCom case? Do you hope to silence me through fear? You're very much mistaken if you think I give a toss about that particular committee's decision and how they handled that case. It's because of them that this poxy subject keeps coming up. Oh, and I think you'll find that I'm "allowed" to talk about IBs in general, just limited to one comment per specific article. Now, if you're aware of the case then you'll also know that it applies to you, too. Nothing further to say to you, so off you pop. Happy editing.   Cassianto Talk  21:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Initially, I made some observations of fact, and as a neutral outside observer, I offered a compromise suggestion - but was met with patronising comments from the start. After that, all I have asked for was an indication of two specific edits - WP:DIFFs are excellent for that, such as those I used in my earlier posts here: alternatively, you could provide the timestamps of the edits concerned. I'm trying to work out your position on the article, which version you feel to be the most sensible; yet all I get is vagueness blending through obtuseness into hostility. "Nothing further to say to you, so off you pop.", straight after asking questions of me? That creates a dilemma: to answer the ArbCom question, or not? Oh well, here goes.
 * I wasn't the one who first mentioned ArbCom - four people (one being yourself) did so before me; and that prompted me to have a look - where I find that you are named directly, but I am not mentioned at all. The closest that it gets to me is All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general. Also, this discussion is about one specific article. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you previously indicated that you believe that the long-term stable version of the infobox should be restored pending further discussion at the article talk page. Are you still of that opinion? I think we're both in agreement that the tortured distortion of BRD portrayed above doesn't make any sense. Is it time to restore the stable version and require a consensus before it can be removed again? L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 01:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a stable version but no sources were cited for most of it so it shouldn't just be restored to how it was. I removed the personal life section as the reference didn't verify any of it. Peter James (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My suggestion of 20:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC) was to restore a specific old version of the infobox, not to revert all changes that occurred since June, infobox or otherwise., I am still of that opinion. The infobox didn't have a personal life section, and so far as I am aware, there has been no recent dispute about the article content outside of the infobox (but see my recent post on its talk page). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While the IB had no personal life section, per se, it had a lot of personal information, much of which had no sources to support it. One factoid was OR and wildly inaccurate. Outside a very limited amount of very basic information, it was a BLP nightmare. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Personal life was a section of the article, not of the infobox. Lack of references there was the main reason I didn't restore the infobox. Peter James (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Working from "neither required nor prohibited", I can't imagine why anyone would argue that a given biography shouldn't have one, what valid reason there could be to remove one, once someone has created it. For my information, what reasons have people given for opposing the addition of an infobox or for favoring the removal of one? User:SchroCat mentions writers as a case in point. I don't know what distinction anyone makes between whether a given article "needs" or "doesn't need" an infobox, but there is, after all, an infobox writer, which someone created for, well, writersand if someone added this to Ezra Pound, why would that make the article worse? Largoplazo (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because they can be crass and misleading. Would such a box make the Pound article worse? Yes, of course it would. The factoids used to populate such boxes strip all context and nuance from a subject, meaning all that remains is a copy of the information in the first line of the article. The prose of even a poorly-written lead will always trump an IB in informing a reader about a subject. This is all rather moot: this project has no power to mandate IBs anywhere, so the MoS's "neither required nor prohibited" will, thankfully, be the default, rather than the knee-jerk mantra of too many that 'all articles/all biographies need an IB'. - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Infoboxes should be used only occasionally and with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. In my opinion, infoboxes on the arts seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text.
 * Further reasons include:
 * Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)
 * Visual degradation: The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
 * Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all.
 * Disconnected particles. Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
 * Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
 * Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)
 * I think that's covered it.  Cassianto Talk  13:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Disconnected particles. Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
 * Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
 * Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)
 * I think that's covered it.  Cassianto Talk  13:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)
 * I think that's covered it.  Cassianto Talk  13:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's covered it.  Cassianto Talk  13:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Should a biography have an infobox? Only if the biography is about a monarch, politician or sports figure. Otherwise, no infobox. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * At some point, we really need to have an RfC on this. This question seems to pop up at various articles once or twice a week, leading to a bunch of unnecessary arguments. Just have one big argument, let everyone put their views on the table, and then hopefully the community can arrive at a decision. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 19:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , what about the articles that have already had an RfC not to include an infobox? Would your RfC trump them? If so, why do you think this'll stop the arguments? If anything, it's more divisive.   Cassianto Talk  19:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I suppose any hypothetical RfC would need to account for prior discussions. It just seems to me that it would be better to avoid continuing to have numerous article-specific debates. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 20:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There have been such RfCs before (from memory the last one was a year ago, possibly two. The consensus was that it’s too difficult to make a solid rule on the matter, so the “neither required nor prohibited for any article” consensus was confirmed as the best one to stick to. - SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the reason this issue continues is because of the many incompetent ArbComs who have chosen to ignore it. They find it too difficult to fix, and buy not doing so have done a disservice to the project.  Cassianto Talk  05:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this still going on, I still can't believe I didn't get an apology from you Cassianto, you clearly are below the belt type of guy, kinda makes me sad for you. All this arguments over who thinks what is right over an info box, info box data can be read by search engines without reading meta, search engines also read the first few paragraphs, however special needs browsers hate info boxes and a lot of those users don't like the output of the way they read info boxes. :/ Govvy (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it’s obviously still going on. Please don’t continue to insult other editors while playing the victim card at the same time. You’ve thrown insults at others, so don’t be surprised when they reply in kind. As has been mentioned above, which you may have missed, the idiot box doesn’t provide information for search engines: Wikidata does that job. You’ve already replied to the comment where I told you that before, so hopefully the information will stick this time. - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm pretty sure search engines do use infoboxes for data. I was testing this a month or two ago. I don't have my detailed tests handy, but as a quick example you can Google "treforest railway station", look at the Google box for it, and compare it to the article's infobox, and look at the Wikidata entry at Q3400263. The bolded words are fetched from the infobox, not Wikidata, some are manually set now but some don't exist on Google at all. The same effect is more visible with some other infoboxes. (some other examples: "King's Cross Thameslink railway station", "East Grinstead railway station"). I'm not entirely sure how it works in particular cases, but in my tests I found Google's box fetching data from WD, infoboxes, and (in some cases) the article lead itself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a different approach would be best. - thus far its caused reputations to be tarnished and conflict with editor after editor.-- Moxy 🍁 13:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:DICK.  Cassianto Talk  14:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes at this point I think it should be codified that biographies should have an infobox. In this specific case at Nick Wilton there was an infobox at creation so the onus is on to find consensus to remove. Since their edit removing it was the bold edit, they should then discuss it on the talk page. PackMecEng (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good luck with the centralised RfC to have that codified. The last few times it was tried, the idea was rejected. - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a different story! I would probably support it should one come a long but it would be a long hard road to be sure. One seems to have been due since the original arbcom case from what I can see but nothing has really happened. PackMecEng (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The last RfC was 2018, so I doubt it is "due", except in the sense that IB warriors think that the best way to achieve ownership of the top right-hand corner of all articles is to keep smashing the question over and over again until people are either driven off the project or are so sick and tired of it that they capitulate just for some piece and quiet. But that's no way to run a circus, let alone what is supposed to be a collegiate project. - SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you mind passing a link to it? I would be curious to see how it went. PackMecEng (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay - I missed this: this is the last one I know of. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool beans, thanks! I will check it out. PackMecEng (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think "IB warriors" is a little too close to a PA. ~ HAL  333  20:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It would be a great idea to require infoboxes on biographies above a specific size. They are always helpful on large articles but aren't especially beneficial when an article only has three paragraphs. ~ HAL  333  20:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder - and this lasted just two weeks. _ SchroCat (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A discussion on ANI entailed this discussion. Please assume good faith. ~ HAL  333  20:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. The anti-infobox warriors also will never give up. There is also a certain disingenuousness to their removal of infoboxes of long-standing stability, then edit-warring to declare that the people trying to keep them in are the “warriors.” This is a ridiculous bugbear of a debate, long resolved by the “infoboxes on a case-by-case basis” decision, which results inthe overwhelming majority of biographies having infoboxes, save for the walled garden of Cass and Schro’s classical music world (where even there a pro-infobox contingent exists.  Let’s just tuck this away and stop wasting bandwidth on it.  Schro and Cass, you need to just quit trying to systematically remove infoboxes from articles you have only minor concern about, and in return, the rest of us who favor infoboxes for all the long-debated reasons we’ve endlessly discussed shall just let you have your little gated community over in a few of the articles you’ve staked out as your turf. Montanabw (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The established consensus re infoboxes has already been pointed out on this page-  "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."  Everyone saying "all articles should have infoboxes" or "all bios need infoboxes" or "all articles of a certain length should have infoboxes" should be warned that they are arguing against an ARBCOM decision and if they don't drop it, topic banned under the discretionary sanctions that apply to the area.Smeat75 (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is going to be topic banned merely for arguing against an ArbCom decision. ArbCom's ruling wasn't intended to deny people the ability to express their personal opinions. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 13:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, stating an opinion that a specific article would be well served by the addition of an infobox is fine. Attempts to force infoboxes into a range of articles, generalised statements such as "all articles/all bios should have infoboxes" should not be allowed. It has been settled. We have been arguing about it for years, to continue is disruptive and causes arguments, bad blood, bitter feelings, people leaving the project and getting blocked/ banned. It is never going to change, infoboxes will never be forced into every article or every bio or anything of the kind.Smeat75 (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * People are generally allowed to state their opinions even if those opinions don't fall in line with consensus. After all, consensus can change. A straightforward, civil expression of one's personal infobox philosophy should not result in anyone being blocked or otherwise leaving. Besides, nobody here is attempting to force infoboxes into a range of articles. In case you aren't aware of the full context, this thread was opened as a result of an editor unilaterally removing an infobox and refusing to discuss it at the talk page. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 17:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the previous, biased ArbCom would never have enforced such sanctions on someone the pro-side of the argument. They were overwhelmingly pro-infoboxers. If they had've done, people on Montanbw's side of the argument would all be sitting out discretionary blocks right now and be under what is futilely known as "infobox probation".  It remains to be seen what the current lot are like. But I won't hold my breath.   Cassianto Talk  13:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , what a vulgar, passive aggressive show of utter ignorance on display here, sadly from someone I like. Can you point me to one of these "classical music" articles, you wax so lyrically about,  that I have had a lion's share of edits in? Permit me to put this on the other foot: you need to just quit trying to systematically add infoboxes to articles you have only minor concern about.   Cassianto Talk  12:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I doubt you'll get a consensus for making infoboxes mandatory for all bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Cass, this is the problem, the vitriol. I have mostly crossed swords with you and the 3-4 other editors who have very strong anti-infobox feelings when restoring long-standing infoboxes have been removed, or those inserted by a person who created or significantly improved an article— and you are well aware of this. You are also well aware that the biggest drama has been over infoboxes in the classical music articles, which spread to some musician and actor articles generally, and so on. It would be nice to figure out how to de-escalate the nastiness that surrounds the issue. The arguments on each side are well-worn and nothing new. The consensus issue usually is resolved by who shouts the loudest.  The issue is probably going to be debated long after everyone else is holding hands and singing Kumbayah about abortion, GMOs and Trump v Obama. And that makes me sad.   Montanabw (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , was it not who suggested it first?   Cassianto Talk  17:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Might have been, was a long time ago and not a big deal if it was, so a nod to credit where credit is due. I know I was for it, anyway, and I recall dinking around with the markup syntax to try and make it work. It settled one battle and I still think it’s a solution to be considered for those cases where the aesthetics argument is the main issue.  Montanabw (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , well at least you're willing to compromise, unlike some around here.  Cassianto Talk  17:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. And even admit if I’m actually wrong! Save for future reference!  Montanabw (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think a biography, like most articles, should have an infobox. The reasons I favor infoboxes: That's not to say that every article must have an infobox, nor that there aren't a lot of infoboxes that are, indeed, stuffed with trivia. But, for almost all articles, and I think for just about every biography, an infobox is an improvement. Lev!vich 17:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Infoboxes present the most important information about a subject in an easily-digestible format right up front. Some describe the info in an infobox as "random trivia" or similar; I disagree. For example, for an elected official, an infobox includes their office, dates of tenure, party affiliation, and so on. For an athlete, what team they play on and what position. For a musician, what instruments, musical groups, or record label. It's the "vital statistics" of a topic. (This is true for non-biographies as well: e.g., for an event, the infobox gives you the date and location of the event.)
 * 2) Infoboxes are extremely popular, and by now, expected by readers and editors alike. My evidence for this assertion is their ubiquity. Look at recent WP:TFAs, or WP:DYKs, or WP:ITNs, or any day's most-viewed articles: almost all of them have an infobox. Some say that our policies should describe rather than proscribe current practice. If we honestly describe current practice with regards to infoboxes, the current practice is: the overwhelming majority of articles that readers read have an infobox.
 * 3) Infoboxes allow us to track articles in a way that categories and wikiproject banners do not. For technical reasons, you can count transclusions in a way that you can't count category members (because of diffusion and recursion), and wikiproject banners are very broad and inconsistently applied. This helps, for example, make sure that all articles about living people are in the appropriate category and have the appropriate talk page headers, which in turn helps ensure compliance with BLP policy.
 * 4) Infoboxes provide some verified structured data, which is useful for at least two reasons:
 * 5) It helps our sister projects like WikiData and Commons, who can easily pull the data from a trusted source.
 * 6) It helps third-party websites, like Google, who use infobox data to populate their own infoboxes. Some say this is a secondary consideration, that we shouldn't worry about what other websites do. I disagree. If we create a policy-compliant article and it has an infobox, when someone googles the subject, the information in the infobox will appear to that person right at the top of the search results (usually), which provides the person with verifiable information about the subject. If they google an elected official, for example, they get the name of the office, and so forth. This advances our fundamental mission to provide access to knowledge. It's not a secondary consideration to me; populating infoboxes gets the truth out there to more people and faster than if they had to click on and read our article to get the same information.
 * 7) Infoboxes are a good use of the white space next to the table of contents.
 * 8) I don't like collapsed infoboxes because it just slows down the reader's access to the information, for no benefit, other than the aesthetic preferences of what I believe to be a minority of editors who think infoboxes are ugly.
 * NO WAY - to 'open' infoboxes on every Bio article. I will not bend on this, no matter who tries to bully or sweet talk me :) GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * My latest argument (it has evolved) is that Info-boxes are called for in biographies, because of the overriding fact of mortality. That would be my first and foremost reason: human beings are born and die. Any two people can be compared on the basis of this alone. Add to this the reason for notability and I think you have justified the Info-box's existence. In my opinion all arguments against Info-boxes are merely "stylistic" in the final analysis. People want aesthetically-pleasing articles and they feel Info-boxes clutter the article. To that I respond that appearance should not override the conveyance of information. Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the point of this discussion. "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article", the current agreed consensus, has already been quoted twice. That can't be changed here, and after innumerable arguments, is unlikely ever to be changed, nothing else is practical. You can't force infoboxes into every bio. By the way "articles should have ibs because they help search engines like google" is the lamest ever reason for having them imo. I have no desire to be an unpaid volunteer for multi billion dollar corporations. I am happy to volunteer to help WP, a charity. If I am helping google, they should pay me.Smeat75 (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is better to determine this at each individual article, I agree. Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Compromise
If this topic comes to an Rfc? Then a compromise would definitely be a collapsed infobox (see example: Frank Sinatra) for bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Worst of all worlds. Collapsed infoboxes are incredibly rare, and the cause of the collapse at Sinatra appears to be...
 * Besides, the status quo seems to work fine mostly, not sure an RfC is needed. imo just replace the infobox at the article of discussion and be done with this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No infobox is preferable to a collapsed one. ~ HAL  333  20:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally see no problem with a collasped infobox, and in fact am the person who recommended supported it as a compromise at the Sinatra article. But bottom line is that most likely there is no compromise possible, only a majority consensus of some sort and eternal vigilance from ArbCom when people cross the line. Montanabw (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * An Info-box conveys information quickly. You don't want to have to open an Info-box or even think about opening an Info-box. Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you don't want to open it, don't. Please don't insult the intelligence of our readers by saying that it's a faff having to click a "click to open" box.  Cassianto Talk  19:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Biswanath Rath
Hey there, Biswanath Rath appears to be a wall of film festival submissions/selections/awards. Largely edited by an SPA. I haven't yet checked to see if the subject is notable, but thought I'd mention it here in case someone was willing to put eyes on it. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

RE: Debate on creating a Chris Mullin disambiguation page (now it automatically leads to the basketball player)
Right now, the Chris Mullin page automatically leads to the basketball player - at the same time, there is a Chris Mullin (politician) - the one who led the fight to release the Birmingham Six and vote A Very British Coup (which was adapted to a TV series).

I've started a discussion on the talk page there, requesting to rename the basketball player page to Chris Mullin (basketball), and make the Chris Mullin page a disambiguation page with equal representation to both of them.

Arguments raised against my proposal:
 * The basketball player has more views.

My main argument for the move:
 * The basketball player gets most of his views from the US, while outside the US he's hardly known, and in Britain itself the politician-author Chris Mullin is much better known.

I invite you guys to take part in the discussion.

The link: Talk:Chris Mullin.

Thank you! Maxim.il89 (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * @Maxim, on these general pages, you need to post alerts in a neutral tone, don’t canvass for your viewpoint, just invite comment. Keep the advocacy with the debate itself.  Montanabw (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Rohitash Gaud
Quick question: I'm looking at Rohitash Gaud. The subject's verified Instagram account has his name spelled as Gour. But, I see lots of Google News hits for the spelling "Rohitash Gaud" (3,300) vs. "Rohitash Gour" (57). The subject's IMDb page is listed under Gaud. Should the article and its contents go with Gaud or Gour? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Whichever way you go, make the other spelling a redirect and note both spellings on the lede.  Montanabw (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
A discussion which may be of interest to the members of this group can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Date of birth Catriona Kelly
Hi, this may seem like an inconsequential question but when was Catriona Kelly born and what is the source? Wikipedia says: born 6 October 1959 but the source after this date does not contain this information. The reason I want to know is that VIAF (view as XML) states her date of birth as circa 1959-10-06. Out of all the linked authority records only Wikidata (same date as Wikipedia) and the DNB record contain a date of birth at all. But the DNB record gives the year 1967. This raises the question who is right and do you know if VIAF sources dates of birth/dates of death from Wikidata? Pyfisch (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Another person, this time with just two authority files: Wikidata and Library of Congress. Again the date of birth, date of death seem be from Wikidata. Pyfisch (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC on whether to use Pinyin or Wade Giles (Chinese romanizations) for Zhang Xueliang/Chang Hsueh-liang
Hi! Please see Talk:Zhang_Xueliang which is about how to spell the guy's name. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

September Women in Red edithons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Relevant RfC at Talk:Chadwick Boseman#Rfc about including cause of death
Please see a relevant RfC at Talk:Chadwick_Boseman. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind that I replaced the : in your post with a # to make the link function properly. only (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Terren Peizer COI edit requests
Hi! I've posted some COI edit requests at Talk:Terren Peizer, on behalf of Peizer's company Ontrak, a client of mine. Sharing in case anyone here is interested in taking a look. Thank you for any help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ancestry.com access now available via The Wikipedia Library
The Wikipedia Library has just made Ancestry.com available for free to active Wikipedia editors! To sign up for a free account, simply head over to the Library Card platform and file an application. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Charles Linn
Discussion of whether to merge Statue of Charles Linn into the main article is here. Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Meredith Kopit Levien
Hello! On behalf of The New York Times Company (and as disclosed on the article's talk page), I've suggested some updates (actually, corrections) to the Meredith Kopit Levien article at Talk:Meredith Kopit Levien. One editor implemented the first request, but I've struggled to get someone to review Additional_requests to fix inaccurate text. I've drafted specific changes here, which I hope makes reviewing and implementing easy. Would a member of WikiProject Biography be willing to review and update the article on my behalf? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The request has been answered, so I am marking this section as resolved. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Meredith Kopit Levien
On behalf of The New York Times Company, I've posted a request at the bottom of Talk:Meredith Kopit Levien to correct the Meredith Kopit Levien article. The subject will succeed Mark Thompson as president and chief executive officer. Additionally, I'm hoping to correct inaccurate text about the Times' "Paid Posts". I'm not editing the article directly because of my conflict of interest. Could a member of WikiProject Biography take a look and update the page on my behalf?

Thanks for any help in advance. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The request has been answered, so I am marking this section as resolved. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:Biography -- Needing Photo and Infobox tags
I was wondering does anyone actually put Photos and Infobox through the tagging of such articles? Adamdaley (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If by "tagging" you mean including needs-photo=yes or needs-infobox=yes in the Template:WikiProject Biography, then the answer is yes. In fact, I have done this at least twice in the past 30 days.  If you are a member of WikiProject Biography and want to help out, this is a good way to do so.  Just look in Category:Biography articles without infoboxes and its subcategories to get started.  -- Johnnie Bob (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's right. I do it because of the WP:Military History. Adamdaley (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Review
Naijabroads (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is not an article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Its a biography. What are needed to be added to the contents on it to make it approved Naijabroads (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you on about Draft:Icon Spielberg? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
Comments are invited in a discussion of the future of WP:SOLDIER at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Alfonso XIII
Would like some input at here, concerning a bio infobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Biographies are really interesting. They share the life stories of many influential individuals who have impacted a large group of people or even a nation! What do you guys think? Jimenezls96 (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You may have misunderstood my request. Need input over at the Alfonso XIII article. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

October editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging