Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia/Archive 3

American historians and diffusion
Category:American historians is marked for diffusion and until earlier today, several subcategories by topic (altho not all), such as Category:American art historians were marked as non-diffusing. Obviously, this is a contradiction. I started out by taking the non-diffusing categories and putting them in the parent category and received some feedback questioning it. I have since removed the parent category and the non-diffusing tags (adding them back would be trivial, of course). I suggested that an alternate scheme for diffusing the parent Category:American historians may be by state and made a couple of these categories as a start: Category:Historians from California and Category:Historians from Pennsylvania. I am offering two questions to this WikiProject: ,, who posted to my talk. Please Ping me if you need me directly for this conversation. Note that I will happily edit the categories however the community decides but that at the moment, Category:American historians is diffused by topic as it was 24 hours ago and there are only the two categories by state which I am not populating until I get more feedback. I will continue diffusing Category:American historians by century, which is a pre-existing scheme. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Copying a post from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History - please comment there. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Should subtopic categories of Category:American historians be marked as non-diffusing?
 * 2) Should Category:American historians be diffused by state?
 * I don't have a strong opinion on (1), but my answer to (2), the proposed by-state categorization, is a strong oppose. There is no significant difference in their approach to history that falls along state lines (except for the small fraction of historians whose interest is purely local, who should be categorized according to where their interests lie not where they are actually from), so the proposed subdivision would be a non-notable intersection and a non-defining categorization. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Categorization by state is inappropriate for reasons above. Would you have similar for other countries? US-centric suggestion. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Sorry, I was copying a post from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History, and should have linked to that to keep everything in one place. I will copy these comments there - please add any more there too. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for comments on peer review
Hi, I've listed Lilias Armstrong (early 20th century British phonetician) for a peer review and would appreciate any feedback. Thanks in advance! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Lilias_Armstrong/archive1

Umimmak (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Selecting a professor's "most significant works/articles"?
When an academic has authored hundreds of journal articles how does one go about selecting a number of "significant articles" for a "selected works" list in the biography article? How does one even define "significance"? Karin Muraszko's Google Scholar profile lists over 200 articles, she has an h-index of 38 and her articles have been cited almost 7000 times. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Go for the highest cited works to start with, although better accuracy will require an expert knowledge of the field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Thanks, I've asked WikiProject Medicine for assistance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

S. M. Imamul Huq - becoming too promotional
See. I don't know what to do about this. The editor doing this seems to be someone called M Abu Sayeed if I can trust Google translate, and that would give him a COI with several of the articles he's edited. Doug Weller talk 11:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Leonid Berlyand
Was wondering if someone would mind assessing Leonid Berlyand? It was just created and it's largely unsourced; it's also not clear how this person meets WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Just for reference, I stumbled upon this via the user talk page of. I have done some minor clean up/formatting, etc., and Googled "Leonid Berlyand" looking for more sources, but all that seemed to pop up is stuff typically not considered WP:SIGCOV to meet GNG. I'm not really too familiar with how academics are typically assessed for Wikipedia notability, so I'd figure I'd ask here for input. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Updating articles for MSK executives
I've been working on researching, updating, and expanding the articles for Craig B. Thompson, José Baselga, and Joan Massagué Solé, but I've been having trouble gaining any traction on their respective talk pages. Would anyone here be willing to look over some of my proposed changes? I've got their respective sandboxes here: Thompson, Baselga, Massagué. Thanks!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for assessment
William Matthews (priest) is currently nominated for Featured article status. It is not currently assessed for importance for this wikiproject. Could someone please assess it so as to smoothly proceed through the FA process?  Ergo Sum  21:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why this is needed, but done. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Vincent P. Richards
Another editor declined the draft article Draft:Vincent P. Richards as non-notable. I am tempted to agree, but I would appreciate it if someone else could look at the draft. The subject is an assistant professor, and Google Scholar lists 766 citations, an h-index of 16 and an i10-index of 18. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Gobineau
Members of this project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Donald Chakeres, M.D.
Could someone please look at Draft:Donald Chakeres, M.D. He is a full professor at Ohio State University and the list of papers at his page at Google Scholar is impressive, but another editor declined the submission. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * looking at some past items here, I undeleted and revised it, and am about to move it into mainspace.  DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Linda Shapiro


The article Linda Shapiro has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "I don't believe that Professor Shapiro meets the basic notability guideline, of having 'received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.' I looked through the top 50 G-Hits for 'professor Linda Shapiro' and quickly realized that there are multiple subjects, found no independent reliable sources providing coverage, and got to the point where the three words were each appearing separately in the article instead of together."

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. ★ Bigr   Tex  02:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * for the record, she's an IEEEFellow and therefore unquestionably notable.  DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

William Tasman
While recent changes patrolling, I came across this article on William Tasman, created by a new user and single purpose account. Normally I only review clean cut vandalism, so I wasn't exactly sure what to do with this. Appears to be a good faith attempt to add an article, but there have been a few problems. (Initially was unsourced, continues to upload non-free images to commons, etc.) Also, it appears there's now a sock as another single purpose account is involved. I thought perhaps someone from the project who is more familiar with notability requirements might want to take a look. Thanks.--Policy Reformer(c) 17:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think he probably gets over the notability bar for academics. His death was covered in a few places, like medical journals and philly.com. He doesn't have a Google Scholar profile, but a search suggests that several of his papers have been cited >100 times (though he was the first author of only a small number of them). He was the president of a couple of national ophthalmology organizations, which I think also speaks to his influence but may not help directly under WP:PROF. I do notice that a couple of sections seem closely paraphrased from an obituary. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is why I brought this here. Didn't even think to check Google Scholar.  Thanks for taking a look.--Policy Reformer(c) 03:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Policy Reformer and EricEnfermero, Eric, thanks for taking the time to look into this, I really appreciate it. Also, did you have any concerns about it being impartial, or are there any aspects that need to be changed. I am interested in which part of the article you believe was paraphrased. I did not copy anything directly, but if I could strengthen the article by fixing any problems, I would love to do so. Also, Policy Reformer, would it be ok if I now remove the notability thing, and the citing things, or do I still need to wait. - SCtheeditor(c) 06:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of rewriting it for NPOV. He's clearly notable as president of major professional association in his field,plus professional journal obit, plus ed. of major works in the field,  but the article was over-personal, and not at all in our usual style.  DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

RFC at William Matthews peer review
There is a peer review open about William Matthews. He was a major figure in the establishment of the Catholic Church in Washington, D.C. I am preparing the article for FA nomination and would very much appreciate any input.  Ergo Sum  02:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Help on Sources for Draft:Ann Patricia Bowling
Hi, I've been trying to help work on Draft:Ann Patricia Bowling within the bounds of WP:BLP, and based on Wikipedia talk:Notability_(academics) I feel confident she is notable enough per WP:PROF, but there are 2 outstanding honors I'm having trouble citing: She was able to get emails from both institutions confirming that she did receive those awards, but I know those aren't citable. FFPH say they don't list people's names online, and the BMH says they don't have online records of their book awards from back in 1998. At this point, I'm looking for help figuring out where to keep searching for confirmation, or some indication if this article is ok to publish with those citations outstanding, or maybe I could even publish it without mentioning that information? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. -Furicorn (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "In July 2006, Bowling was elected Fellow of the Faculty of Public Health, of the Royal College of Physicians of the United Kingdom.
 * Measuring healthwon Highly Commended in the Basis of Medicine section in the 1998 British Medical Association Medical Book Competition.

Creating an article for Jeffrey Drebin
I've been working on creating a new article for a Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center doctor Jeffrey Drebin. I have a paid COI with MSK to do so, and I'm looking for collaborators to help me review my draft to ensure it's compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines, as well as further improve the article wherever it can be. Does anyone here have a minute to look at my draft?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Arjun Kumar Gupta
Does the article Arjun Kumar Gupta meet notability requirements? The only thing that seems to be a claim of notability is "1989 he was elected as a Fellow of the American Statistical Association". TJRC (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Featured Article nomination
I have nominated William Matthews (priest) for Featured Article status, and it is currently under review here. The article failed once before for failure to generate enough comments. I believe it is very close to FA, and meets all the criteria. Any further input would be greatly appreciated.  Ergo Sum  04:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Yaman Yener
I came across this draft while reviewing new pages submitted via WP:AFC. The article is terrible & full for 'cruft, but the subject appears to be notable. If there's anyone here interested in taking a look and possibly rescuing this page, that would be great. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Entry on the late Pamela Sue Anderson (PSA for short)
Wikipedia entry on PSA is extremely basic and, in it, there is the warning that it should be erased if nobody adds relevant information to it. I believe that, while PSA was an Oxford academic from 2001 until her death last year, she was concerned with important subjects (such as whether female students are at a disadvantage vis-à-vis male colleagues). In addition, she specialized in continental philosophers (such as hermeneuts like French P. Ricoeur and German H.-G. Gadamer) at a time when Oxford largely ignored them. Lastly, PSA knew, and was known by, leading feminist thinkers in both Europe and her native North America. In short, I believe she does deserve to be mentioned in Wikipedia. I cannot do much to avoid that her current stub entry be removed, because I have no experience about editing Wikepedia entries, and Wikipedia ways look to me fiendishly hard to learn due to hyper-detailed instructions to be heeded, while I surely lack the time to learn them. My contribution is a section I've inserted in the talk page of the PSA entry where I have copied a number of URLs carrying information on PSA's life and academic views -- just in case someone feels like drafting a more substantial entry.Hdjf3 (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Neil Degrasse Tyson
There is an ongoing discussion that may be of interest to the members of this board at Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson ResultingConstant (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia, the final frontier
This has been going on for awhile, now, & I'm out of ideas. Can anybody address it? Joe Kittinger I'll be right back  02:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've semiprotected it for a while, probably in WP:THEWRONGVERSION. Also, I can see the earth from my back yard! Just not as much of it as you would see from orbit. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Amnon Pazy
Would someone from this taskforce mind taking a look at this article and assessing it? It was created by someone hired by Pazy's family and it was not submitted for review via WP:AFC. I've done a bit of minor clean up, but there's still some issues that need sorting, particularly with respect to the sourcing (it seems that most of them are to documents, etc. uploaded to Commons). I'm assuming the subject meets WP:ACADEMIC and is notable for an article to be written, but some serious trimming/rewriting might be needed to bring the article more inline with current policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer review request: Ruby Payne-Scott
Hello! I've added a bunch of content and references to Ruby Payne-Scott, and have also created a peer review request. This is my first time trying my hand at rewriting an article and I'd very much appreciate experienced editors to review. Thanks! ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 03:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Bruno Bettelheim article
Bettelheim was director of a residential school for children and teenagers at the University of Chicago from 1944 to '73, and also a professor there. He wrote the books The Empty Fortress (1967) and The Uses of Enchantment (1976).

Arguably, after his death in 1990, he was discredited in several ways, and that is the crux of the matter.

You are invited to a Request for Comment entitled 'RfC: how to cover someone who doesn't have credentials for their field?'

The specific question is: 'Should our lead sentence describe Bettelheim as a "child psychologist"?'


 * Talk:Bruno Bettelheim

If this topic interests you, your participation is of course very welcome. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Kaelin up for deletion
IMO, well sourced article about a geneticist. But you can help improve it. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!
 You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!


 * What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
 * When? June 2015
 * How can you help?
 * 1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
 * 2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
 * 3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa (timestamp may not be accurate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Article on Edwin Chapman
Hello, I am attempting to get a biography page for Dr. Edwin Chapman accepted. This is my first attempt at putting together a Wikipedia page. I submitted a version in April and was rejected for lack of citations. I rewrote the entry including as many citations as possible, I would really appreciate any feedback. The article hasn't been re-reviewed since the original rejection in April. Is this typical? (about 5 months wait?) Is there anything that I can do to facilitate getting this bio published?

Appreciate your feedback!

128.104.21.134 (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the post. Unfortunately, there's a backlog of drafts awaiting review at the moment (although your wait was certainly on the long end). Edwin Chapman is clearly notable (per WP:NPROF) and so I've moved the page to mainspace. You can find it and further improve it at Edwin Chapman. Thanks for your work on the page! I hope you decide to stick around! Ajpolino (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Nobel laureates
Currently, this week we have 9 Nobel Laureates (3 each in 3 prizes awarded so far). All of their articles are of poor quality as to be appropriate to post the Nobels at WP:ITN, though none of them seem too far off that they cannot be fixed in short order (under 24hr) with the additional coverage coming from the Nobels. The specific articles are
 * William Kaelin Jr.
 * Peter J. Ratcliffe
 * Gregg L. Semenza
 * Jim Peebles
 * Michel Mayor
 * Didier Queloz
 * John B. Goodenough
 * M. Stanley Whittingham
 * Akira Yoshino

--M asem (t) 14:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, at least they all have articles this year! If any upcoming ones don't have articles (or didn't at the point of announcement), please notify that here. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Only four of the nine have photographs. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Extra eyes needed
These two articles could use some extra eyes: Ronald Grossarth-Maticek and Hans Eysenck. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly are your concerns? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC).
 * Whitewashing, possible OR/SYNTH, medical/scientific information based on primary sources only, and sourcing issues. I'm currently very busy in RL and unfortunately have no time to address these issues myself. --Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Randy Jirtle
Would someone from S&A mind taking a look at this article? Someone claiming to be the subject of the article showed up at the Teahouse to ask this question. It appears this account has been editing the article over the years and the article might need some editors experienced with these types of BLPs to go over it and figure out what if anything needs to be removed/cleaned up. I've done some basic clean up of embedded external links, but the prose itself may need to be check per WP:NPOV and WP:BLPSOURCES types of errors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I second that. I've been trying to help the user concerned understand how to navigate the Conflict of Interest stuff, but I'm not a BLP editor (and don't really want to be).  The subject seems notable enough to me to warrant an article, but it is in definite need of work. Physdragon (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Howard Markel
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Howard Markel. Peaceray (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Article issues
There are comments at Talk:Jane Addams that might be of interest to members. Otr500 (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC -- Request for Comment -- on Bruno Bettelheim
Hi,

Interested persons are welcome at RfC on Bettelheim. The specific question is:


 * Should our lead sentence describe Bettelheim as a "self-proclaimed psychologist"?

RfC on lead sentence

Any time you can spare is appreciated. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Mikko Kaasalainen
Hi everyone. It appears that somebody edited the Wikipedia page for Mikko Kaasalainen to mention his death. They did not include a source for it. It appears that the one source documenting it is this: https://www.aamulehti.fi/a/4a3a258c-cac5-43d8-af96-256fcd8774f6. Since I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy regarding deaths, what should be done about this? LukeCEL (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ Peaceray (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you. I suppose I should deal with the categorization and listing (such as putting his article in Deaths in April 2020 and Category:2020 Deaths. LukeCEL (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Mikhail Konstantinovich Kudryavtsev
Hello! We have an article on Mikhail Konstantinovich Kudryavtsev, and it is within the scope of this Wikiproject. Kindly assess the article on the project's quality and importance scale. Suggestions for improvements would be highly appreciated )) Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Aydogdy Kurbanov
Hello! Now, we have an article on Aydogdy Kurbanov, and it is within the scope of this Wikiproject. Kindly assess the article on the project's quality and importance scale. Suggestions for improvements would be highly appreciated. Looking forward to see you guyz on the article's talk page )) Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I placed a Start-class rating on it, but I am not knowledgeable about the subject matter and do not speak French, so others are free to disagree. I don't know what the importance of this entry is to those other WikiProjects, so I left those for others to do. I made a few formatting changes, like bolding the subject's name in the first sentence. (Why is the word excavations in quotation marks?) When I write an article and want to move it up a notch on the quality scale (like from Stub to Start, or from C to B), I find that the hardest jump always seems to be from Start-class to C-class for some reason. Good luck. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, . My apologies for replying so late to you. Actually, while replying to my comment you did not ping me, and somehow, I forgot to check back. Dr. Kurbanov is arguably one of the leading archaeologists in his area of research. Also, I placed the word "excavations" in quotation marks because it appears so (the same word) in the source cited, and I wanted to abide by the COPYVIO. I try to do as much rephrasing as possible, but sometimes, it's too demanding. I simply did not know how to do rephrasing by not using the exactly same word. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - I apologize for the lack of a ping. I meant to ping you, but then I noticed that I didn't have the characters in your username available on my keyboard, and I think I got distracted before I could look into it further - and then I just forgot. This time I just used copy-paste to ping you. My question about the quote marks is this: What does the author mean when he places the word in quotes? Is he using scare quotes to suggest that the subject did not really excavate anything? Because of this lack of clarity, scare quotes generally do not belong in encyclopedic writing. See MOS:SCAREQUOTES for more information. Larry Hockett (Talk) 10:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's OK )) Also, as per the source cited, he did execute excavations in Turkmenistan, and is still, probably, doing so. The source did not use quotation marks. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what’s going on, . Single words do not create copyvio issues. Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the information )) Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you help me in finding a free picture of Dr. Kurbanov? Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am unlikely to be helpful in this area. I don't know anything about archaeology, I'm not familiar with any rules about image use in Turkmenistan, and image policies (overall) are not my strength on WP. I did add an image requested template on the article's talk page, so hopefully someone can help. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Justin Pierre Marie Macquart's correct full name
According to a 2016 Zootaxa monograph on this French entomologist (Full text PDF download available here), Macquart's full name was actually "Pierre-Justin-Marie Macquart" (see page 7). So "Justin Pierre Marie Macquart" seems to be the wrong title for the article on him. However, some of the other language Wikipedias (e.g. French Wikipedia) instead use the title "Pierre Justin Marie Macquart", with no hyphens. So, which should we use for the article's title: "Pierre-Justin-Marie Macquart" with hyphens as in the monograph, or "Pierre Justin Marie Macquart" without hyphens to be consistent with French Wikipedia? Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Since there has been no reply for over 4 days now, I think I'll just be WP:BOLD and go for the hyphenated name. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Leonard Gross
Newly created article that needs assessing. Perhaps someone from ACAD could take a look at it. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent GS citation record, member of American Academy of Arts and Science. I am surprised that this should be challenged. Relevant guideline is WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC).
 * Thank you for taking a look at this. FWIW, I wasn't challenging the article; I was just asking for someone from this WikiProject to take a look at it and assess per WP:ASSESS. I came across the article via WP:THQ by chance, saw that it didn't pass through AFC, did some minor cleanup, and created the talk. I wasn't suggesting the article needed to go to AFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. It looks good for expansion. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC).
 * Assess as in: this looks like a C-class article? Because that's both the rating already given on the talk page by and what I would have chosen. If you want pointers on how to take it further, I would start with the education and career section, which gives most of the basic milestones but misses some like his retirement date, and has no detail or color beyond that. And the research section is too reliant on Gross's own publications; in this area you should at least be able to find MathSciNet and zbMATH reviews of his papers to work from instead. Anyway, good job; I usually aim for start-class for new biography articles and this goes well beyond that. As X already said, Amacad is by itself enough for notability, so there should be nothing to worry about on that score. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I didn't create the article and only stumbled upon it and did some minor cleanup, but I will post a Please see on the creator's user talk page so that they are aware of the suggestions you've made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ubiquitous IEEE deadlinks
I've been digging through CAT:NN and I've frequently come across articles on IEEE Fellows such as Stergios Roumeliotis. Scholars like him would clearly meet WP:NPROF based on their status as IEEE Fellows—except for the fact that the source establishing the fact that they are fellows is a deadlink. The same is true for a vast number of members of Category:Fellow Members of the IEEE. Can anyone think of a way to remedy this without going through each article individually? Many thanks in advance. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Recommendations for "works" section
In biographies on academic figures, what are the recommendations for the works section? Is there any easy way to list a person's "top" publications and/or books? Particularly, advice is welcome at Stephen Fuchs, where currently we're listing a random selection of books and papers. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is in any way definitive, but I can at least describe what I've been doing: I tend to list all books for which I can find independently published reviews (even the edited volumes, but usually not unreviewed edited volumes or unreviewed self-published books). I have sometimes selected journal and conference articles to list based on citation counts, but that's dubious for multiple reasons (for instance it tends to favor survey articles rather than original contributions, and doesn't factor in the subject's contribution to multi-author works). Instead, if possible, I'd prefer to list only the articles for which there's something nontrivial to say in the text of the article: they won a notable prize, or their discoveries became an independently notable topic, or something like that. A recent example that I've been working on is Ronald Graham, where the list of selected works is quite a bit longer than I would generally prefer (8 books and almost 20 articles) but where there were too many well-reviewed books, award-winning publications, and independently notable topics started by Graham or named after Graham for me to cut it down to shorter. If I were going to pick a number of selected articles to aim for in general, I'd say around six, many fewer than I listed for Graham. But to some extent it depends on the length of the overall biography; a list like Graham's that would overwhelm a stub or start-class biography might be ok for a full-length article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The case of Ronald Graham is perhaps untypical as he is a person of stunning achievement. For people of lesser, but passing notability, the line of least resistance is to go for a handful (less than five) of the works most cited in Google scholar. Elaborations can be made on that basis. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC).
 * and, this is good advice. Thank you. I'll try to go by reviews, although I can't guarantee I'll find all the reviews of course. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:59, 15 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) 02:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Disputed fact on Harold Amos
While editing the wikipedia page of Harold Amos I have discovered there are two opposing facts regarding the subject area of Amos' bachelor's degree in the LA Times and the Harvard Gazette. What is the policy on reporting facts when there are inconsistencies across sources? --JelleEdi (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it work to say, 'According to the Harvard Gazette....However, the LA Times records that Amos graduated...,' until other sources can be found? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Joyce E. Salisbury
Hi everyone, I'm pretty sure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joyce_E._Salisbury satisfies WP:PROF but I'd appreciated a second and more opinions. Cheers AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Move request
There is a move request you may be interested in at Talk:Stephen Hahn (oncologist).  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 05:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Georgios B. Giannakis
He may be a great guy, but there's a lot of puffery in this - not surprisingly as it seems to have been written in part by at least one student and by himself. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Additional thoughts requested at Talk:Aparna_Rao
Could we get some additional thoughts on the neutrality of this article? Would be much appreciated. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Help with Justin Picard
Hey there. Just wanted to pop in and ask for some help with the Justin Picard article (specifically, the removal of its notability tag if possible), which pertains to this WikiProject. There seems to be some diverging opinions on the subject's notability; as the inventor of the copy detection pattern, I'm of the opinion that WP:NACADEMIC should be applied to gauge his notability alongside WP:GNG, and even that criterion 2 of WP:CREATIVE ("The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique") may apply in this case.

I recently presented my argument on the subject's notability to, who added the aforementioned notability tag to the article, in a courtesy request to have it removed. However, he does not feel that the article is adequately sourced and may do a search on additional literature; (the reviewer who accepted the article's AfC draft and moved it to the mainspace) feels it could survive an AfD nomination, though isn't "entirely convinced." Additional help on this subject would be greatly appreciated. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , 'adequately sourced' is not the externt of my objections: I do not believe that copy detection patterns are a 'significant new concept'. The only reason we have an article on them is because Picard wrote the Wikipedia article himself. You also neglected to mention that you were paid to write the article on Picard - it would be good practice if you would include that information when starting discussions about articles you have been paid to work on. - MrOllie (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn't think that was necessary as I provided that information in my original post on your talk page which I linked here; apologies. Davykamanzi → talk • <b style="color:#ED2;">contribs</b> • <b style="color:#264;">alter ego</b> 22:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging for some feedback as there's been no reply for nearly 2 weeks. Davykamanzi → <b style="color:#0AE;">talk</b> • <b style="color:#ED2;">contribs</b> • <b style="color:#264;">alter ego</b> 14:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I could argue it either way. The GScholar results show moderate citation of his patents. I share the doubts expressed above on the extent to which the concept is completely new, or that he is the inventor, and it seems that other patents in the field are more highly cited.  DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] The idea of preventing counterfeit or contraband copies by making a mark that is hard to copy is probably as old as money, and certainly as old as the combination of printed money and photocopiers. The copy detection pattern article appears highly promotional to me, in its portrayal of one system as the solution to this problem and its omission of any context of prior similar systems. But that's all beside the point, for the question of whether a notability tag belongs on the Justin Picard article. He is obviously not notable as an academic, mainly because he is not an academic but also because his citation record is not strong enough, so we must judge him by the standards of WP:GNG instead. By that standard, we need in-depth reliable independent sources about Picard (not about the copy detection pattern). What we have is a link to a photo on globalinitiative.net of someone that might be Picard, an author profile on IEEE provided by the author himself to go with his publications (that's what the profiles there are), and a deadlink on the World Economic Forum site. Those three are not in-depth, not independent, or nonexistent, and the other footnotes in the article are not about Picard at all. So I agree that he appears not to pass WP:GNG and that the notability tag should stay on the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Obituaries published in journals
Does anybody know the process for obituaries being published in journals? That is, what is the reliability of obituaries published in reputable specialist journals?

This probably varies from journal to journal, but here's an example of a specific obituary in question: this obituary. Currently, this obituary is used in Aparna Rao to cite that Rao died of cancer on 28 June 2005 and Rao's research works included the impact of the conflict in Kashmir on the environment and lives of people. For a more detailed exposition on this, see Talk:Aparna Rao and Talk:Aparna Rao. Thoughts appreciated. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * has I think given an authoritative response to this on that talk page As I understand it: The scientific part consists of expert opinion. The plain facts are plain facts. Sometimes there's anecdotes, which I generally think inappropriate for us to use unless the person is extremely famous. Expressions of praise or excellence are not to be taken seriously in an obit, or in the citation for an award, or in any source whatever except a critical biography --they're just the expected rhetoric.   DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd add that there's a bit of a difference between appreciations or memorials (as linked) and full obituaries, which tend to have more fact and less flummery. But in general I see no reason to discount or downgrade obituaries published in academic journals; they form a fundamental part of the sourcing for deceased academics. There's no reason in general to consider them as similar to self-published sources. If there's doubt, the formulation, "[academic A], in her obituary in [journal B], writes that she 'quotation'" could be used. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Ilana Krausman Ben-Amos
Please help fix the lack of references, to show notability. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added 5 reviews of her books. I'm unclear why her notability is being called into question. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Timothy Budd


The article Timothy Budd has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "NN academic"

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. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Mary Ann Mansigh
deletion discussion

Just been told my previous edit was non-neutral (really?). So here goes again..

Sorry for disturbance. But, this project follows this article. Would love to say more, but... I’m under caution. Given all the commotion caused (and my role in it) I’m sure you can guess what I believe, lol. But what matters is your view, so head on over and make your say, whatever you believe. The more voices the better, regardless of (the) outcome(s). Thanks for your time. See ya.

That better? Ema--or (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

William Tecumseh Sherman Featured article review
I have nominated William Tecumseh Sherman 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. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Raymond L. Rodriguez
Could an experienced editor with an interest in biographies of academics take a look at Raymond L. Rodriguez? It has been created by a new WP:SPA and I have concerns over this being a resume. Thanks. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC of interest
This RfC may be of interest to members of this group. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Oliver Daemen
Alerting of a deletion nom. Oliver, we hardly knew ye. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Re-rate Sean M. Carroll
Hello. In your project, Sean M. Carroll is rated C-class but the article has been expended vastly in the last 6 months. What about re-evaluating its class? --81.213.215.83 (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Evad37/rater gives it a B now so I'll change it. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , what is missing to be A class? --81.213.215.83 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Notification
Galileo Galilei has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion to unprotect Guy Standing (economist)
–– FormalDude  talk 03:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Edmond Halley — 1694 censure
Could someone take a look at this, I haven't had much luck on the talk page. Thanks! Aluxosm (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice
I have nominated Michael Woodruff 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

DSB red links
I have been trying to remove redlinks from this list - User:Ruud_Koot/Dictionary_of_Scientific_Biography but Google Search is especially problematic when material is not in English, more so when it is in scripts other than Roman/Latin - those who are good with Cyrillic, Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc. would definitely be able to search better and help out. Shyamal (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Named professorships?
(Originally posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science)

Many academics' pages list named professorships in the lead, particularly in BLP pages. E.g. "X is currently the Ruth P. and Jeremy Q. Jones Dean of the School of Engineering and Chancellor's Professor of Computer Science at Y university."

To me, these named professorships read like an academic formality and don't really help in terms of introducing the reader to the person and why they are important. I think they would be perhaps appropriate to list in an accolades/recognition section but I don't see the point in the lead. Is there a general policy here and what do others think? Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Having a named professorship is more prestigious/rarer than just being a professor; it's rarer / more prestigious. One of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria is holding such a named professorship, so that I think should be highlighted in order to demonstrate notability. Plus that's the title of their job; to me it makes sense to include their actual job title in the lead. It's pretty common for sources to include the full job title, e.g., Henry Louis Gates, Jr., the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor at Harvard and an executive producer and the host of the popular PBS program “Finding Your Roots,” told me, ... from The New Yorker or Salomone, the Kenneth Wang professor of law at St. John’s University School of Law, tends to glide over why English won from The New York Times. Not sure if there's a formal policy on Wikipedia, these are just my initial thoughts. Umimmak (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this fits under MOS:FIRSTBIO #1 ("name and title": it's their job title), #4 ("One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions"), and #5 ("The main reason the person is notable": having a named professorship is a reason for notability under WP:PROF). Sometimes they can be a formality, in the same sense that an award without a monetary prize is: a cheap way of telling the recipient and the world that their accomplishments are valued. And they certainly don't explain why the recipient was chosen for that honor. But nevertheless it is an honor, a significant one among academics, and I think usually a lead-worthy one. ——David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Donald Landry
Perhaps some members of S&A could take a look at Donald Landry and clean it up a bit. I'm almost certain that the subject is notable, but there are probably some MOS issues that still need some addressing. I did some very minor cleanup, but more is likely needed. Perhaps there's a little too much detail in the "Personal life" section about his sons, but not sure. Someone also claiming to be Landry's "chief of staff" recently edited the article as well. I believe this was done in good faith, but might indicate a misunderstanding about Wikipedia, how and why articles are created and how article content is assessed. I added a template about COI editing to the user's talk page, but perhaps someone else more familiar with articles about academics and scientists might be able to offer more specific advise. The main concern has to do with WP:PAID and whether this user is being asked to make changes to the article as part of her job or simply just has a more general COI. Such things could lead to problems is the user continues to try and directly edit the article themselves or get changes made by others if they're not clarified. The infobox image is going to need to go since non-free images of still living persons isn't really allowed per relevant policy, but perhaps the subject or his chief of staff would be willing to provided a freely licensed one if asked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Highly-cited researchers
I think all of these researchers are notable according to criterion 1 of wp:academic. Can someone move the list to Wikipedia so that we know which of them does not have an entry? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea. I created the list at User:Caleb Stanford/Highly Cited. Caleb Stanford (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There are many researchers where the Wiki page does exist, but the name isn't linked properly to the wiki page. I have all the names in a spreadsheet; if you have any ideas for a fix that I can apply with uniform pattern-matching, let me know. Seems like adding a period after the middle initial might help with many of them. Caleb Stanford (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Update: I used a formula to add periods to initials. That fixed many of the links near the top. Caleb Stanford (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Good job. Thank you. I hope I can gradually help create/disambiguate them. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there a way we can find which of them works in, say, philosophy? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * No, there's no feasible way to do that unfortunately. I only have the list of names, h-index, and number of citations in the spreadsheet. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have redirected some of them, but they are still shown as red. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, while most probably are notable, it is wrong to assume that all "are notable according to criterion 1 of wp:academic". A piece in Nature some years ago showed that the most highly-cited scientists of all are those (essentially) lab technicians who every now and then publish refined protocols for (especially) handling DNA samples. These are then cited in every paper using the protocol, which can run into thousands. Such people are not usually notable, or not for this. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably such hints for exceptions should be mentioned in the guideline. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * do you have a link to that piece? I'm curious to learn more. Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't actually think this one was the piece I was thinking of, but it will do. Try a google search. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * , I doubt there are lab technician with an h-index of 200 (or even 20-30)... In any case, it can be easily verified what kind of position someone has. A lab tech with one article cited a few thousand times may not be notable (although I think that's debatable), but any person on this list, with h-indices >100, is not a one trick tech. --Randykitty (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well that's your OR. I suggest you read round the subject. My point was that the assumption at top may not be correct - the guideline requires "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." and developments in protocols may not meet that. The lab ones tend to have a number of authors btw. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * My point is that somebody with an h of 100 demonstrably has a significant impact. It means that they have 100 different papers cited at least 100 times for a minimum of 10,000 citations total. Can you give us an example of somebody like that who is not notable? Or of a tech who has developed 100 protocols cited at least 100 times? And given the fact that citations are almost always inverted-J distributed, the total number of citations will be many times 10,000. The most cited papers will each have thousands of citations. I agree that an h-index can be manipulated or misleading about notability when you're in the lower twenties or so, but not at this level. Of course, we all know about citation cartels, but I doubt that even the most brazen cartel could get somebody an h of 100. --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * PS: which is not to say that GScholar figures should be taken uncritically... --Randykitty (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm opposed to all blanket "must have" arguments in this area, as fields & so on vary so much. Cases should be addressed individually, as is our normal way of doing things. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A similar list is here. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Alex Wayman
Would some others mind taking a look at Alex Wayman and see if there's anything to some recent edits claiming that the subject's name is actually "Alec"? The sources cited in the article refer to him as "Alex" and Googling "Alec Wayman Tibetologist" doesn't really come up with anything to indicate "Alec" is correct. The editor who made the change may have some connection to the subject and almost certainly made the change in good faith. I guess it could be an alternate spelling or perhaps "Alec" is a non-English spelling? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, his obit in The Tibet Journal only has Alex, and as he seems to have spent his life in the U.S., I’m not sure if a non-English variant would have ever come up? I know in the past new editors have gotten confused between a "profile" for them and the article of a similarly named subject of an article, perhaps that’s what happened here? Umimmak (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look at this . It wouldn't be the first time, as you say, that a new user mistook a Wikipedia article for a "profile" page about themselves. It's a bit odd though that only the name was changed and not any of the other biographical data. Often when someone mistakenly tries to usurp and article about someone else, they usually replace most if its content with their own personal information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Help with David H. Rosmarin
Hello, my name is Moshe. I'm here on behalf of David H. Rosmarin, looking for help with his bio. I've suggested a much shorter version of the article on the Talk page. Mr. Rosmarin is also fine with the article being removed, if editors think that is the best course of action. Because of my conflict of interest, I will not make any direct changes to the article. I used the edit request tag and asked for assistance at WikiProject Biographies, but thought I'd post here as well in case anyone would like to take a look. Thank you in advance for the assistance. Cheers! MA of CFA (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

George Lynn Cross
Maybe some S&A members could take a look at George Lynn Cross. The subject's grandson (no reason yet to not believe they're not) did edit the article back in 2017, but I think that was done with the best of intentions. The same person most likely also requested assistance at Talk:George Lynn Cross using a different account back in 2014. There are some unsourced statements (one of which is even possibly a indirect quote) and perhaps some other MOS:WTW type of stuff, but I believe Wikipedia notability is well established. Maybe some others could look this over and cleanup the things they notice. FWIW, I only came across this article after seeing some discussion related to images GeoPaul7 uploaded to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

==Proposed move: Category:Professors of the University of Cambridge to Category:Professors at the University of Cambridge== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 10 § Category:Professors of the University of Cambridge. &#x0020;I have proposed standardising towards a convention of using at for institutions and of for subjects, in categories with names of the format "professor(ship)s [at/of] [institution/subject]" and "[sociologists/historians/etc] [at/of] [institution/subject]" (at least within the category tree of this university). I am cross-posting this here as it affects categories related to this project, and could feasibly set a precedent. We require more input to reach consensus. Thank you! Charlie A. (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Andrej Mrvar
Would some members of this WikiProject mind taking a look at Andrej Mrvar? The subject of the article has asked about it WP:THQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Input requested
Hi all. There's a discussion taking place at Talk:Tim Hayward (political scientist) that might be of interest to members of this project. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Boris Havel for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Boris Havel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Boris Havel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Dans (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal reviews for Jim Johnsen article
I proposed a few updates on the talk page for Jim Johnsen Talk:Jim_Johnsen, the former president of University of Alaska, addressing balance and neutral point of view issues, as well as poorly sourced edits made by a singular editor. Is an editor from this group able to take a look at the proposals? I have a personal connection to Dr. Johnsen and I don’t want to violate Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policies. Thank you.92ranger (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)