Template talk:WPBiography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Protected Template:WPBiography has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.


  1. July 1, 2006 - September 30, 2006
  2. October 1, 2006 - March 6, 2007

Contents

[edit] Template examples

[edit] Example 1: basic

{{WPBiography}}


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] Example 2: full

{{WPBiography
|living                  = yes
|class                   = Start
|priority                = NA
|attention               = yes
|collaboration-candidate = yes
|past-collaboration      = 1 June 2006 - 14 June 2006
|peer-review             = yes
|old-peer-review         = yes
|needs-infobox           = yes
|needs-photo             = yes
|activepol               = yes
|a&e-work-group          = yes
|politician-work-group   = yes
|royalty-work-group      = yes
|military-work-group     = yes
|sports-work-group       = yes
|s&a-work-group          = yes
|musician-work-group     = yes
|peerage-work-group      = yes
|baronets-work-group     = yes
|removal                 = yes
|listas                  = Biography Wikiproject Template
}}


This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Note The subject of this article has requested that they not be included in Wikipedia. While Wikipedia does not honor these requests, this article should be monitored for controversial or unsourced material.
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.
This article is supported by WikiProject Baronetcies.
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
This article is supported by the Military work group.
More information about this article...
 This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
This article is a candidate to be the Biography WikiProject Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please comment on the nomination.
This article was the Biography WikiProject Collaboration of the Fortnight (1 June 2006 - 14 June 2006). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations.
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by the Biography WikiProject.
This article has had a peer review by the Biography WikiProject, which has now been archived.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's fair use policy almost never permits the use of "fair use" images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

[edit] WikiProject British Royalty example

{{WPBiography
|british-royalty=yes
|class=FA
|priority=Top
}}
British Royalty This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Activepol

No offense to anyone, but... the activepol box is ugly. Why isn't this in a separate box like everything else? --Random832 04:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is a little ugly. We defiantly need the functionality on this template, and there is a seperate tempate: {{Activepolitician}} which looks like this

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, public relations manipulation, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.


Use only on talk pages, in conjunction with {{WPBiography|living=yes}} or {{blp}}.

Danski14 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That one's very big. If we're to change it I'd prefer to just move the existing banner outside the main banner so it looks seperate. Is that what folks want? --kingboyk 18:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Separate is fine. We don't want banners taking over, so the content should only be about three lines. We also might want it to appear above the BLP template. -- Jreferee 20:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
BLP has priority, as that is a very serious warning about policy. This one is more of a guidance message. --kingboyk 21:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's done:

{{WPBiography|activepol=yes|living=yes|class=Stub}}

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

{{WPBiography|activepol=yes}}

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

I'll do the new workgroup next, but as I'm getting tired I can't guarantee it will be finished tonight. --kingboyk 00:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to do a bot run deprecating most of the {{Activepolitician}} templates, but so far they've all got a parameter describing why the page is tagged. Please see Template_talk:Activepolitician#Bot_run. Thoughts? --kingboyk 17:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that an active politician would have to be alive, so the case where activepol is selected but living is not selected does not make sense to me. - cgilbert(talk|contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I agree, and already updated the instructions on that template. --kingboyk 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This diff shows my plugin changing a {{reqphoto}} to a WPBio param, a {{Activepolitician}} to a WPBio param, converting an old importance= to priority=, and adding a listas=. I think it's pretty cool to find all 4 in one edit :) --kingboyk 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pornstar-work-group

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Porn stars#WikiProject Biography

I think it's a good idea to integrate WikiProject Porn stars with the WPBiography template. In order to achieve that, a "pornstar-work-group" parameter that performs similarly to British-royalty and musician-work-group sounds like a good idea. Discuss. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine by me, welcomed in fact. Have you made any formal ties with the arts & entertainment work group? --kingboyk 10:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The more work groups we use in the WPBiography template and tag, the more likely the proper people will be aware of the article and improve it. -- Jreferee 18:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this isn't too controversial then and we should accede. Would you be willing to make the code changes Jreferee? If not, I'll put it on my todo list. --kingboyk 12:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
On reflection, porn stars already are apart of Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Actors. If we WPBiography tag articles as following under "Actors", that sub-group can figure out how it wants to further parse actor articles. Using the WPBiography template to tag them porn might bring too much heat on the otherwise spectacular WPBiography template. -- Jreferee 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I'll have to remember to tag 'em that way. I think that WP:PORNSTARS is going to turn into WP:PORN anyway. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not worried about the "controversy". However, what's the WP:PORN story? Are you going to expand scope to cover films etc? I'll hold off on this until we know what's happening. --kingboyk 18:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
(DING! Carrage return) Even if they went ahead with WP:PORN, WPBipgraphy template still may need to address porn stars. I just added the Porn stars category to A&E Actor categories. Now, lets assume we go ahead with the 10 or so fields under A&E. Under the Actor field, we could have sub-fields of Animal actors + Arab actors + Child actors + LGBT actors + Porn stars + Shakespearean actors. Kingboyk, if you do not think this too much, I would be for it. -- Jreferee 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well my position has always been that biographical projects and workgroups should share our template. If the WP:PORN folks are going to, or are willing to, maintain a pornstars workgroup which is a child project of this WikiProject then I'm willing to add the code. What I don't want to do is waste time working on this and adding unnecessary code bloat if they don't want it. So, I need to hear the final word from them. As for the other parameters, see below: the A&E work-group hasn't asked for them, I think we have enough complexity already. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise but by more than one person :) --kingboyk 20:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
50% of the Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Actors members desire the change and I probably could get the remaining 50%, but I understand what you are saying. : ) It a good idea for which there is not sufficient desire. I'll see if I can create a Wikiproject Actors group, recruit members, and then get a consensus for the field's addition. When you see this no longer red - WP:Actor - you'll know that we'll be coming for a parameter addition. And you are right, military, for example, shares the WPBiography template and not everything military is a biography. -- Jreferee 20:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] baronets-work-group

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies

Please can baronets be included as royalty-work-group. - Kittybrewster 10:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Baronet was a title that was was created simply to raise funds.
Only initially, by James 1st. There is no evidence of this under subsequent monarchs who bestowed the title as an honour the same way the monarch today bestows honours. 81.158.179.87 15:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The following is from the Baronet page "A baronetcy is unique in two ways:

  • it is a hereditary honour but is not a peerage and has never entitled the holder to a seat in the House of Lords; and
  • a baronet is styled 'Sir' but a baronetcy is not considered an order of knighthood. "
At least the title of Baron gives that person a seat in the House of Lords (thankfully that is now being phased out also) but a Baronet meanings nothing except that one of his forefathers pumped a load of cash into the kings coffers - we already have WP:N and WP:BIO they should have to comply with that and not get automatic notability because a an inhertited minor title.--Vintagekits 12:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Possibly the most bigotted comment I have yet read on Wikipedia. Peers are not Royalty anyway. No title is "minor". Some are greater than others. Thats all 81.158.179.87 15:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • They probably shouldn't be part of the royalty group then, but since the WikiProject exists wouldn't it be best to allow the request in some form? Template sharing is good as it reduces talk page clutter; workgroups are good as they encourage co-operation. (imho). --kingboyk 12:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have a really problem with giving people automatic notability because of an title especially an inherited title. Rulings like this would see this type of person gain automatic notability even though they never achieved anything of note nor were they ever involved in an incident of note they just happen to by the son of the son of the son of the son of someone who paid a load of cash to the king to buy a title - I find that absurd to be honest.--Vintagekits 12:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I see. I'm approaching it from a different angle: if we refuse, they'll probably make their own template anyway. I'm certainly not advocating any change in the notability guidelines or any endorsement, but I understand why you would think that doing this might appear to be an endorsement. Perhaps the best way forward would be to let the wider community decide, by nominating the project for deletion at WP:MFD. If their area of scope is non-notable, it shouldn't exist. If it stays, we perhaps ought to allow this? Just a suggestion, other suggestions welcome :) --kingboyk 12:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Kitty- Baronets are notable people in the United Kingdom- having a place in the Order of precedence in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They should be included in the royalty-work-group Astrotrain 12:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Baronets are not notable people in the United Kingdom what power does the title give, it means nothing. The Order of precedence is an outdated format for making a seating plan at a dinner party and does not in anyway confer any notability so I do not understand your point.--Vintagekits 12:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
More open bigotry. Who is this Vintagekits fellow? Look, if you are announced at a function as Mr & Mrs Smith, no-one blinks an eyelid. If you are announced as Sir Roland and Lady Melon heads turn. Of course baronets are notable. You are trying to have your opinion override the facts. 81.158.179.87 15:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • My point is that we should include a line in WP:Biog fpr baronets-work-goup which would work in the same way that royalty-work-group does. It has nothing to do with establishing notability; it is to assist the b-w-g editors to monitor and improve and expand articles about which they have interest or knowledge. It seems to me a no-brainer. - Kittybrewster 12:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As long as it is clear that the title-holder is a notable person, who would've had an article anyway, then I don't see a problem --Kimontalk 13:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that we add it. We also need to add a param for the porn stars group. Is anyone offering to do it? --kingboyk 16:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The requirements for adding a parameter to the WPBiography template are (1) the workgroup is shown to be active, (2) a spokesperson for the workgroup request the added parameter, and (3) a tech person OKs the additional code and complexity. The total number of baronetcies today is approximately 1,380. I'm all for using the WPBiography template to parse out the articles to the proper groups and with Outriggr's WPBiography tagging script, the fact that the extra parameter may only apply to 1,380 articles might not be a concern. Someone will have to make a request to Outriggr to modify his tagging script. As for the porn stars group, please see my comments above. As for anyone willing to develop the code, I don't know how to do it. -- Jreferee 17:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Why are you quoting the "rules" to me? Somebody requested it, there was debate but with reasonable consensus to proceed, let's do it. I'll write the code myself since nobody else has volunteered (I wrote a lot of the old code but I'm a bit rusty :)). Doesn't matter how many articles there are provided it's being used, right? --kingboyk 18:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Most of my comment was not supposed to be directed to you but more in line with participating with the discussion. My : formatting created the lack of clarity. Also, I was trying to summarize everything in a concise statement for what I now see as a resolved discussion. Doh! No offense meant. -- Jreferee 18:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Lol, no worries. Thanks. --kingboyk 18:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I need more information from the requesting WikiProject before implementing this. I've also proposed that the entire peerage group should become a child project of WPBIO, necessitating two new parameters. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#.7B.7BWPBiography.7D.7D. --kingboyk 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] .PNG to .SVG replacement request

The old image used, Image:Crystal personal.png, hsa been replaced by Image:Crystal personal.svg, both on the commons. Is it possible to get the template to reflect this switch?--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 15:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Done -- Harryboyles 10:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Arts and Entertainment parameters

WikiProject Arts and Entertainment is very wide in scope and includes Actors • Architects • Artists • Illustrators • Painters • Photographers • Sculptors • Comic artists • Comedians • Dancers • Directors • Musicians • Poets • Writers and critics. Musicians have their own WPBiography parameter. I have been troubled WPBiography tagging articles as part of Arts and Entertainment when I could have easily tagged them as a painter, photographer, dancer, director, actor, etc. At present, people interested in poets have to comb through the Arts and Entertainment tagged articles to find the poet articles. This may have been addressed before, but U think it a good idea to increase WPBiography with a parameter for each of Actors • Architects • Artists • Illustrators • Painters • Photographers • Sculptors • Comic artists • Comedians • Dancers • Directors • Poets • Writers and critics. This way, everyone who is interested in poets, for example, would know about all poet articles tagged via WPBiography. Please post your thoughts below. -- Jreferee 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Up until now we've added parameters upon workgroup request. If there's no customers for them there's no point adding yet more code and yet more complexity. I'd oppose adding these unless the workgroup is shown to be active and demands them. There's other ways of finding articles by topic (article categories for a start); the categories created by this bot are supposed to be for WP1 assessments only. Any extra benefit is just a bonus.
On a related note, you might want to take a look at this: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Table. It's pretty smart; maybe that WikiProject can tell us how they do it and let us share their bot? (Better still, that bot's code could be given to Oleg for inclusion in the official WP1 bot). --kingboyk 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


It looks like WikiProject_Mathematics used a field parameter (e.g., {{maths rating|class=XXX|importance=YYY|field=analysis|comment= ~~~~}}) for their Math template to get all the sub items of math. For that to work on WPBiography template, perhaps we could have a new WikiProject Arts and Entertainment field parameter where Actors • Architects • Artists • Illustrators • Painters • Photographers • Sculptors • Comic artists • Comedians • Dancers • Directors • Poets • Writers and critics are the potential entries. The other WPBiography template work groups might want their own field parameter, too (which could be difficult). For a lot of articles, WPBiography template is the first clue of the existence of the article to those who did not contribute the article since many articles do not have categories or do not have adequate categories. The demand for changing the Arts and Entertainment portion of the WPBiography template should come from Arts and Entertainment. I posted a note about this thread on the Arts and Entertainment talk page. Hopefully, we can generate some more discussion on this. -- Jreferee 17:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Having a field= would as you say allow for some more detailed breakdown of stats without creating new workgroups. --kingboyk 18:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, here's where my knowledge is a little fuzzy on the down stream process. Suppose we create a "Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Actors" field and I tag as such. What happens? Does the article talk page appear in Category:Actors, does the article page appear in Category:Actors? -- Jreferee 18:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No, there's no relation at all between talk page templates and article categories. They're totally and utterly seperate. As to the second point, also no, talk pages don't appear in main article categories. Articles appear in main categories, talk pages go into wikiproject categories and the like (but we shouldn't be overdoing this). As for what WP Maths do, I don't know as I haven't looked yet :) --kingboyk 18:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
(Ding! Carrage return) When someone put a&e-work-group=yes for the WPBiography template, that appears to put the talk page for that article in Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles. Math does not put field identified article talk pages into a category. Thus, if we create a "Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Actors" field, would may not want to create a Category:Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Actors category. Math has a Number theory field. Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem is a talk page that has a Number theory field. I tried to figure out how to find all tagged math articles having a Number theory field but could not. If we locate that set of articles, we might have a better idea on where to direct the Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Actors field. (Once we come up with a plan on how a&e-work-group fields would work, I'll run it by the Arts and Entertainment Work Group for approval). -- Jreferee 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
After looking over the members on the Arts and Entertainment Work Group and seeing little to no response on that groups discussion page, I think the Arts and Entertainment Work Group is not really being contributed to by anyone. -- Jreferee 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think there's much activity there which is why I wasn't exactly excited by the idea of giving them more parameters :) Anyway, right, I'll try and get the baronets param done now. Would you look at the thread above re activepol please? --kingboyk 19:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The new fields will bypass the relatively inactive Arts and Entertainment Work Group and categorize the articles in fields that people are interested in. In view of the Sinbad problem, I think we should start with WPBiography templating the Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Actors (which I am one of the two members). I plan to do some heavy recruiting for the Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Actors and it would be nice if the WPBiography tagging included an Actors field parameter. -- Jreferee 20:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Resolution: Need to generate concensus interest for each field parameter. -- Jreferee 20:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment If allowed to seperate WikiProject Film Biography covering actors and directors etc it would have large following like films. I'd imagine it would use the Biogrpahy banner with the film bio insertion into it e.g {filmbio|director=yes|class=start|importance=high} or {filmbio|editor=yes|class=stub|importance=low etc. I feel it is important to find a project that unites all characters associated with cinema. THis would be major project if seperated as the Arts and Entertainment is FAR! too broad and needs to split into areas of more specific concentration. However the template would naturally put it in the broader arts and entertainment/bio categories as a whole ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 13:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Collaboration with and support of WP Films would be a good idea if this were to be implemented, I think. --kingboyk 17:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template changes

  1. [1] Move activepol to a seperate box per #Activepol and remove some old crud.
  2. [2] Although I really don't encourage folks to tag this way, I thought it would be neat if activepol=yes had the same affect as politician-work-group=yes. At the same time, I've let these parameters accept "Yes" as well as "yes". Perhaps we should do the same for all params? This was quite a technical change; it checked out in my sandbox but if there's any problems please let me know here.
  3. Next I will add workgroups for peerage and baronetcies per #baronets-work-group and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#.7B.7BWPBiography.7D.7D. --kingboyk 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. [3] Added peerage-work-group add baronets-work-group. Fixed an old unnoticed bug where a WP Musicians article with a /Comments page didn't get an entry in Category:Biography (musicians) articles with comments. As I write, that category has 9 articles in it thanks to {{WPBeatles}}; that number ought to go up a little now as the job queue works it way down to zero. --kingboyk 21:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Woot! Over 200 in the cat now. --kingboyk 09:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects to this template

Please don't create redirects to this template without telling me about it. This is very important: my plugin needs to know what names it may encounter {{WPBiography}} under; the result - if there are alternative names it doesn't know about - is double tagging like this. Given that my bot can process thousands of pages a day, and other folks might be using it too, the end result could be one hell of a mess. --kingboyk 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deprecating listas= parameter

I'd like to renew Kingboyk's call for deprecating the "listas=" parmeter. DEFAULTSORT already does this job, and is part of the software now. Doing the same thing with template code is a waste of time for both users and the servers. See Talk:Vilmos Foldes for an example. Note that DEFAULTSORT goes at the top, so both the WP:CUE and WP:BIO talk page headers inherit its value. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that WP:CUE should have it's own template, but that's a different argument :)
I just want to say that I agree that listas= isn't really needed, but with caveats: 1) I believe that the current implementation is a vast improvement on the old one that I removed (less code bloat). 2) It would have to be deprecated like importance= is rather than removed, because a lot of folks have already used it to bring some order to our maintenance categories. --kingboyk 22:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No biggie on the separate template issue; I saw your generic project templates page and will integrate everything it wants. That page of yours should be linked to prominently at the right places at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. Most of us are doing these things rather blindly. The talk header for WP:CUE was based on that of WP:SNOOKER, which was based on who knows what at all... That standardized code even exists is invisible to many of us. :-) Also, agreed with your caveats. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The "generic template" feature is just a way for my code to support WikiProject templates without any special programming. By specifying some standard parameters these templates can all use the same code in my plugin. It might indeed be a standard suitable for wider application across the wiki, but that's something I actually hadn't thought of. It was merely a coding issue when I "invented" it :)
The reason I think WP:CUE shouldn't have a seperate template is because it is wholly a subdivision of sports. That makes it suitable to be a workgroup of the Sports WikiProject, sharing their template, in the same way that many other WikiProjects and workgroups share this one. This also makes it different from, say, WP:BEATLES, which isn't a clear child of any project - it crosses scope with WP:MUSICIANS, WP:WPBIO, WP:ALBUMS, WP:SONGS and so on, or indeed from WP:SPORTS itself, which has some unique scope as well as some cross-coverage with this project. This, of course, is a debate which belongs elsewhere though :) (and is just my opinion, something which often turns out to be useless) --kingboyk 11:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Persondata

I'd like to suggest that [ Needs-Persondata = yes / no ] be included in the WP:Biography template. --Camptown 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I second it per this post. -- Jreferee 06:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • strong support. Articles with proper metadata have many important advantages. And the bigger Wikipedia gets, the more important it is to index article in a userfriendly way. Bondkaka 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succession box

Moved from User talk:Kingboyk. --kingboyk 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please can WPBiography include a tag needs-succession-box=yes as needs-infobox. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments - living=no

I've added a "Deceased persons" option to my plugin, so that when tagging dead people categories we can ensure there are no stray living=yes tags.

What I want feedback on is whether I should be just removing living=yes, or whether all dead people will get an explicit living=no. The benefits and drawbacks to writing living=no as I see it:

  • Plus: It's clear that the living parameter has been taken care of
  • Plus: It's a little easier to code
  • Minus: It could result in lots of trivial edits, like this, where the only change is adding living=no. --kingboyk 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I support living=no, because that makes the differentiation explicit, as opposed to implied. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. living=no it is then. I'm also turning off listas= generation in bot mode, as I've been getting too many complaints about mis-sorted Asian names and so on. --kingboyk 11:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose another point in favour of living=no is that we could if we ever wanted use living=no to create a category containing dead people (whereas living=<null> or living= not present would be excluded). --kingboyk 14:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] needs-photo=yes and living no/yes

A question/comment if I may. I brought this up before (Template talk:WPBiography/Archive 2#free-image stipulation), and I'll ask again here in case anybody can help. Can we adjust the template so that needs-photo=yes is subjective based upon living=yes/no?

If yes and yes, then use {{reqfreephoto}} (with respect to WP:FUC#1), but if yes and no use the more genericized {{reqphoto}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody just made an edit putting a load of spiel onto the template [4] (which I'm going to trim just a little, as I think it's a tad excessive).
We don't actually use {{reqphoto}} or any other template - we have our own text, and we put articles into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people (and similar but more specific categories for some of the workgroups). I've just had a look at the various templates and there doesn't seem to currently be any different categories we can use for free image requests. If they get created, or I missed them, we can add them later. --kingboyk 16:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] small=yes and living=yes

{{editprotected}} There seems to be a problem with the template. See below. - miketm - 03:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.


This seems to be due to a recent edit by Kingboyk [5]. You should ask that editor why it was changed. Presumably he/she can change it back if consensus goes that way. CMummert · talk 03:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That was unintentional. I didn't know the template supported small. --kingboyk 11:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Although it might have been a "good mistake" because I really think the BLP warning shouldn't be small. It's just about the most important template on any talk page... --kingboyk 11:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the BLP warning should be a different template than the wikiproject banner. They have conceptually different purposes. CMummert · talk 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It is available as a seperate banner, but having it available here too - as the preferred usage - has, I would argue, been beneficial to both Wikipedia in general (the tag has been propogated to just about every living person's talk page) and this WikiProject (folks routinely add our banner). Also, the status of WP Biography as "custodians" of biographies and biographical policy seems to have met with widespread consensus or, at least, I've not seen it challenged yet. --kingboyk 13:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Actors and filmmakers workgroup

It is requested that an edit or modification be made to this protected page. (protection log)
This template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request. Please disable this template when the request is handled.
This template is for requesting changes to the content of the page. To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection instead.

Please add an actors and filmmakers workgroup to the template for the new child project setup for film-related biographies. Our project image is . --PhantomS 19:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This would be easier if someone from your project would write and test the necessary template code and provide a link to it here. The best practice is to copy this whole template to a sandbox, make the additions, test them, and then provide a link here to the completed new template. CMummert · talk 12:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I have made the changes at User:PhantomS/sandbox. --PhantomS 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/p/b/Template_talk%7EWPBiography_6059.html"