Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 50

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I recently closed a CFD (2015 January 17) about burials by city. The outcome was to keep the "by city" categories only as containers where there were multiple categories for cemeteries, churchyards etc. Biographies are no longer categorised directly at the city level, e.g. "Burials in London".

Before taking this further I am consulting this WikiProject, along with WP Death and WP Categories:

1. It seems to me that this should also be applied at the country level. In many cases categories like Category:Burials in Algeria seem to used in effect to mean "Deaths in Algeria", and as the subjects of the pages within it were Algerians (and are categorised more specifically within Category:Algerian people by occupation), this does not add useful information to the encyclopedia. Therefore, such country categories should be deleted unless there is at least one sub-cat for a specific location.
2. To discourage creation of new categories by city/country without location-specific sub-cats, should the holding categories all end with "place", e.g.
   • Category:Burials by country -> Category:Burials by country and place,
   • Category:Burials in Austria -> Category:Burials in Austria by place,
   • Category:Burials by country and city -> Category:Burials by country, city and place,
   • Category:Burials in Austria by city -> Category:Burials in Austria by city and place ?
3. Note that the term "by place" follows the holding category Category:Burials by place. This does not use the usual name "by location" because it includes unusual cases such as space burials. However, I am open to using "by location" rather than "place" for the city categories and all the above, and could change the above CFD close to do so if there is a consensus here about that. – Fayenatic London 13:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here - though it would have been good if someone had flagged it, or contacted previous respondents, while it was being discussed. The January CFD discussion seems to have missed out a lot of the previous dicussions in wanting to delete categories of burials. In particular the people mentioned in Burial by place/by cemetery/by churchyard is one of the most defining attributes of burial grounds. What has been lost in the deletions? Have you reconstructed them as lists? 07:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No lists were made. I could compile a list of links to changes, but they were scattered in my contribs and Cydebot's over about 3 days. To reassure you: there were no changes to anybody categorised by cemetery/churchyard. What was lost were the people categorised only as buried with a named city. Most of the deleted categories had only a few biographies anyway. I think the largest group de-categorised was London with about 80, see [1]. I checked a few and did not find any that could be put into a sizeable new category; and at least one (Susanna Wesley) was already in a more specific sub-cat. Also, where a city only had one subcat for a burial ground, that subcat was moved up into the parent by country/region. – Fayenatic London 11:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Now I've seen it action your use of container categories seems very sensible. IMHO, beforehand there were too many people loosely categorised as, say, "burials in Paris" - not very helpful as it is so unspecific. Plus the text of these articles invariably has not attributed the actual place of burial. Maintaining the "burial in a xxx churchyard/cemetery" is still supported so it seems a sensible tidy-up, that retains the defining characteristics of place and person. Thanks, Ephebi (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• "by place" is confusing. When I saw it I had no idea what it meant. Categories need to be intuitive. Category:Burials by country and city is already clear and intuitive. If it needs an explanation, add a comment at the top of the category like they do here: Category:People by educational institution. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree this can be confusing. Maybe we're better with something like Category:People by place of burial as a parent category and then subcategories like Category:People by place of burial in Austria/Category:People by place of burial in Austrian cities etc? SFB 23:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI I'm still really unconvinced of the navigation benefit of the city divisions. For example Category:Burials in Belgium only has seven actual burial place categories (Church of Our Lady of Laeken‎, St. Peter's Church, St. Michael and St. Gudula Cathedral‎, and the Cheremont, Ixelles, Laeken, nd Schaerbeek cemeteries) yet has ten container and non-burial place categories in it. How this is supposed to be useful to anyone who doesn't like feeling like a rat in a maze, I don't know. SFB 23:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the ambiguity is a bit dissipated if we reverse the order and set the standard of: Burials by <place> in <location>. Where place is either the general "place" for a parent cat, or the more specific: cemetery, priory, abbey, mausoleum, cathedral, church, basilica, cathedral, etc. for the child cats. And where location is the city, state, country, etc.

To me, it makes the prepositional phrases make more sense. Burials by cemetery in London, instead of Burials in London by cemetery. I would want to put a comma after London in the latter example, where I wouldn't in the first example. - jc37 21:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• I acknowledge that my close overrode the order of phrases that jc37 had suggested. I thought I was following the majority pattern in categories, although both patterns are found in the Category:Topics by country and city hierarchy.
• SFB's suggestion "People by place of burial in <Country/City>" seems to have several advantages. (i) "By place of burial" gets past the acknowledged lack of clarity in "by place". (ii) It makes clear that it is a container category, to hold only subcats for specific places of burial. (iii) It avoids the need for excessively-specific intersection categories e.g. burials by church in London, burials by cemetery in London, etc. (iv) "Burials by place of burial" would be repetitive, but "People by place of burial" sounds fine. (v) Some editors wanted the word "people" to clarify that these cats are for biographies, rather than for articles on funerals/graves.
• How about getting rid of the layer of all the subcats in Category:Burials by country and city? The US has 19 sub-cats, Italy 9 and NZ 8, but the rest are really not helpful. For those three countries, the sub-cats could be grouped using a sort key within the national category, rather than needing a sub-cat; or we could keep just those three larger sub-cats and upmerge the others.
• So here is a revised set of suggestions:
• Category:Burials by country – no change, as part of Category:Burials by place (or only change as part of a CFD along with its siblings);
• Category:Burials in Austria -> Category:People by place of burial in Austria, but delete for countries with no subcats by place of burial;
• Category:Burials by country and city – delete;
• Category:Burials by city and place – delete;
• Category:Burials in Austria by city – upmerge;
• Category:Burials in Vienna by place -> Category:People by place of burial in Vienna.

I could implement the last 4 lines above by changing my close on CFD Jan 17. A fresh CFD would be needed for the country-level categories, along with provincial categories like those in Category:Burials in Belgium. – Fayenatic London 10:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

So regarding "people" - We'd see: "People buried [at <places>] [in <location>]" (cemeteries, priories, etc.) - which would hold: "People buried [at <x place>] [in <location>]" (x cathedral, x basiica, etc.)? I would agree that this would nicely standardise the tree. - jc37 15:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you proposing renaming of the lowest-level rung of categories from "Burials at <x place>" to "People buried at <x place>"? I agree with that; otherwise Category:Burials in Austria would hold a mixture of "People..." for Vienna and "Burials..." for the other categories. Are you also proposing renaming of the intermediate place-and-type categories, such as the existing Category:Burials in Belgium by cemetery to Category:People buried at cemeteries in Belgium"? The danger of the latter is that the name does not include "by", and editors may therefore add biographies directly into it. Category:People buried by cemetery in Belgium is not particularly good either; I'd just leave them as they are, unless the top ones in Category:Burials by place get changed. Also, we don't need to create intersection categories at the city level by type (cemeteries, churches etc); just keep the well-populated ones at country level. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm suggesting that the "format" for all the categories - parent and children (but not container cats) be:, People buried [at <places>] [in <location>].

For the container cats, I think there may be three forms. Essentially changing "at" and/or "in" to "by". People buried [(at or by) <places>] [(in or by) <location>].

I'm just coming at this from the phrase structure. This same structure could probably be used in a lot of the people intersection cats: "people <verb> [(at or by) <places>] [(in or by) <location>].

As for intersection by city - I don't have much of an opinion. I treat that as "as needed". So if a country cat is becoming big enough to subdivide by "major" cities, then sure. Otherwise, upmerge until subdivision is necessary.

Of course this whole thing is somewhat of a three dimensional structure due to the varied intersections at various levels. People buried by place, people buried by location, people buried by place in location, people buried in places by location, etc. - jc37 04:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jc37: I am confused by your "parent and children (but not container cats)". I have proposed to delete all parents that are not containers. Which categories do you think should exist as parents but not container cats?

For your other suggestions, please give examples for clarity. – Fayenatic London 15:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a RfC at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa#RfC: How should this be worded?. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Over the past couple of weeks I've undertaken a close to blow-it-up-and-start-over revision of the Vernon Jones article that was brought up at Teahouse recently. I started with the April 15, 2015 version from and rewrote it for NPOV, BLP, consistency with cited source material, added more supporting sources, updated dead links (where possible), and generally expanded and updated the article. More information on what I did is in the last three sections of the Talk:Vernon_Jones page and the article's edit history.

I asked at Teahouse and they recommended I take this here (to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography). I've never worked on an article that needed to be BLP-compliant (for anyone with anything remotely approaching a controversial history). I'd appreciate if more experienced editors could patrol the article and check over my work. Thanks! Carl Henderson (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been working on the article regarding Carly Fiorina over the last month, as well as making a few changes and improvements; but, I've also realized that this article is still marked as "low importance in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism. It also has no such rating for WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Women writers. Yet, I've realized that as of April 2015 (especially) it has been intimated that Firorina will campaign for a 2016 GOP Presidential nomination, although it does not seem to be officially confirmed; meanwhile, the page currently says that she "actively seeking," which seems to be an adequate description, since she appears to be making strong and more visible talking points in the media. Despite criticism and many past failures in electoral politics, Fiorina is considered a main public figure and, if in any regards, a Vice Presidential possibility by some people's standards, as well as having a career as a conservative pundit. It is my belief that Fiorina should have a higher ranking than "low." In most of these Wikipedia projects, I believe she should at least be at the next level, "Mid-importance." Ca.papavero (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Zarghun11 (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Jalil Abbas JilaniIn the article: Jalil Abbass Jilani, detail about his wife and children are unnecessary and may deleted. This is the article about Jalil Abbass Jilani and about his children.Please give your openion about this commentZarghun11 (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

This discussion should really take place at that article's talk page. It is worth noting that it is well within the scope of an article for someone's children, spouse(s), parents and possibly siblings to be included; while I believe that there is no policy on it,

FAs will contain that information where it can be reliably sourced. —Noswall59 (talk

) 12:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abdisalam Issa-Salwe 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdisalam Issa-Salwe until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, everyone,

I've just had the enjoyable experience of participating in bringing the high-page-view article English language from B class to good article status in collaboration with several other editors. Now my attention is turning to biographical articles (both for living persons and dead persons), and one biographical category that deserves in all cases to have featured article quality articles is biographical articles about Nobel Prize winners. Is this an article category that interests you? I have deep supplies of sources for some Nobel laureates (especially in literature or in physics), and in general the biographies of Nobel laureates should be a lot easier to source than many other biographical articles. Who's in? What articles about Nobel Prize winners would you suggest fixing first? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I am in. Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, Educationtemple, I'm glad to hear that. Are there any particular Nobel laureates who interest you as people to start with? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Following up with @Educationtemple: here, I wonder if you have any particular Nobel laureates to suggest to begin working on? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I routinely do this work in my area of scholarship, but would suggest a discussion as to aims before beginning. The Nobel foundation already has biographies of most, and for most, they are also members of their national academies (e.g., of sciences) or other prestigious bodies, sometimes more than one, and each of these usually have biographical treatises. What is the aim of the WP effort, and how might these standard materials be uniformly accessed (without hodge-podge, quality-lower extraction, or simple repetition of fine web materials already available)? Again, what is the aim — what kind of articles do we hope to produce, unique to wikipedia? Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

For the most part, I think the general aim on Wikipedia is simply to improve content quality everywhere on the encyclopedia. (That was listed as a Wikimedia Foundation strategic planning goal a few years ago.) Which existing Wikipedia articles on Nobel laureates do you think are in the best shape today? Which are most in need of improvement, having not even used yet the sources you have kindly mentioned? On my part, I have been reading the Nobel Foundation biographies of the prize winners since the days when you could only find those in printed books, long before the foundation's publications were online. They represent one view of the biography of each prize winner. But of course many of the Nobel Prize winners had such interesting lives that they have been the subject of longer or shorter biographical writings from many other authors. A thorough biographical article on Wikipedia should, like the article English language, reflect many recognized scholarly sources on the article topic (the life of a particular Nobel Prize winner) and would certainly cite the Nobel Foundation publications and the publications of various national academies of science. But it would not stop with sources like those, but also make use of many other sources appropriate to the life of each person as those sources are available. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not familiar with fair use / copyright policies re: image of a nonliving individual. If anyone is willing to determine if an image of Sybil Plumlee is allowed at Wikipedia, I'd be much appreciated and the image would greatly benefit this newly-promoted Good article. Links to possible images:

• http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/01/she_was_one_of_a_kind_family_s.html (2 images)
• Facebook account for Portland Police
• http://myemail.constantcontact.com/The-Green-Hornet.html?soid=1102356663680&aid=5tHVonm3ykg

Any assistance is very helpful. Thanks for your consideration. ----Another Believer _(Talk) 16:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Can a project member Talk page assess/review/edit this bio please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omar_E._Garc%C3%ADa-Bol%C3%ADvar? Thanks. Juvetorre (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

An RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at

I find it baffling that there are still those in this country and around the world that think that Roger Coleman is and was innocent of the crime he was so justly convicted and executed for. The press attacks on the resident's of Grundy County Virginia implying they were stupid and backward are all too typical of the asinine liberal media... they can't form any sophisticated thinking because they're lower class coal miners, etc., so therefore they can't possibly be trusted to come to any complicated conclusions about Roger Coleman's guilt or innocence. Dumb hicks, I can hear them saying to themselves smugly. Guess what, professors? Guess what, church leaders and the like? I loved seeing the leading champion of the convicted killer's receiving the DNA results by phone as the documentary cameras rolled, showing conclusively Coleman's guilt. I thought the man was going to have a heart attack. How right and just. Did "Time Magazine" run an apology to the citizen's that correctly convicted that monster? I don't recall seeing that in their venerated rag. No... that wouldn't do, would it? "Don't let the facts confuse you" is what a former (thankfully) liberal fiancée used to say to me all the time when I called him out on his crap. Same thing to Time and all the other idiots. Serves you all right. Eat crow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.226.12 (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

In a BLP article, what is the proper way to address the subject's age when the stated date of birth, as found in reliable sources, may have been deliberately obfuscated. I was going to do a partial re-write of the Ric Ocasek article and have found some details (for instance, he graduated high school in 1963) that call into question his date of birth (1949). Piriczki (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I have no idea if this is where i am supposed to post this. I updated my father's biography the other day (Allan Taylor RBC) He is in his eighties and someone told him that Wikipedia is where you should have your bio listed. He is a great Canadian, started as a teller cutting firewood at a branch in Prince Albert Sask. at the very lowest pay scale and rose thru the ranks to become the Chairman and CEO. Officer of the Order of Canada, Business Hall of Fame, great philanthropist, several honorary degrees etc. etc. etc. The biography was typed EXACTLY as it is written by the Bank's archivists, it is all entirely accurate. i don't know what else to say. Yes I am his son, no the updates should not be removed - they are all completely accurate. Thanks to whomever is taking the time to review this. 216.126.124.148 (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The article referred to here is apparently Allan R. Taylor. Mr. Taylor, Wikipedia policy requires reliable sources for its articles, particularly those about living people. If you have magazine or newspaper articles which could be used to back up the facts in the article, that would be particularly helpful. If they are online, you could provide links to them on the talk page, and other editors could work with you to get the article up to WP standards. 1bandsaw (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

A few helpful links:

• WP:BLP
  – Our policy on biographies of living persons
• WP:COI
  – How to manage a conflict of interest
• WP:CITE
  – How to cite sources on Wikipedia
• WP:RS
  – How to identify a useable source
• WP:BIO
  – Our inclusion criteria for biographical articles
• WP:TEAHOUSE
  – A welcoming forum for new users where they can learn about Wikipedia's culture
• WP:HELPDESK
  – A forum for asking technical questions about how to edit Wikipedia

Beyond that, it would probably also be helpful to look at

WP:CCPOL, which describes our core content policies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 06:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion regarding an article that may be of interest to members of this project. Concerns have been raised that the article may be a hoax. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments invited at Talk:Bill Farmer. Lots of articles, (ex: Yuri Lowenthal or Roger Craig Smith) and especially those that are attractive to fans of a popular property tend to acquire lengthy filmographies, which often include credits like "Additional voices" or "Monkey #2". In the linked discussion the matter is focused on whether or not Bill Farmer's "additional voices" credits should be included. However, this should be a topic of greater significance since it is something that comes up in a great many articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a

Can a project member please review suggested revisions to this bio requested on the Talk page here: Talk:Mitch_Caplan. [COI Disclaimer: I am employed as a PR professional in an agency setting. Jefferson National (Caplan's current place of business) is a client (this is also noted on the Talk page).] Kristen sald (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, don't know if there are any members still around, but this is Plange who'd revitalized this WP back in 2006. I since ceased being active on WP, and I'm slowly starting to return, but with a narrower focus. I've started a new

Persondata has been deprecated by this RfC, in favour of Wikidata. A bot has been requested to remove {{Persondata}} from all biographical articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone help me with the Brian Day article again?

Someone with a vested interest is tampering with it it seems. My edits (all carefully weighted to represent 'both sides') have been tampered with and removed a second time.

They have been replaced with statements like this: "The British Columbia Medical Services Commission accepted an invitation by Day to conduct an audit of Cambie Surgeries Corporation, where Day is one of 50 shareholders."

According to all media and legal documents, there was no such 'invitation' but Day fought in the courts to prevent such an audit.

Other statements like: "They confirmed that the clinic, along with another clinic, had allowed patients to pay facility fees for services that were not being provided in a timely manner by the government system."

What the legal and news accounts actually say is that the clinic broke the law in charging such fees, and demanded the clinics stop charging the fees. Day is now challenging this law in court.

You can see how contentious the case is for both sides fighting. But the facts are clear and need to be reestablished for this article.

The opinion (whether someone thinks Day is a hero or a villain for challenging the law) is not the issue -- but the person making the edits is clearly on the 'hero' side and keeps slanting the article in that fashion -- even overriding clear facts. My edits tried to show was 'proponents' and 'critics' each say and state the facts clearly as outlined in the legal documents and media.

I can make edits again, but this is getting laborious -- and this is clearly biased and not factually correct.

Can I ask for your help in either reverting to my previous edits? Or if I make edits again to make it factual, can we protect my edits in some way?

Or I can point senior editors to the documents if they prefer to do the edits. I don't mind doing them, but doing them multiple times is no fun and I'm clearly working against people who want to use Wikipedia to portray Day in the most positive light possible (vs. a balanced, even recounting of the facts).

This is starting to feel like whack-a-mole.

Thanks for any help you can provide!

Kathleen5454 15:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleen5454 (talk • contribs)

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who took the time to enter accurate data into the persondata templates of biography subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs in order to preserve such data. Here are two examples of Wikidata for notable notable baseball players: Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Members of this wikiproject may be interested in this Request for Comment regarding James Joyce. --Albany NY (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at this talkpage, where an editor suggests she might have been using several names? It looks potentially slanderous/like a witchhunt to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion at the BLP noticeboard which may be relevant to this wikiproject. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Go there and discuss: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The project page suggests we use the Images for biographies tool to, well, find images for biographies. Sounds really useful, but the link points to a dead end. Does this tool still exist? Chuntuk (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Interested editors might like to consider commenting on whether the lead of this article should mention that Filipović was a military chaplain and Catholic friar who was expelled from the Franciscan order before the end of the war but was not excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Trying to clean up

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies. I don't recall whether it covers by guidelines or archived discussion the split of writer bibliographies such as Piers Anthony bibliography (whose talk page does carry the WP Bibliog banner) from embedded lists in biographies such as Piers Anthony. I cannot recommend that particular split, which retains or replicates essentially no content in the biography. I must run now. Good night. --P64 (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll check that out. Thank you.

re

}} 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on this article's talk page (here) as I feel it has multiple issues, but would appreciate an opinion from someone more familiar with biography articles. Swanny18 (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The sources I had when I wrote this article state his wife's name as "Rita". An anon, and now registered account, possibly connected to the family, has been repeatedly changing it to "Yolanda". This may fall somewhat under BLP (though there's ahrdly anything controversial about the nature of the information), so I'd appreciate some extra eyes since my specialty is normally plant sciences, not biographies (or more accurately I,m not used to encountering repeated reverts in my biographical articles). Circéus (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please upload this picture to Wikimedia Commons? I am not sure which license to use. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe, for many LGBT YouTubers, especially those who have found fame or increase fame through a coming out video, being an LGBT YouTuber is a defining characteristic, just like the Gay politicians or Gay writers category. However, a user has nominated the category LGBT YouTubers for deletion. [see the discussion here] AusLondonder (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There's currently an open RfC on a topic that may be of interest to readers of this wikiproject.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

We've got 30% of the DWB to match on Wikidata. You can use wmflabs.org/mix-n-match to do the last 30%, then the National Library of Wales will appear on all Welsh biographies, in all language Wikis. There are only a handful of us working at the moment, and help would be appreciated! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an RfC on the subject of whether Wikipedia:Notability (history) should become a guideline, which is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (history)#Should this become a guideline?. James500 (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

…please see [2]. Cheers, Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Posting a note here to let editors know I've issued a Request for Comment on the Quint Studer page regarding the current state of the Career section and whether or not a draft I'm proposing would be a suitable replacement. Quick disclosure: I have proposed the draft as a paid consultant to Mr. Studer, so I do have a COI, which should be taken into account. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is the icon for WPBIO wearing a tie? Couldn't we find something a bit more inclusive?--Ipigott (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

As I assume the question is made concerning gender, I would ask why you think a tie is a gender exclusive article of clothing? I feel it is not exclusive to any gender, btw. I ask for information, not argument.

A discussion about a state governor and a singer of the same name is ongoing. Comment there to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This esteemed publication has now been digitised and is available online. Should be plenty of material to expand existing biographies and create new ones, such as Juliana de Leybourne (see Vol 1, 1858). Mjroots (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been working on the Daniel Silva (novelist) page. I think most of the concerns expressed at Talk:Daniel Silva (novelist) have been addressed. Can someone evaluate the page? Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature is also involved. Thanks.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a painting that I received as a gift close to 45 years ago from an antique dealer in Canada. Never gave it much thought to it until about two years ago when I decided to check into its history. I was told when I received it that it was "old" before I came to own it. The dealer said she purchased it from a sale at an old church before it was torn down. When I began to research the painting, I found a signature on the bottom left corner which read "H. Hofmann". Searching the internet turned up almost next to nothing. I did find the name of the work : JESUS PREACHING ON THE SEA OF GALILEE. What I did find is that it is reported to have been destroyed during WWII. But I also found that that before it was supposedly destroyed, the owner had a connection with a church in Canada. I have emailed Hessian State Archives Darmstadt, but was told that any information they had in their archives were not available in English. Luckily most of the information that I was able to find I found on Wikipedia. But any search I've attempted to do has yielded virtually nothing. When I compared the signature on the piece of art, it is consistent with examples of his signature I was able to find. MY QUESTION IS THIS: Is it possible that this painting was not destroyed, but was shuffled around and ended up at the church in Canada? The dimensions of the piece, including the frame is: 46 1/2" X 33 1.2". I have pictures available, but could not figure out how to add them to this correspondence. Any information would be greatly appreciated.

DSZUCHRN (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[email protected]

@

reference desk. Just copy-and-paste your question into that forum. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 19:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Félix Resurrección Hidalgo, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It's in the related list of requested moves at the top of this page, but I thought I would draw more attention here to the discussion at

So many murderers have bios on Wikipedia, where murder is the "one event" they are notable for. How should we apply the "one event" guidelines

As I basically said at

Talk:Guy Turcotte, I think that if we identify any particular article about a murderer in which the killer is only notable for a single murderous episode (or a well-connected nameable set of murders), we should rename the article so that it is about the act(s) rather than about the perpetrator. If there is something else about the murderer that is notable in addition to their murdering act, then the article can be titled with the name of the murderer. —BarrelProof (talk

) 20:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Depends. Some murderers have become so well-known that I think it makes more sense to use their name alone for the article title. I don't think we can make a hard and fast rule here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm seeking help with some edits I suggested for the Hansjörg Wyss article. I posted a message on the Talk page, but haven't had any feedback on my changes. Would someone here be able to take a look? In case you're unfamiliar with the subject, Wyss is a Swiss billionaire businessman and conservationist.

I am working on behalf of the Wyss Foundation and, as I've mentioned here before, I don't make edits on articles where I have a COI. Hoping someone here will be able to review my changes and make them if they appear to be an improvement over the current article. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask for input at Talk:Jazmin Grace Grimaldi#Media References. Thanks. CDRL102 (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The following articles have google doodles as part of their legacy sections.

• Franz Kafka – Next to theater and literature inspired by him
• Agnes Martin – One of the major artists of the 20th century. 1/3 of the legacy section is about the "doodle".

I've been trying to remove this on account of

P.S. I do not oppose mentioning this when it is due, for example when the doodle considerably contributed to their fame. I don't find

CFCF 🍌 (email

) 12:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Frankly removing the google notices is a bit absurd IMO. The inclusion is simply an acknowledgement of those few people and their impact - profound impact I should say on the culture. The notices should remain included in those relevant biographies...Modernist (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You speak of culture as if it were a singular entity.

CFCF 🍌 (email

) 13:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• As I have said before that is your opinion; others disagree...Modernist (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• The info on the Google doodles doesn't seem too overblown in the articles you provided. I think a space in a table and a short paragraph are completely within reason as part of the article as a whole. And as far as Internet culture goes, Google doodles aren't inside baseball. They're seen by even the most casual Internet users, and they always result in a slew of news articles about the doodle and subject. Fuzchia (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the below mentioned note on Ammad Azhar's Biography. I shall be truly obliged.

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.

This page includes all the true content and more will be added/updated from time to time. I manage this page and the copyrights of this Biography.

Thanks n regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shafaqammad (talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I have a business relationship with

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we should consider breaking out Category:NA-Class biography articles with the addition of classes for Drafts, files, and redirects. Eliminating redirects from there would clean that category up. The files listed are largely signatures I think. It would be really helpful to have Category:Draft-Class biography articles to put sandbox and userspace drafts to check potential biographies for BLP issues or other things (Category:NA-Class biography (musicians) articles would be better served as well). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Age maintains up-to-date ages.

• The wikicode {{xt|{{age|1989|7|23}}}} returns "34".
• The wikicode {{xt|is a {{age|1989|7|23}}-year-old person}} returns "is a 34-year-old person".
• The wikicode {{xt|is {{age|1989|7|23}} years old}} returns "is 34 years old".

—Wavelength (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC) and 01:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at the first paragraph of the section on his life and see if you can make sense of the part about the death of Beethoven. Nthep (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've raised a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 21#Input Wanted on Category:Islamists by nationality. Contributions welcome. GregKaye 17:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

W. H. Auden has been nominated for a 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. MusicAngels (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)