Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 40

Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr.

This article is up for AfD. If anyone has an interest in saving it, I think it could be expanded, and his notability could be demonstrated. -- 15:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Popular articles and cleanup listing

I've recently become aware of the popular articles toolserver and am putting in a submission for this project; this will generate a list of the most frequently viewed articles tagged for this project. Hopefully the data provided by this list will be of benefit.

I've also subscribed this project to the WolterBot cleanup listings. I'm amazed we don't already have one! :) PC78 (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Privacy concerns

Julia Nunes is a college singer who's become somewhat well known through YouTube covers. In several newspaper articles, her hometown and college have been identified and in good faith, I added it to the article with a ref. Since then, anonymous ips who I assume are either Nunes or someone close to her have removed the text and indicated that there have been unwanted visitors showing up on campus. After seeing that, I removed the text and the reference. Another anonymous ip has been adding the text back in. What is the proper way of handling something like this? (I usually deal in articles about old buildings and museums where this doesnt come up as often) dm (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is whether or not her hometown and college have been covered in reliable sources. If she has revealed that information to or in published sources, then there is no valid reason to remove it from the article. It also doesn't help that there are articles about her on the Skidmore College web forum [1] and her own website says she attends Skidmore [2]. I can't see how Wikipedia could be invading her privacy when this is posted on her website. If there are issues about her privacy beyond this, oversight can be contacted, but I'm fairly certain since her whereabouts/hometown are published in reliable sources, they won't be that concerned. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that works for me. Thanks dm (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLP#People_who_are_relatively_unknown says: "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution." Is this information relevant to her notability? -Duribald (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is, since she's been cited as being the video singer from Skidmore. Beyond that, this has been published in reliable secondary sources and was cited in the article to one of those. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it's relevant to her notability, and covered, then it should be published. -Duribald (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Surnames

Just an observation: Surnames are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy but not part of this project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln's disam page

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Lincoln#Attempts at a consensus regarding wording on the disambiguation page, extra opinions are needed to generate a consensus. Hesperian 03:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

People born after 1900 with no death category

We discussed with User:Jarry1250 and we find it fair to add Living people to all articles having YOB > 1900 and lack death category of any king (xxx deaths, yob missing). They are about 15,000 biography articles with no death category in Wikipedia. This method will categorise some of them. If they are any objections please write them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

How does being born after 1900 and lacking a death category necessarily justify the statement that the person is alive? That would also add the category to people whose status is unknown, right? Or to badly written stubs that lack some information? To me that sounds like potentially adding false information which I would consider worse than having many articles that are not clear. Hekerui (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm... I see your point. I assume that if the birth category is there the death would normally be as well unless there is not information about the subject and that defaults to... yes, or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I may misleading you. (I think) We just decided to add |living= with value yes and not Living people category. That;s the reason I made this comment here and not in Wikiproject Living People. Let's wait for Jary1250 to reply because I am a bit confused right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple or three points about this. One is that although the status may be unknown, we should err in favor of living, because of WP:BLP, so that isn't particularly adding false information, but rather making a presumptive conclusion that is more stringent in criteria. We should always assume a person is living when editing the article. That's not to say that we can just put in anything we like if the person is dead, but WP:BLP is becoming rather tight regarding sourcing. Another point regards the choice of 1900+. Should we presume that someone who would be 100 years or older is still living? Not really, I don't think, with some obvious exceptions. If a person is 100 and living, they will also come to the attention of other smaller work groups who are concerned with centenarians, although offhand, I can only think of a few who are living - Johannes Heesters, Leopold Engleitner, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, Ruby Muhammad, Leila Denmark - there are lists on Wikipedia that cover living persons of great age. including List of living supercentenarians (which has enlightened me as to how many persons are verified as living and well over 100 years old). The final point to ponder is whether we should be drawing conclusions regarding the status of persons whose birth/death aren't verified. I'm torn on this one and think that rather than just tag them as living, perhaps efforts should be made to verify that they are living. It's certainly a lot more complicated, in looking at it, beyond tagging all that have no death date as living. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the 1900 date, I think it would be preferable to follow WP:BLP on this point and use 1887 as the cut of point, i.e. "Persons are assumed living unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise. (For example, persons born prior to 1887 can be safely assumed dead for all reasonable purposes.)" PC78 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Aim is to reduce the articles in Category:Biography articles without living parameter. I think we did well so far, but I really need editors' help to reduce it more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to doing this. Do you have any idea how many articles will be affected by this? I've looked at some in the category you linked above, and none appeared to have any birth categories. PC78 (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't expect it to be a big number. I guess 2-3%, (hopefully) maximum 5%. This is maximum 1,000 articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for what to do when the final veteran of WW1 dies

At the talk page of List of surviving veterans of World War I‎, I have started a discussion about what to do when the final veteran dies.

My proposal is at the article's talk page, and your input would be appreciated.

Hopefully, it'll be a long time before we have to implement any decision made, but I feel we need to discuss it - especially as someone specifically asked about it.

Thanks -- -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Living person requesting deletion of article - what procedure?

I have received a request on my user talk page, from somebody identifying himself as the subject of an article I've edited recently, asking how he can go about getting his article deleted. Is it just a case of listing the article for deletion in the normal manner, or is there a special procedure?

This is the article, and this is the request. —Paul A (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As the article is insufficiently sourced, and does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music), I would just PROD it, and if necessary take it to AfD. Too many editors have touched it for a User-Request CSD. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, if there was firm evidence of notability (which there isn't from what I can see), and/or it used citations from reliable sources, it would be harder to deal with. My understanding is that unless anything is factually wrong, the subject of an article cannot ask for it to be removed. They can ask for inaccuracies to be corrected, for non-sourced information to be removed (as could any editor), but apart from that, if sources are out there independent of the person themselves, then the article would be able to be kept. (The only exception to the 'sourced' information would be if, for example, it named the subject's partner and children - none of whom are notable in their own right - then it would be right to remove those details. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A final thought (I think...) - just because their user name seems to indicate that they are the subject, that is not verifiable - an e-mail to the foundation could perhaps remove the article, but an office action would be very unusual. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Some administrative categories

Just to be sure: "Biography articles with(out) living/listas parameter" are all admin categories so they have to be hidden. I'll add hiddencat on them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but can you not do this for now? I'm testing some changes to the banner and I need these categories to be visible to make sure that everything is working as it should. PC78 (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Special:Preferences -> Appearance -> "Show hidden categories" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well there you go. Have at it then. :) PC78 (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflict: Persondata vs Lifetime

Rules for WP:Persondata say:

If you add the template manually, place it just before the categories and interlanguage links. DEFAULTSORT is not a real template but a direct part of categorization, and therefore should be located between persondata and categories. The same applies to the Lifetime template, which implements DEFAULTSORT.

— WP:Persondata

Rules for Template:Lifetime say:

Since Categories are preferred to be listed in most-common order, the Lifetime template should generally be placed after the last Category tag.

— Template:Lifetime

The problem is, Template:Lifetime generates:

{{DEFAULTSORT:{{{3}}}}}

[[Category:{{{1}}} births]]

[[Category:{{{2}}} deaths]]

— Template:Lifetime

For now, I'm placing {{Lifetime}} after the metadata but before the categories. But this places living people, birth and death categories in the very beginning of the categories list. The rules need clarification.

Primaler (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Another reason to deprecate Lifetime. Hekerui (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What are the others? Should I not use it? I found the template rather comfortable, as it makes the representation more compact and clear. I'm new here, so I could use some explanation. Thanks in advance! Primaler (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Primaler, there is a discussion at Template talk:Lifetime. Lifetime: Hides categories, slows servers because categories have to be rendered every time, confuses newbies, bots, programs, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Primaler (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Motorcycle Clubs

Someone recently added some motorcycle clubs articles to the project. I think we agree that they are not part of this project, don't we? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

They aren't biographies. I suspect I know why, though. They have been the subject of dispute over whether they qualify as criminal organizations (don't ask), and my guess is that someone is being pointy about concerns over WP:BLP. Organizations aren't biographies, although they may cover living persons who are a member of the organization. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly they shouldn't be tagged for this project. If these articles have any BLP concerns, then that's what the {{BLP}} template is for. PC78 (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We have to be careful with the use of BLP as well. In 90% of the articles living individuals/groups are involved. We can't put BLP everywhere. Anyway, if someone can locate the Motorcycle clubs (criminal organisations?) please remove the banners. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we shouldn't be using {{BLP}} everywhere, but it should be used for articles with specific BLP concerns and not just limited to biographies of living people. Perhaps these motorcycle club articles don't need the {{BLP}} banner, but I can't say either way because I don't know what articles you're talkign about. ;) PC78 (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to prove that you are not a member to any of them? Here you are: Gypsy Joker Motorcycle Club, Vagos Motorcycle Club, Comanchero Motorcycle Club, Warlocks Motorcycle Club, Mongols (motorcycle club) (has 2 blp tags), Outlaws Motorcycle Club, Pagans Motorcycle Club. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your question. It appears the {{WPBiography}} banner was added to these articles by Dbratland, and I've read the relevant discussion on his talk page here. I support removing the banners because these articles really aren't within our scope, but the user appears to have valid concerns so the {{BLP}} tag should remain. PC78 (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The question was just a joke :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah... :) Are they the only articles? Shall we leave this discussion open for a while before removing the banners? PC78 (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There more articles in {{OutlawMotorcycleGroups}}. All the clubs are tagged with WPBiography. I think we can immediately remove them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll make a start on this. PC78 (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. I made sure to link to this discussion in my edit summaries. PC78 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Great job PC78. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• If the biography project won't take responsibility for these articles, I'm at a loss for seeing how they are maintainable. They currently libel several living people by name, and a great many more people are libeled by membership in a group. All it would take to fix that is adhering to WP:RS, but the daily onsluaght of anonymous IPs that want to fill these articles with nothing but accusations of criminality based on weak sources is too much for a few people from WikiProject Motorcycling to deal with. I tried to ask for help with this one month ago at the BLP noticeboard, and there were no replies. I was hoping there would be more editors who could come forward to work on these articles, in so far as they do contain the most negative possible information (e.g. accusations of murder) against living people.
  (BTW saying what I did was WP:POINT is uncalled for, but whatever.) --Dbratland (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

These articles are tagged for other WikiProjects, so responsibility should lie there. But if there is anything libelous in any of these articles then it should be removed immediately. PC78 (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Dbratland, I made the comment about being pointy for a specific reason. You notified WP:CRIME about a discussion on August 17 on the use of the criminal organization infobox. I said at the time that the problem with all of this is that the articles themselves are chiefly about criminal activities of the various clubs and I clearly suggested that the articles themselves need to be completely revamped with expanded content beyond criminal activities. Looking at the changes since August 17, two articles, Hells Angels and Outlaws Motorcycle Club, not a lot has occurred toward that goal. I also suggested that if there is a project to tackle this, it would be the main governing project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling, but I do not see that any discussion about this particular issue has ever been broached with that project. Why this is pointy is because the basic problem isn't being addressed, instead occasional postings at various projects and in this case, putting the club under WP:Biography, is more like forum shopping than it is addressing your concerns. It isn't the responsibility of any project to charge in and fix article issues, that is the responsibility of the editors who edit and maintain the articles. To me, what you're doing is going around to various projects and template talk pages and saying that these things need fixed, somebody fix them. In the articles I looked at, content regarding convictions and arrests in criminal investigations are included, but I'm not seeing a lot that doesn't have citations, so I'm not sure where you're finding unfounded accusations of criminal activities or WP:BLP violations to specific individuals. As for the guilt by association issue, there is nothing that says that all members are definitively criminals. I have to observe, however, that being associated with a given motorcycle club/gang that has been largely involved in specific criminal activities is an issue the member takes on. Wikipedia isn't convicting any individuals. But again, this truly needs to go back to Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling as a project issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

These accusations against me are rubbish. I had a problem and I was seeking help. Everyone knows Wikipedia can be a Kafkaesque maze when looking for the right place to ask for help. Please just drop it, because there is nothing to gain by trying to make it sound like I violated any guidelines. I did nothing wrong except fail to predict that my proposals would not find enough support. I'm not a fortune-teller. --Dbratland (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not making accusations about you or suggesting you were engaging in any wrongdoing, I was making some relevant observations about the issues you bring up and noting good faith advice that was given, which was suggesting where to broach and discuss your concerns. I'm truly sorry if you see it otherwise. The point does remain that no one has broached this subject on Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling, which is the primary project concerned with motorcycles, which covers articles about motorcyclists in its scope statement. Motorcycle clubs certainly seems to fall under that description. You can't assume you'll be told no if you never bring it up on the project talk page. As I said, I didn't see specific instances of any libellous statements about specific individuals that are not sourced. If there are those, then by all means tag it or remove it, depending on what it is and what is being said. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet other WikiProjects have had their tags on these motorcycle gang articles for years. Clearly if that were sufficient, the articles would not be in such a terrible state. I think it's easy to say all the libelous material should be removed, but have you tried? I have, and without support from a number of editors, it's an overwhelming task. Hence my efforts to get more editors involved. Since the problem is harmful statements about living persons, WikiProject Bio seems the obvious place to look. --Dbratland (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, WP:BLP/N is the appropriate place for this sort of thing; it's just unfortunate that you haven't had much joy there. These articles really aren't within our scope. Have you tried raising your concerns with the other WikiProjects? I don't know the history of these articles, but if other editors are repeatedly adding libelous material and/or reverting you if you remove it, then you could try asking for help at WP:AN or asking for the articles to be protected at WP:RPP. PC78 (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It makes no sense to me to assume that people who are interested in motorcycles would have any special knowledge when it comes to giving fair treatment to motorcycle gangs that have a lurid media image. The skills involved are much more akin to sorting out the best way to handle the claims and counterclaims swirling around larger than-life-personages like Michael Jackson or Paris Hilton. It's an issue of being evenhanded in your treatment of people who are not exactly innocent, and sometimes quite guilty, but whose media image is overhyped and contested. It is right up BLP's alley.
I've already said everything I have to say on the subject and I don't want to repeat myself. If the Biography project won't take an interest, then I'll let it go. The problem is going to have to wait until attitudes shift, that's all.--Dbratland (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You've just said it yourself: this "is right up BLP's alley". Don't confuse BLP with WP:BIOGRAPHY, these two things are not the same. As I've already told you, WP:BLP/N is the appropriate venue to deal with this sort of thing. And don't assume that you won't get any help at the motorcycle WikiProject if you haven't already asked. PC78 (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This site is viewed by people and will be viewed by people who will read these articles and believe all writen in them is true because they are in an encyclopedia and writen by intelligent people who know the truth, the articles on the Devils Diciples Motorcycle Club includes headers that state "Criminal Activities" as if the club was founded and run as a criminal organization. It gives the reader the impression of this. It also has refers to articales taken from newspapers that only tell of arrests of members and confisgation of items that were not all illegal but used to make the busts look bigger. No one has been convicted of anything. The summary box accuses the club of everything including murder with absolutly no basis for the accusations. One of the reference articles concerns a person of a completely different club that used our name, yet it is included to attempt to put us in a bad light even though there is nothing but accussations of any wrong doing by the member. To make things even worse, the summary states that we have allies and rivals and includes the names of other clubs. This could potentially get someone hurt. Wikipedia has a guideline called neutral, in which all articles must be written to include all sides of a topic and the writer must keep the feeling of the article neuteral. These articles seem to be writen by the Law enforcement Community in an attempt to keep us in a bad light. Motorcycle clubs are one of the last types of truely free american organizations that are not run and overseen by the Government, we admit to being free spirits and some members do commit crimes, some as a living, but it is not a club organized event. But if the cops can get everyone to believe that and get rid of the last of our kind (or think they have) America looses. Every time our freedoms are erased through fear and propaganda we step closer to dictatorship and big brother. Get this fixed, I do not care if it exists; only neuterally.--Detroit44 (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The point is, and has been, this is not the place to discuss or address this. Take it up on the talk page for the article you're concerned about, take it up at WikiProject Motorcycling, take it up at WP:BLP/N, take it up at WP:AN. This project is for biographies and has nothing to do with motorcycle clubs. This is the same response people have been given everywhere someone has asked about this and so far, no one seems interested in taking it to WikiProject Motorcycling, which is the project that governs articles regarding motorcycles, etc. I would take exception to the comment, however, that no one has been convicted of anything. When I was looking at this, I noted several articles referenced from reliable sources, about some members of some clubs who were clearly convicted of various things. However, this isn't the place to complain about it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is not the correct place to address my concerns but I have very little knowledge of how this site works and since I am a business owner and have very little time to spend learning your structure and ways, I attempt to get through to someone who is responsable for overseeing these things and get them corrected. as for some other clubs having clear criminal convictions; great, but we (the DDMC) do not and have none as it concerns the club as a whole and I am mostly concerned with the article about my club.--Detroit44 (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That is why I corrected the link to WikiProject Motorcycling and offered other places to approach. Hopefully you can find someone to help there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Benjamin Disraeli

Benjamin Disraeli has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

a&e/filmbio tagging with Template:WPBiography

{{WPBiography}} is coded so that an article can be tagged for the arts and entertainment work group or WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, but not both at the same time. The reason for this appears to be the overlapping scope of the two: WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers is regarded as a child project of the arts and entertainment work group. So for example, an actor biography tagged with {{WPBiography|a&e=yes|filmbio=yes}} will only actually be tagged for WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, because inclusion in the more generic work group is redundant. (With me so far?)

This is less straightforward for some articles though. Mikhail Baryshnikov is known primarily as a ballet dancer, but has also done some acting, and there is an unusual (and absurd) situation on his talk page where there are two instances of {{WPBiography}}, one tagging the article for the arts and entertainment work group with a Top-priority rating, the other tagging it for WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers with a Mid-priority rating. There should only be one transclusion of the {{WPBiography}} banner on that page, so (and irrespective of the priority rating) should it be:

1. Tagged for the arts and entertainment work group on the basis that he is primarily a ballet dancer rather than an actor?
2. Tagged for WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers on the basis that this falls under the arts and entertainment work group anyway?
3. Tagged for both with changes made to {{WPBiography}} to make this possible?

I've asked for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers to hopefully get a better idea of how to handle such articles. PC78 (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, from what I can see, a single template will indicate both projects at least in how it displays at the categories at the bottom of the page. The problem has to do with the priority ratings. The issue comes in when Baryshnikov, for example, is rated as a top priority A&E article and at best, for actors, he is only mid priority. He's also a core article for A&E. However, when I look at mid priority A&E articles, he isn't double listed, so that isn't an issue itself. We came across this on articles about actors and singers in the past. Imagine looking at the top priority actor category and seeing Michael Jackson. It's been a couple years now and I can't tell you where it was asked, but we couldn't find any way to differentiate the priority and couldn't find out what to do about it, thus two templates. I would rather see an article like Michael Jackson tagged twice than to ever indicate he is a top priority actor (eek). So what is the solution, besides tagging it for both? One project, or sub-project, shouldn't dictate priority for the other. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing WP:ACTOR removed from under A&E and left as an independent project associated with both WP:BIOG and WP:FILM, since in some cases, such as Baryshnikov, I'm thinking the A&E project would have issues with it. Removing such articles from WP:ACTOR also removes it fromt the actual project, and while it's true that in these cases, the impact on the project is much less, it is still a valid inclusion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your first comment is not correct; categories for a&e will not be added if an article is tagged for filmbio. The priority issue is really a seperate issue. What I've proposed elsewhere is that we replace |priority= in the banner (which isn't actually used for the overall Biography project assessments) with individual parameters for each work group (|a&e-priority=, |filmbio-priority=, etc.). There seems to be support for doing this, though i think Magioladitis is a little nervous about having to potentially update 700,000 pages. :) See discussion at Template talk:WPBiography if you're interested. PC78 (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict may have changed a bit of what I said. Well, my main concern is that the article be included in WP:ACTOR and that the priority is permitted to be different. That's part and parcel of why, to my knowledge, various articles have two templates. And that Baryshnikov, for example, doesn't end up listed as a core actor article. The mechanics of how that happens is, at least to me, not as important as maintaining the difference. I'll look at the template page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The |core= parameter is something else again. An article tagged with {{WPBiography|core=yes|priority=mid|filmbio=yes}} would be categorised only as a "core biography article" and "mid-priority filmbio article". PC78 (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hones Abe FA

I'm trying to get Abraham Lincoln up to FA, and his article is within the scope of your wikiproject. It's a big job, but the article is in pretty good shape. Anyone want to help? Drop by the talk page if you're interested. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Resume weedwhacker needed - Paul Rosenau

Plase see Talk:Paul Rosenau#resume spamSkookum1 (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Salvador Dali at Featured Article Review

I have nominated Salvador Dali 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. miranda 18:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

John Marshall GAR notification

John Marshall has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Bob Marley GAR notification

Bob Marley has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)