Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 64
 | 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. |
| Archive 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
HTML errors in biographies
The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely. I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found some high-priority errors in FA, FL, and GA articles tagged by this WikiProject.
What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.
The first list is all "deletable table" errors. If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag. Taking the first link as an example, there is highlighting in the wikitext that shows where the lint error is; it's in the succession box. Taking the first item as an example, the "Family information" succession box (using {{S-fam}}) is the only difference that I found between the two. If you're satisfied with the appearance in the new rendering, then you're done. Looking at the error details in the second column here, the second and fourth articles may be similar; the third one probably has a simpler error in wikitext table formatting.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=93191819 | {"name":"table","templateInfo":{"multiPartTemplateBlock":true}} |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89320894 | {"name":"table","templateInfo":{"multiPartTemplateBlock":true}} |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Gedeon?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=87377712 | {"name":"table"} |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jelena_Balšić?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89650521 | {"name":"table","templateInfo":{"multiPartTemplateBlock":true}} |
This second list is "misnested tags". See mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. The highlighting for the first link indicates that the problem for that article is in the infobox. The most common problem in an infobox is parameter values that are multiple lines/paragraphs (because the template wraps much of the content in span tags, which aren't allowed to go across multiple paragraphs).
Note that the highlighting from the lintid code won't work reliably after the article has been edited, so for pages with multiple errors, it's best to try to fix them all at once. For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Just in case you need this list re-generated, here's the query for this limited set:
Extended content
|
|---|
|
{{{1}}}
|
A complete list would require a query like this one:
Extended content
|
|---|
|
{{{1}}}
|
Please ping me when you have made some progress on these, and I'll generate the complete list for you. When I look outside the featured class content, there are almost 1,000 biographies affected by these two errors. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Untitled
I am new here. I want to join this community. I will be glad if someone on this group can guide on how to contribute content related to biography of living persons to Wikipedia. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerusalem666 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Jerusalem666: I would advise having a read through the Help:Getting started page and follow the links on there. We have some some specific rules for living people, which you can read about at WP:BLP (most importantly, content needs references to reliable sources). I see you have made enquiries about the adoption programme, which is a great idea. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Jim Bankoff draft article
On behalf of Vox Media, I've drafted an expanded and improved Wikipedia article about Jim Bankoff (the chairman and CEO of Vox Media) for community review. The current article has some bad sourcing and a couple of inaccuracies (including his birth date), so I've worked to draft a more thorough overview of his early life and education, career, and personal life. I don't edit the main space because of my COI, so I'm looking for volunteer editors to review this draft and implement proposed content appropriately. If this sounds like something you'd be interested to help with, please read my comments on the article's talk page, and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Greetings all. I've spotted this article and I wonder if I can ask the members of this WikiProject to take a look at it? At the moment it's painfully promotional in nature and barely sourced. It needs a major overhaul but I don't have the required expertise with biographies. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's been tagged "BLP sources" for 11 years, and I have removed the unsourced material. There is almost nothing left, and this may be an AfD candidate. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Greetings all. Could a member of this Wikiproject please cast their eye over this article, paying attention to the quality of the sourcing? Thanks very much. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Help with Charlie Ergen edits
Hi. I have proposed some updates to the Charlie Ergen page via Talk to update some key facts and help improve the page. Due to my COI (I work in communications for DISH), I proposed them on the "Talk" page. I'm awaiting an editor to review and implement or discuss. I invite anyone interested to review. Please let me know if I can improve anything on my process. Thanks! --Editor4Good (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Outdated stats on women biographies on WP Biography main page
Hi all -- I've just noticed there are some outdated statistics about women biographies on the WP Biography main page. Are these supposed to be updated automatically, or manually? If you check the WHGI page (and the WikiProject Women in Red page), you'll see the number of biographies about women has increased from 16.78% to 17.61% of the total. Small change, but an improvement just the same. Could somebody fix those stats on the main page? I'm not certain how to do it myself. Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
RfC Notification
There is an RfC at the Diamond and Silk talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Biographies of freedivers
Not sure if this is the right place for it, but nonetheless. There is a problem with almost all biographies of freedivers. At the moment there are 3 organizations that award world record title (AIDA, CMAS, Guinness), historically there was a fourth organization (IAFD), which had quite a few world records. Since this is quite a small sport almost all biographies are of previous or current world record holders and as such list their world records. The problem is that very, very rarely organization under which the record was achieved is noted. It should be noted that usually freedivers achieve more than one record and in more than one organization so unless it is clear in the records list, what is what, the list and information itself is essentially useless. It has become poor practice. I tried mentioning it on talk pages but that is not effective. Infobox at the top of the article could do the job, if it is specific enough. Why is that a problem? For example you can set DYN under ice WR under CMAS which can also become Guinness' WR if it's better than the latter's (as Guinness "inherits" records), but you can also set DYN under ice under Guinness but not under CMAS - this situation happened in 2017. Or you have 3 WR's in DYN (3 divers with 300m) but two are under AIDA and one is under CMAS; and as Guinness "inherits records" they (could) list all three of them. 213.149.51.151 (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Gaius Iulius Hyginus
Hello everybody, I'd like to know why in the Italian language Wikipedia reports two different entry: "Igino (astronomo)" (I century AD), to whom are attributed the De Astronomia and the Fabulae and "Caio Giulio Igino" (64 BC – AD 17), to whom are attributed some works nowadays almost entirely lost, while and the English version reports only the entry "Gaius Iulius Hyginus"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.213.32.230 (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Date of birth and mother's name
Do we have a new policy whereby we can't add the full date of birth and mother's name of notable individuals who are alive even as reliable sources do? This is news to see, but I am happy to comply if that's the case. However, I am very surprised. Please see this. Please ping me when you reply. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Pls see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Personal relationships.--Moxy (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
When do we describe an individual as a "philanthropist"?
Hello, WikiProject Biography. I recently proposed some updates to the Wikipedia article about David Trone, on his behalf, and I've disclosed my COI appropriately. In the course of those updates, I'd asked editors to consider re-adding the word "philanthropist" to the article's introduction (this was previously removed by an editor earlier this year). See this request to add the word back. Both editors who responded felt that "philanthropist" should not be readded, and I'm curious to understand if there's a general rule for this.
In this particular case:
- A number of sources refer to him as a philanthropist, and not as an afterthought or passing mention
- There are many sources verifying his contributions to various organizations and institutions
- His charitable work is part of what makes him notable, and he has made donations personally, not just through his company
- There is an entire section of the article about him dedicated to his charitable work, so to me adding "philanthropy" or "philanthropist" seems like an appropriate and simple way of summarizing this in the introduction
My reason for posting here is to hopefully gain a better understanding of when to describe someone as a philanthropist from experienced editors. Are there any rules for inclusion? What are the reasons for not calling someone a philanthropist when so many sources do? I'm mostly wondering for future reference, since this is likely to come up again in biographical articles I work on. Any feedback here is much appreciated. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- The closest we have to a general rule is probably this, from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies:
The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources. The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph.
- Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Kendall-K1: Thanks for replying. The part of this that's tricky is that I would argue that David Trone is notable in part for his philanthropic activities given how he's described in sources, so it does feel like there's another factor involved deciding whether this particular terminology should be used in a biography.
- I am really curious if any other project members care to weigh in here, so I am pinging a few editors who have contributed to this talk page recently. @Finnusertop, Moxy, and Winkelvi: Do any of you have opinions on this? Inkian Jason (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Mathew vs Mathews
Records I have read refer to him as Simon Mathew (no "s"). The "s" was added on later in years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:458B:8900:AD28:58F:5532:AAE (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The article Raffaello Giovagnoli has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Machine translation, unimproved in months.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mathglot (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Women in Red June Editathons
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging
RfC at Roseanne Barr
There is an RfC at the Roseanne Barr talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#RfC on categorizing biracial people for your consideration. StAnselm (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography members are invited to contribute to the 2018 Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs during the month of June and seeks to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. In-person events are being organized in some cities, and editors can also participate remotely. Results are being tracked here, so feel free to show off your work. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Joseph Bradish
I'm a descendant of the Bradish family and have researched Bradish in the UK archives. He did not sail with Kidd, except when he was a prisoner on the same ship enroute from Boston to London. The timing of Kidd and Bradish is very close and each sailed on different ships named Adventure, hence much confusion. Eventually I hope to write this all out, if I can read my notes.
Rick Clarke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.21.241.139 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2016
James Charles Dale
Hello, anyone hanging around being able to confirm this is James Charles Dale? If positivie, the file could be renamed and added to the article. Thank you for your time. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotje (talk • contribs) 09:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
 Hello, |
AfD: Marek Jerzy Minakowski
Project members are invited to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marek Jerzy Minakowski re: Marek Jerzy Minakowski. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Ken Layne
Hello, WPBIO participants. Last week I posted a proposal to revise and update the biographical article for journalist Ken Layne, which is very outdated and relies heavily on non-RS sources. I have written a draft that addresses these issues and more, and mindful of the WP:COI guideline, I'll refrain from editing the article directly. So what I'm looking for is an editor willing to review the article, see if they agree it is an improvement, and make the change if so. More information about this proposed change can be found at Talk:Ken Layne. Thanks in advance, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The right to privacy
A few weeks ago I rewrote the article about the American singer Holly Beth Vincent and thoroughly referenced it, updating its level to C-class. Ms. Vincent herself has just heavy-handedly edited the article, deleting much information about herself and her relatives, claiming that she removed "content that is harmful to publish, the names of my family", requesting respect for her privacy and that of her family. She actually deleted much more than those names, but this is not the point. I know that this is an obvious case of COI for Wikipedia standards, but do we editors have the right to barge in the lives of living people publishing in a wide-accessed media like an encyclopedia info that those people feel as sensitive? Moreover, although that sensitive info is already published somewhere, it is not offered in coherent articles about a single topic like on Wikipedia. What behaviour should I have if such things occur again? Lewismaster (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- We can try to respect people's privacy, but not if it compromises WP:NPOV. Some of the material that Fishette removed was poorly-sourced personal information that shouldn't have been in the article, but as you say her changes went way beyond that, and we can't have the subjects of biographies dictating what they contain. I've undone her edits, notified her of the COI policy, and asked her to make suggestions on the talk page.
- COIN is a good forum for these issues, if it comes up again. – Joe (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. Lewismaster (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
| Hello, |
Nice Msnisha Sharma (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Creation of article Victor Mochere
Requesting for creation of page for Victor Mochere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.232.61.249 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
RfC at Richard B. Spencer
There is an RfC at the Richard B. Spencer talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The subject of this article may be an urban legend rather than a real figure. He's cited in books, but the books make no reference to any primary reference or how they got this information. There's many details that can't be confirmed. Issues with the sourcing of the article have been pointed out:
- Talk:Yang_Kyoungjong#Not_a_Hoax_but_there_are_serious_problems:_Where_did_his_name_come_from?
- Talk:Yang_Kyoungjong#Sources,_hoax_concerns
Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
About Drashti Dhami's personal life
Hello dear Wikipedias, please can you tell me that can I write this in Drashti Dhami's Personal life section.
This is I want to write:
Dhami reveals that her husband has many female friends and she does not have problem with them as she trust him.See the Reference: Indian Express.
Or is there is a better way to write that? Zafar24Talk 04:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi community members, could I please encourage any of you to help Zafar? So far I've been breathing down his neck about BLP issues and I'd prefer that someone neutral could help him figure out what sorts of content are suitable for inclusion in biographies. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: Thanks:)Zafar24Talk 06:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Input requested
Project members input is requested at the antisemitism thread at Talk:Vincent Price. MarnetteD|Talk 17:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Date ranges vs. full birth–death dates in biographical leads
.jpg){kind=link}
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#The lead date-range vs. full dates thing
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Would some one from WPBIO mind taking a look at this? Assuming that the artist is notable per WP:ARTIST, it does seem in need of quite a re-write to make it more WP:NPOV. No links are provided for any of the sources, so it's kind of hard to tell if there's any WP:SYN or WP:OR issues as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
July 2018 at Women in Red
|
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Request to add mention of an individual's religion
ResolvedHello! I've submitted a request here to add mention of David Trone's religion. Another editor approved a slightly modified version of the proposed text, but left updating the article to others more familiar with the subject. I do not edit the main space directly because of my COI, and I'm seeking an editor to help implement proposed wording and sourcing appropriately (markup is provided). Is a member of WikiProject Biographies willing to take a look? Inkian Jason (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- The edit request has been answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Laura Ingraham
There is a discussion at the Laura Ingraham talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
2008 Discovery Channel special Behind the Great Wall
This documentary is about the famous general Qi Jiguang. One of key characters share Qi Jiguang's journey is a conscripted worker, Geng Zhou, symbol of China’s indomitable labouring spirit. This is an historical or fictional character? Even if he is fictional, can you create a voice for him? Furthermore, Chang Ang, the mongols leader who attack the Great Wall, is historical or fictional? --95.245.233.241 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.245.233.241 (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Policy? on info boxes
I'm reviewing John Fresshe at GA. Editor has a "thing" about info boxes. Are they required by the project? Please advise. auntieruth (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
RfC at Infobox Criminal
The discussion is located here:
--K.e.coffman (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Wrong identification
The article about William de Breteuil[1] conflates two different people. William de Breteuil, son of William fitzOsbern, and a William, abbot of Breteuil. William, son of William fitzOsbern died in Bec in 1103. "William of Breteuil had married Hugh of Montfort’s daughter Adeline, but he had no children by his lawful wife. So when he died on 12 January at Bec and was buried in the monastery that his father had built on his own property in Lire, his nephew William of Gael and Reginald of Grancey contended for his inheritance." The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, vol. vi, p. 41. William, abbot of Breteuil, died in 11130. Ascelin Goel (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Willaim de Breteuil
- If you need to, you could create a disambiguation page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
What's with the deletion page for the project? It's had this tag since 23 February 2016, yet, if I go back one on the history, seems to look okay, has nobody paid any attention to this in over two years? Govvy (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I've expanded these articles a lot over the last year, and re-written some sections. I'd like outsiders to give it a go over, and give input. Main issue is that I wonder if it makes sense to outsiders unfamiliar with the subject matter. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Draft articles for David Kramer and Jay Sures
Hello! I work for Executive Writing, and as part of my consultancy work, I've drafted new Wikipedia articles for David Kramer (talent agent) and Jay Sures, who serve as co-presidents of United Talent Agency. Both articles are currently in poor shape, and on their respective talk pages (Talk:David Kramer (talent agent) and Talk:Jay Sures) I've provided further detail about the problems with each. You can view my proposed drafts at User:EWChristine/David Kramer (talent agent) and User:EWChristine/Jay Sures. Are any WikiProject Biography members willing to review the drafts and replace the existing articles? I believe I've disclosed my conflict of interest appropriately, but please let me know if not. Thank you. EWChristine (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I've started this article and greatly expanded it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
AfD on sidebar, front page
I had a go at putting each AfD area in the sidebar on the front page, hope it helps users to navigate when looking at the AfDs. Regards Govvy (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I think Remillard Brothers needs to be split into several articles about notable members of this family (for example, Countess Lillian Remillard Dandini may be). But as it stands, shouldn't the article be deleted?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
| Hello, |
I could use more eyes on this article. I've taken a bit a stick to it - it has the familiar problem that it's mostly only edited by obvious shills - and would be happy if some other disinterested editor gave it a look. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
August 2018 at Women in Red
|
| ||
|
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Hi there, your comments are respectfully requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Request for Comment: Star Parivaar Awards. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, on commons I came across this image and I was wondering if this is related to Mujū, apart from the birth date: 1226 instead of 1227 the description matches. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, only me again, I came across this this image and was wondering if this has to do with Asahina Yoshihide. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Assistance needed for Anasuya Shankar article
Dear editors, I have listed proposed changes to the Anasuya Shankar article on the Anasuya Shankar Talk page found here , along with valid sources. I will be grateful for your assistance in determining if these changes and citations meet wikipedia standards. All the sources have been published and are verifiable. Much of the information is obtained from published articles in the media and newspapers, several books who's authors have done extensive research on Anasuya, published theses that have done research on Anasuya and Kannada writers (which you can even find online) and Anasuya's own novels as well (which have all been published). I have cited almost every sentence.
Therefore, the information from these sources are reliable, verifiable, and accurate, and obtained from original research that has already been done. They are from third party sources, and no primary sources of reference have been used.
However, the revisions I have made before keep getting reverted back by one of the wikipedia editors, for reason that I have apparently not referenced every major assertion with reliable, verifiable, third party sources. He suggested that I discuss with other editors on the Anasuya Shankar talk page for more opinions. Therefore I would be very appreciative if you could let me know your thoughts on these citations and I could move forward with the proposed changes.
I have referenced every sentence and included the citations. I have given several citations for certain statements. In case needed, I can additionally add the citations for all her published books to provide evidence that those books exist and are published. In case there are any statements subjective in nature, do let me know as well. Do let me know your thoughts, and with assistance I can then move forward with the changes. Thank you very much for the help.
Trivenishankar 09:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trivenishankar (talk • contribs)
- You've got a lot of problems there. Just at a glance I would start with these:
- I doubt very much that her name is "Triveni- Kannada Novelist"
- The AFC submission template doesn't belong
- Some of the language is overly promotional ("came from an illustrious family of established writers")
- Everything has been added in one giant edit, making it difficult to review
- You have included some sources, but much of the material has no citation
- Many formatting errors
- Also I was going to say you shouldn't be writing an autobiography, but since Shankar died in 1963 I assume you are not she. Still I wonder whether you have a conflict of interest. Do you?
- @GorgeCustersSabre: You should probably be notified of this discussion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kendall-K1, Thank you for the feedback.
I will take out the "Kannada Novelist" part. The overly promotional language, as far as I know, I have taken out (you may be looking at old edits, but the proposed changes on my talk page do not include "illustrious" or other types of promotional words. If in case it IS included in the proposed changes, do let me know- I have revised it several times.) As it is difficult to review, I can propose small sentence by sentence edits on the Anasuya Shankar talk page then. Thank you for notifying me of that. As for sources, I would TRULY appreciate if you could tell me within all my proposed changes, WHICH material does not include citations- again, as I have revised this over and over and almost every sentence contains a citation at this point. It would be helpful to know which material needs yet to be cited. That was why I started the discussion.
I would appreciate any help I could receive- thank you!
Trivenishankar 15:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Trivenishankar
Featured Article Review listing for Rudolf Vrba
I have nominated Rudolf Vrba for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Catrìona (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
FAR listing for Werner Mölders
I have nominated Werner Mölders for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Catrìona (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
RfC at Talk:Martha McSally
There is a RfC at the Martha McSally talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Asking for help with Category - Articles needing additional categories
Greetings, During recent months I've been working on the over 4,000 article backlog at Category:Articles needing additional categories. Since about half of these are Biography articles, I'm wondering if WP Bio members would be able to help improve these? Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
| Hello, |
FAR
I have nominated Elaine Paige for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, anyboday haning around who knows more about John McEnery (Louisiana) (25th Governor) and Stephen B. Packard (27th Governor) and why they are not on the list? On the Dutch version they is. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Randy Castillo for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Randy Castillo 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/Randy_Castillo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FigfiresSend me a message! 19:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether this person is notable enough for a stand-alone article. The article was prodded and deleted back in June 2017, but was deproded in May 2018 per a request by an IP claiming to be Carrion herself. I've tried looking for sources for this, but all I'm seeing is pretty much primary or other user-generated stuff that's not really helpful in meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Carrion has appeared on a number of talk shows/radio programs as a guest, but I don't think that's enough to establish notability. There was also some possibly contentious personal/family information, including claims about her father, which I removed because most of the sourcing was WP:BLPSELFPUB/WP:BLPPRIMARY. Anyway, I was going to bring to AfD, but figured I'd ask here first to see what others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- It certainly looks like an AfD candidate to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Artitcle nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Carrion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, by coincidence I cam across this image and I was wondering if the person on the right could be Hanns-Horst von Necker on the Blücher. If postivie, I would add the file to the article. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Cause of death (Infobox)
I don't know if this has come up before, but having written many biographies, I was rather surprised to find the cause of death repeatedly deleted from the infobox on the grounds that it was not related to the subject's notability - in this case a sudden fatal heart attack at the age of 69 which ended the life of the philosopher Hannah Arendt. The justification was given as not meeting the criterion spelled out in the Infobox template. The cause of death is mentioned in many FA and GA biography infoboxes. Maybe it depends on one's understanding of the words notable and significant. In general it is very few people whose death is what makes them notable, maybe Julius Caesar. But the mode of one's death is frequently an important part of one's life.
Is it possible to develop a consensus here? For the record Template Infobox person states the following -
- Cause of death. Should be clearly defined and sourced, and should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability, e.g. James Dean, John Lennon. It should not be filled in for unremarkable deaths such as those from old age or routine illness, e.g. Bruce Forsyth, Eduard Khil.
I think that is too restrictive if interpreted literally. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 18:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- If someone dies from the complications of old age, that's kind of the default. It doesn't need to be spelled out. I think that's what the template is suggesting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- That would be unnecessary to document, although difficult to define as to what exactly would fit that definition. But as I implied in many cases that is not necessarily the mode of death, in which case it seems to me, the circumstances should be spelled out. Marie Curie died of aplastic anaemia, Pierre Curie was run over, President Roosevelt of a stroke, Amy Winehouse of poisoning etc. So generally I do think the cause of death is worth mentioning.--Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 20:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Article has been tagged with {{Unreferenced}} since January 2009. There's a Commons category c:Category:Georges Léonnec which might be examples of this persons artwork. Googling his name get various hits, inlcuding links to pages like this which seem to indicate that his work was notable enough to be sold at auctions. I'm just not really finding anything about him which might be useful per WP:NARTIST; so, I'm wondering whether this might be worth discussing at AfD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
September 2018 at Women in Red
|
| ||
|
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Need help with Princess Amor
I'm having a lot of trouble expanding this article. I know the subject must be notable, because the article has survived two AfDs. But I can only find a single independent reliable source, and it doesn't give me much to go on. Others have tried too and come up empty-handed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Zinovia Dushkova
Hi, I wonder if there is a copy editor around who can take a long distance squint at this article. It has been marked with tone and advert, and cant the advertising component. Any help appreciated. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Help with proposed updates at John Krafcik
Hi all! I've recently posted a request for Waymo CEO John Krafcik, seeking to add an Early life and education section, as is common in biography articles. I'm wondering if editors at this WikiProject would be interested and might have a few minutes to look over my suggestions? I'm making these suggestions on behalf of Mr. Krafcik's company, Waymo, as part of my work at Beutler Ink, so I will not make any direct edits to the article myself. I am also posting a similar note at WikiProject Automobiles. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, anybody hanging around who is able to find out if this Maximilian Ronge was the author of Fortissimi sunt Belgae? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- I strongly doubt that Maximilian Ronge is in any way connected to Lieutenant-Colonel Marcel A. Rongé, Chief of the Belgian Military Mission attached to the First French Army during the Battle of Belgium. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Michael Bednarek. Lotje (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
| Hello, |
Help!
I do not understand Wikipedia's nationality guidelines. Can someone who feels confident please resolve what is likely a basic question at Talk:Max Davidson?
Subject was born in Berlin then emigrated to the U.S. at the age of 15-25. We do not know of his citizenship. Currently, we have him as a German director, but most of his life (and all of his work) seems to have been in the U.S. With no indication of his citizenship, do we simply leave him as "German" or is this sufficient for "German-American"? - SummerPhDv2.0 21:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- @SummerPhDv2.0: something similar to this came up at James Wan. Wan was born in Malaysia and is of Chinese descent. He moved to Australia as a kid and has been making films in the United States. There were endless edit wars over whether this, especially whether he's Australian or Malaysian. Eventually, I found a newspaper that labels him as an Australian filmmaker of Malaysian origin. It probably didn't hurt that it was a Malaysian newspaper. If you can't find a source, maybe it's not important enough to mention? I mean, it's not like we're contractually obligated to label everything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
RfC: Should there be an article on Emma Sulkowicz?
Hello! At Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) § RfC, there is an RfC on the question "Should there be an article on Emma Sulkowicz?". You are being notified because the page is tagged as being of interest to this WikiProject. :) -sche (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 6#File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
RfC on Ron DeSantis "monkey" quote
There is an RfC at the Ron DeSantis talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Opinions are needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable people and groups accused of sexual misconduct since the Me Too movement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The article Michael Wesch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Does not meet the standard of WP:Notability per WP:BIO or WP:NACADEMIC.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mathglot (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Rfc on the inclusion of the Erdős–Bacon number in biographies.
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should we include the mention of a subject's Erdős–Bacon number in a biography article? --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Why is this an issue and why do we need an rfc? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Support or oppose
- Oppose as initiator of the RFC. The inclusion of this is disputed here. I believe that this rather silly trivia meme does not have its place in an Encyclopedia and the concept itself is flawed as it is supposed to combine the Erdős number wich links people measured by authorship of mathematical papers. and the Bacon number whereas the page mentions academic papers and not mathematical ones and gives as an example Colin Firth who is credited with having written this paper [1] which is a biology paper and as such he has no Erdos number. This question was the subject of another RFC here which I believe did not receive the correct closing summary
Near-unanimous consensus against the discusion of Erdos-Bacon number at this article--mainly due to a lack of WP:RS covering it.
as 12 of the 14 oppose voters either did not mention the sourcing in RS or said that they were opposed regardless of the sourcing. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC) - Support inclusion
Opposed to this RFC(agree with DE and XOR) – Neither of the two options should be implemented. This should be decided per-article based on coverage in RS, like anything else. No change to existing policy or guidelines is necessary. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC) - Support inclusion when supported by reliable sources and according to the local consensus on each article (and not otherwise). This combination is both rare enough and sufficiently well known to be interesting and relevant. It is unusual for someone to have a foot in both worlds of research mathematics and moviemaking; when they do, this provides a colorful way of documenting it. We don't need to institute new unjustified taboos and new exceptions to our usual rules for this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support inclusion in those cases where reliable sources have already computed and discussed the number. This is really an article-by-article kind of matter, and I don't think this RfC is the right approach. (Also, in practice, I've never heard of anyone making too fine a point about computing Erdős numbers through mathematics papers only. That would lead to endless argument about whether physics papers, or economics papers, or theoretical biology papers, etc., etc., count as official. Obviously the primary focus is on mathematics papers, but the real criterion is whether the publications were peer-reviewed research. Our sources accept linguistics papers and biology papers as valid collaboration pathways to Erdős, and that's that.) I find myself sharing the sentiments of Kendall-K1 and David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ditto Kendall-K1, David Eppstein, and XOR'easter, obviously. --JBL (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support inclusion on a case-by-case basis. It's trivia cruft, but it's trivia cruft with its own article. :-) Should that get deleted, my answer would likely change. (Arguable Bacon number of 3 here, but an Erdos number of i)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support inclusion if properly sourced, as per Kendall-K1, David Eppstein, and others. -- UKoch (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support per David Eppstein. Note that this does not mean that we should include Erdös-Bacon by default in any case where it can be somehow sourced, but there is no reason to block it by default either. So a possible inclusion needs to be assessed individually by the involved editor based on the available sources in that case.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support if it's mentioned in reliable sources on the subject, oppose if it isn't and editors have calculated it themselves. Of course, this is already policy, so I don't see why this RfC was necessary. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Neither support or oppose as a general policy. Individual articles can be handled on an individual basis on individual talk pages. A policy this broad is not helpful as it would either include it where not appropriate, or exclude it where appropriate. It's wrongheaded to try to set policy for thousands of articles like this over a single item. Discussions about whether it should or should not be included on any one article should happen on THAT article's talk page, and based on consensus on THAT talk page, disputes should be solved. --Jayron32 18:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- What Joe Said (Summoned by bot). As for
rather silly trivia meme does not have its place in an Encyclopedia and the concept itself is flawed
, one could try AFD again, I'll sit that one out. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC) - Oppose even if mentioned by dozens of sources. And never use it to demonstrate notability. wumbolo ^^^ 16:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support inclusion if supported by sources. If reputable sources mention it, it must be noteworthy, and Wikipedia ought to report it. WP:RS and WP:BLP work both ways. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
From what I can gather anyone who has published can calculate their Erdos number. A student who publishes will publish with their professors at first who have published with lots of people throughout their career and almost anyone will be able to calculate their finite erdos number. Anyone who has worked in television or film will have a low Bacon number this is the whole idea of the six degrees of separation. I was an extra in a television program with a 2 which makes me a 3. So anyone who has ever worked in film and television and coauthored a paper will be able to calculate their Erdos bacon number. So it is not the number that is rare but just the fact that a RS has published it. Having a foot in both worlds is not rare. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- What this discussion is missing is anything other than your personal beliefs and opinions. Natalie Portman is extremely famous, an enormous amount has been written about her, and the fact that she has an E-B number is obviously low on the hierarchy of important facts about her. This is reflected in the earlier RfC, where nearly all comments and the closing summary were explicitly limited to the context of that one article. For other people, who are less famous and about whom less has been written, the same piece of information (properly sourced) could be an appropriate inclusion in the biography. (The policy WP:WEIGHT is relevant.) This is almost certainly true of Daniel Kleitman and Danica McKellar, for example. Moreover, this kind of local consensus on content is how essentially everything is done on WP, and nothing you've written gives even a hint of a reason why it should be thrown out in this instance. --JBL (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- My point is that it is not rare. It's a triva meme that adds nothing to the article and brings in non encyclopedic material. Noone would mention in the text that an academic was once an extra in a film when he was a student. But because someone took the time to work out his Bacon number and add that to his Erdos number and get that information into a RS then all of a sudden his work as an extra becomes important enough to make it into the article. As I said every actor who was a research student will have this number. This is purely WP:FANCRUFT. The information itself may be of no importance and the that fact someone has got this meme published doesn't make it any more important. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- You don't need an RfC to make this edit. Do you understand that Tom Porter, Natalie Portman, and Daniel Kleitman are three completely different cases with three completely different contexts? --JBL (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- I know that which is why I did it because it was a WP:SYNTH. This RFC is about the inclusion of a Fancruft meme when simple prose will do. I consider that this meme adds undue weight to information that is not important and just because it's in a RS doesn't make it important. If we are looking for rarety why not include the Erdos Bacon Sabbath number if we can find an RS that talks about it? Dom from Paris (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think a finite E-B number is that common. I've coauthored a few papers, and I don't think I have a finite Erdos number. Similarly, I don't think everybody in film has a finite Bacon number. -- UKoch (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- If you haven't checked how do you know? And as for the Bacon number have a look at this and try an actor. https://oracleofbacon.org/help.php ? Dom from Paris (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, most professional mathematicians have an E and most professional film actors have a B. However very few people are professional at both mathematics and film acting. Few enough that reliable sources note it. Your opinion that it is unworthy to have been mentioned by those sources is just that, your own opinion, and we should go by what the sources say. (I do not think we should add E-B numbers sourced only to publications that let us calculate them, simple though that calculation might be, but when sources explicitly talk about E-B numbers, we can use those sources.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- If you haven't checked how do you know? And as for the Bacon number have a look at this and try an actor. https://oracleofbacon.org/help.php ? Dom from Paris (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think a finite E-B number is that common. I've coauthored a few papers, and I don't think I have a finite Erdos number. Similarly, I don't think everybody in film has a finite Bacon number. -- UKoch (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- I know that which is why I did it because it was a WP:SYNTH. This RFC is about the inclusion of a Fancruft meme when simple prose will do. I consider that this meme adds undue weight to information that is not important and just because it's in a RS doesn't make it important. If we are looking for rarety why not include the Erdos Bacon Sabbath number if we can find an RS that talks about it? Dom from Paris (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- You don't need an RfC to make this edit. Do you understand that Tom Porter, Natalie Portman, and Daniel Kleitman are three completely different cases with three completely different contexts? --JBL (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- My point is that it is not rare. It's a triva meme that adds nothing to the article and brings in non encyclopedic material. Noone would mention in the text that an academic was once an extra in a film when he was a student. But because someone took the time to work out his Bacon number and add that to his Erdos number and get that information into a RS then all of a sudden his work as an extra becomes important enough to make it into the article. As I said every actor who was a research student will have this number. This is purely WP:FANCRUFT. The information itself may be of no importance and the that fact someone has got this meme published doesn't make it any more important. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Lead image for Emilia Clarke article
We need some opinions on the following: Talk:Emilia Clarke#Lead image. A permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Draft for review: Jim Goetz
The current biographical entry for Jim Goetz is pretty bad: too short, too few good sources, etc. I've been hired by Mr. Goetz to improve this page, and have proposed an expanded replacement, carefully following RS guidelines and aiming to cover only encyclopedic details in a neutral manner. Because of my financial COI, however, I will not edit the page directly. Would anyone here be interested to review my suggested version? You can see the full draft here, and the explanation on the article's talk page. Happy to answer any questions over there. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Mark Judge (writer) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Judge (writer) 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/Mark Judge (writer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Dating racers
In creating the Carl Olson page, I had access to the dates of each event, but chose not to include them all, because it seemed like overkill. Is it? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
October 2018 at Women in Red
|
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Draft for review: Alfred Chatterton
I have written an article on my great uncle, Sir Alfred Chatterton (1866-1958) at User:Tango Mike Bravo/Alfred Chatterton. As I have a COI I won't move it to article space myself. I am looking for someone willing to look at my article and if it is suitable to move it to article space, or give me feedback on what needs to be improved. I have followed Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography#Tips for writing biographies in writing the article, except for moving the article to article space, and including a picture. On the talk page are notes on adding a picture, pages that could link to the article, and possible new categories. Happy to discuss anything on the talk page: User_talk:Tango Mike Bravo/Alfred Chatterton . Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)