![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I had some wine with my lunch so I don't much feel like tackling conditional code at the moment :) It needs to be done though. -- kingboyk 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This template seems to produce an extra gap after it (e.g. here) that I can't quite figure out. Kirill Lokshin 04:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
plange 04:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the name of the template. First of all, I'm finding it hard to remember. Secondly, "Bio" could be biology etc etc. I wondered about using Template:Biography but that slot is filled by... well I'm not sure what it is, it seems to be an instructions page rather than a template. -- kingboyk 09:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I've renamed it WPBiography. Existing template instances ought to work, but any I find on bot runs I'll rename. -- kingboyk 18:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have now added usage notes and examples above. However, my second example, which uses all available fields, has automatically placed this talk page in several categories. Does anyone know of a way to avoid category inclusion without removing the example? Thanks. Road Wizard 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
These templates should never be subst'd in real usage, never never never. However, when it comes to examples/demonstrations on Wikipedia: pages substing and editing might be the only way. The alternative is to make the template even more complicated for little return. -- kingboyk 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
{{WPBiography|class=start|importance=low}} doesn't place talk pages in the correct categories, it leaves them in unassessed. We need either to fix this or make the instructions more robust on this point. -- kingboyk 13:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we ought to transclude the "living person" warning text, either by transcluding {{ Blp}} or by having both templates transclude the same boilerplate text. This would allow us to more easily pass on "complaints" (such as I have just received) about the content of that warning direct to the people responsible for the policy.
On the other hand, if my bot run is allowed to complete there might not be any usages of that template left, since I will be replacing any found with our template and living=yes. -- kingboyk 16:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
How do I test that something does not eq something? I'd like to not show the line that asks for comments if it's rated FA, but not sure how to do it... Thanks! plange 02:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm tying to add the importance code to another project template ({{ WPJ}}), but somewhere I'm messing it up. Would someone much more familiar with this code check it out (that template, above) and let me know where the extraneous code is from. The extra bit of code appears outside the project template. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 17:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Have we abandoned using the importance field on this template, or has it just been disabled by accident? If you take a look at the full example above, you will notice that "importance" is used in the example code but that no entry appears in the template. Road Wizard 18:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd personally prefer that all levels of importance are displayed. -- Zanimum 19:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The "Living people biography" box has just disappeared from Talk pages where "Living=Yes" is included in this template. Anyone know why? -- Mais oui! 08:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The amount of space that this template takes up on a talk page is a bit excessive, IMO. Any ideas for how we could reduce it? Personally, I don't think we need the link to the Biography Portal or the Biography to-do list in this template. Kaldari 21:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Can someone change the BLP box when its being transcluded with this template so that it doesn't look as bad? At least change the background and widen it out; the space around the BLP box doesn't look very professional. Hbdragon88 23:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This ought to be removed, and put onto WP:WPBIO or somewhere else, not lurking on every single living person's biography's talkpage. It is:
As far as I can tell, this todo list has only the questionable saving grace of presenting a tasklist in many places, though not in anything approaching a highly visible form, which somewhat (entirely?) reduces its usefulness. Clicking a link to WP:WPBIO is exactly the same number of clicks as clicking 'Show', and has neither of the drawbacks listed above. -- Sam Pointon 23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, add a hide/show dotad to this thing, it's freaking HUGE. -- Ned Scott 14:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
{{ WPBeatles}} is directly transluding {{ Blp}} as indeed this template used to do. Now, I've found that (imho) it looks much tidier if the Blp template is displayed outside the WPBeatles box. See Talk:Dhani Harrison. It looks like two seperate templates but actually the living person warning is coming from WPBeatles. -- kingboyk 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Another innovation in {{ WPBeatles}} is seperate assessment categories based on sub-topic. This gives us thematic worklists at Wikipedia 1.0:
I think the same strategy would be an absolute winner in {{ WPBiography}}. All you would need to do is place the talk pages in the Bio quality/importance categories as before (I think in the case of Biography all articles should appear on the main list), but for those articles belonging to a workgroup place them in additional new articles by quality/articles by importance/articles with comments categories. If you have a mooch about through WPBeatles' categories you'll see what I mean. Set up fake WikiProjects and WikiProject talk pages for each name by redirecting (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/George Harrison articles by quality, Wikipedia:WikiProject George Harrison, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject George Harrison), and a category tree for each (see e.g. Category:George Harrison articles by quality). Let me know if you decide to run with this as I'd need to modify {{ WPBeatles}} and {{ WPKLF}} too. -- kingboyk 14:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
<- (reindent) The job queue can be seen at Special:Statistics and there's a link there to read about it. Meta is the site where all the stuff on Mediawiki can be found. You can even download and install your own copy if you like. (My Linux box has a complete - but now old - Wikipedia running! :)). -- kingboyk 22:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't add importance for work groups for a reason. Importance to the Biography project and importance to a workgroup are quite different.
Consider QE2. Top importance in royalty, surely, but currently considered only High in biography.
Furthermore, some people can belong to more than one workgroup:
The only way you're going to do importance for workgroups in any sane way is to have a seperate importance parameter for each workgroup. I personally don't think it's worth the hassle but if you want to track importance that's what you'll have to do. -- kingboyk 13:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you want me to add the workgroup importance categories to {{ WPBeatles}} and {{ WPKLF}} then? -- kingboyk 18:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Also something I didn't implement for a reason :) At present numbers it's OK, but if I or someone else bot-tags large numbers of articles with workgroup params (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Biography_categories), thus increasing by many thousands the number of unassessed articles in a workgroup, we could find Mathbot on a go-slow again. So, whilst I have no objection to the latest edit (it's good in a way) if we see the numbers increasing much beyond 1,000 we ought to alert Oleg. He can then decide whether to do the workgroups as part of the seperate Biography run. We don't want other projects hating us because we make Mathbot go slow :) -- kingboyk 19:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The Living Persons version of the template says, in part, "Poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately." Does this mean:
-- Calton | Talk 14:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but if all the articles are in one of the sub-categories of Category:Biography articles by quality, is there any need to add them to Category:WikiProject Biography articles directly as well? Kirill Lokshin 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
the picture sould rotate every now and then. I'll kick it off. WP:BB, and change it every week or so. -- Ghetteaux 21:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I see that somebody has protected the template, meaning that only admins can edit it. I think it's a good idea because of the template's exposure, but OTOH non-admins - in particular Plange - have made substantial contributions to it and would be likely to continue doing so. Are any non-admins affected by this change happy to submit their changes via me or another admin or do you want to lobby for unprotection? -- kingboyk 10:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just made some major changes, which in my edit summary I described as being "per talk" - actually, it's per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Change_to_template.
It seemed to be working in my sandbox, but of course paste it in and let it go live and a little bug shows up (fixed now).
If somebody would undertake to clean up, we need the following done (jobs in italics I will do):
-- kingboyk 19:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, have you heard from Oleg? Getting worried that it won't be possible as we haven't had importance/priority appearing in our statistics in awhile... -- plange 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Couple small suggestions to the template - After rating an article, the statement "If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses." Proper grammar would have an comma after "If you rated the article,". Also, I haven't seen many people follow the "comment" recommendation. Perhaps something else may be more appropriate - "If you would like recommendations, see WPBiography criteria, post to xyz talk, or create a peer reveiw". Just a thought.
Also, can we get something in the template that does something when you set the need-infobox=yes. I expect many people would add them if they knew how too. Perhaps something like the {{ Infoboxneeded}} template that links to the infobox list. Perhaps it could be placed in the "show/hide" feature if not on the main. Just a thought... Morphh 21:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Please change Image:Azure-Cross-Or-Heraldry-small.png to Image:Azure-Cross-Or-Heraldry.svg. Silversmith Hewwo 14:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
See the discussion at Image talk:Two young girls at Camp Christmas Seals2.jpg concerning the image used in the "Biography of Living Persons" (BLP) part of the template. I see a comment above that there was a lot of discussion over the use of an image. Was it this image being discussed? Carcharoth 15:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Visually, these ponderous templates tend to overwhelm low-traffic talk pages. I prefer a cleaner look to most talk pages. Will someone be upset with me if I start removing them from pages where they serve little purpose(i.e., articles to which no one is in a hurry to assign "grades")? Perhaps someone can educate me on the purpose of these templates and why they have to be so huge. And no, I'm not volunteering to redesign the templates to look smaller, I'm just asking if I can delete them from some of the articles I edit frequently.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping to continue and maybe finish work on my plugin today, but I got sidetracked by FAC work (an article from WP:KLF got promoted overnight - hooray!! - so I have to prepare the next nomination), and then along came a massive job for the template. Basically, I've incorporated {{ BRoy}} belonging to WikiProject British Royalty who are becoming a child project of the Royalty workgroup. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Royalty#Template_changed_to_support_the_British_Royalty_child_project for some example template instances.
New parameters:
-- kingboyk 16:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
All fixed, I hope and trust. -- kingboyk 18:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like the changes to the Royalty. How come the Royalty WG was removed? Why should the BR workgroup have a big banner of its own? I think it should look like the other workgroups. Seems to have two rating boxes as well. Morphh 15:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Visual output removed due to auto-category effects // D B D 21:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
{{WPBiography|politician-work-group=yes|british-royalty=yes|needs-infobox=yes|attention=yes}}
It all still works. The only thing missing is the portal box, which could be added if need be. -- kingboyk 17:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the workgroup parameter names are unneccesarily lengthy. Shorter is always better, for editors to remember and to minimise tranclusion size.
|a&e-work-group= |politician-work-group= |british-royalty= |royalty-work-group= |military-work-group=
could have been...
|arts= |politics= |british-royalty= |royalty= |military=
I don't know whether we should rename and retag existing instances or not, but I'd certainly recommend more concise names for any new parameters. -- kingboyk 16:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This priority tag is pure POV. Actors/Actresses etc are rated as low, this is pure POV, those interested in that sot of thing may rate them higher such as medium importance, yet Queen Elisabeth is ranked top priority, i may think she is low priority.
See how it is POV, if there are no objections i will remove this in a few days. thanks/ Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you change the parameter for infobox to "infobox=" instead of "needs-infobox="? Simple=easier to remember/figure out=better. -- Tim4christ17 talk 23:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Why did we remove the image of the two girls from the living persons banner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphh ( talk • contribs)
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I had some wine with my lunch so I don't much feel like tackling conditional code at the moment :) It needs to be done though. -- kingboyk 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This template seems to produce an extra gap after it (e.g. here) that I can't quite figure out. Kirill Lokshin 04:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
plange 04:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the name of the template. First of all, I'm finding it hard to remember. Secondly, "Bio" could be biology etc etc. I wondered about using Template:Biography but that slot is filled by... well I'm not sure what it is, it seems to be an instructions page rather than a template. -- kingboyk 09:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I've renamed it WPBiography. Existing template instances ought to work, but any I find on bot runs I'll rename. -- kingboyk 18:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have now added usage notes and examples above. However, my second example, which uses all available fields, has automatically placed this talk page in several categories. Does anyone know of a way to avoid category inclusion without removing the example? Thanks. Road Wizard 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
These templates should never be subst'd in real usage, never never never. However, when it comes to examples/demonstrations on Wikipedia: pages substing and editing might be the only way. The alternative is to make the template even more complicated for little return. -- kingboyk 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
{{WPBiography|class=start|importance=low}} doesn't place talk pages in the correct categories, it leaves them in unassessed. We need either to fix this or make the instructions more robust on this point. -- kingboyk 13:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we ought to transclude the "living person" warning text, either by transcluding {{ Blp}} or by having both templates transclude the same boilerplate text. This would allow us to more easily pass on "complaints" (such as I have just received) about the content of that warning direct to the people responsible for the policy.
On the other hand, if my bot run is allowed to complete there might not be any usages of that template left, since I will be replacing any found with our template and living=yes. -- kingboyk 16:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
How do I test that something does not eq something? I'd like to not show the line that asks for comments if it's rated FA, but not sure how to do it... Thanks! plange 02:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm tying to add the importance code to another project template ({{ WPJ}}), but somewhere I'm messing it up. Would someone much more familiar with this code check it out (that template, above) and let me know where the extraneous code is from. The extra bit of code appears outside the project template. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 17:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Have we abandoned using the importance field on this template, or has it just been disabled by accident? If you take a look at the full example above, you will notice that "importance" is used in the example code but that no entry appears in the template. Road Wizard 18:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd personally prefer that all levels of importance are displayed. -- Zanimum 19:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The "Living people biography" box has just disappeared from Talk pages where "Living=Yes" is included in this template. Anyone know why? -- Mais oui! 08:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The amount of space that this template takes up on a talk page is a bit excessive, IMO. Any ideas for how we could reduce it? Personally, I don't think we need the link to the Biography Portal or the Biography to-do list in this template. Kaldari 21:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Can someone change the BLP box when its being transcluded with this template so that it doesn't look as bad? At least change the background and widen it out; the space around the BLP box doesn't look very professional. Hbdragon88 23:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This ought to be removed, and put onto WP:WPBIO or somewhere else, not lurking on every single living person's biography's talkpage. It is:
As far as I can tell, this todo list has only the questionable saving grace of presenting a tasklist in many places, though not in anything approaching a highly visible form, which somewhat (entirely?) reduces its usefulness. Clicking a link to WP:WPBIO is exactly the same number of clicks as clicking 'Show', and has neither of the drawbacks listed above. -- Sam Pointon 23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, add a hide/show dotad to this thing, it's freaking HUGE. -- Ned Scott 14:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
{{ WPBeatles}} is directly transluding {{ Blp}} as indeed this template used to do. Now, I've found that (imho) it looks much tidier if the Blp template is displayed outside the WPBeatles box. See Talk:Dhani Harrison. It looks like two seperate templates but actually the living person warning is coming from WPBeatles. -- kingboyk 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Another innovation in {{ WPBeatles}} is seperate assessment categories based on sub-topic. This gives us thematic worklists at Wikipedia 1.0:
I think the same strategy would be an absolute winner in {{ WPBiography}}. All you would need to do is place the talk pages in the Bio quality/importance categories as before (I think in the case of Biography all articles should appear on the main list), but for those articles belonging to a workgroup place them in additional new articles by quality/articles by importance/articles with comments categories. If you have a mooch about through WPBeatles' categories you'll see what I mean. Set up fake WikiProjects and WikiProject talk pages for each name by redirecting (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/George Harrison articles by quality, Wikipedia:WikiProject George Harrison, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject George Harrison), and a category tree for each (see e.g. Category:George Harrison articles by quality). Let me know if you decide to run with this as I'd need to modify {{ WPBeatles}} and {{ WPKLF}} too. -- kingboyk 14:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
<- (reindent) The job queue can be seen at Special:Statistics and there's a link there to read about it. Meta is the site where all the stuff on Mediawiki can be found. You can even download and install your own copy if you like. (My Linux box has a complete - but now old - Wikipedia running! :)). -- kingboyk 22:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't add importance for work groups for a reason. Importance to the Biography project and importance to a workgroup are quite different.
Consider QE2. Top importance in royalty, surely, but currently considered only High in biography.
Furthermore, some people can belong to more than one workgroup:
The only way you're going to do importance for workgroups in any sane way is to have a seperate importance parameter for each workgroup. I personally don't think it's worth the hassle but if you want to track importance that's what you'll have to do. -- kingboyk 13:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you want me to add the workgroup importance categories to {{ WPBeatles}} and {{ WPKLF}} then? -- kingboyk 18:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Also something I didn't implement for a reason :) At present numbers it's OK, but if I or someone else bot-tags large numbers of articles with workgroup params (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Biography_categories), thus increasing by many thousands the number of unassessed articles in a workgroup, we could find Mathbot on a go-slow again. So, whilst I have no objection to the latest edit (it's good in a way) if we see the numbers increasing much beyond 1,000 we ought to alert Oleg. He can then decide whether to do the workgroups as part of the seperate Biography run. We don't want other projects hating us because we make Mathbot go slow :) -- kingboyk 19:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The Living Persons version of the template says, in part, "Poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately." Does this mean:
-- Calton | Talk 14:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but if all the articles are in one of the sub-categories of Category:Biography articles by quality, is there any need to add them to Category:WikiProject Biography articles directly as well? Kirill Lokshin 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
the picture sould rotate every now and then. I'll kick it off. WP:BB, and change it every week or so. -- Ghetteaux 21:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I see that somebody has protected the template, meaning that only admins can edit it. I think it's a good idea because of the template's exposure, but OTOH non-admins - in particular Plange - have made substantial contributions to it and would be likely to continue doing so. Are any non-admins affected by this change happy to submit their changes via me or another admin or do you want to lobby for unprotection? -- kingboyk 10:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just made some major changes, which in my edit summary I described as being "per talk" - actually, it's per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Change_to_template.
It seemed to be working in my sandbox, but of course paste it in and let it go live and a little bug shows up (fixed now).
If somebody would undertake to clean up, we need the following done (jobs in italics I will do):
-- kingboyk 19:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, have you heard from Oleg? Getting worried that it won't be possible as we haven't had importance/priority appearing in our statistics in awhile... -- plange 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Couple small suggestions to the template - After rating an article, the statement "If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses." Proper grammar would have an comma after "If you rated the article,". Also, I haven't seen many people follow the "comment" recommendation. Perhaps something else may be more appropriate - "If you would like recommendations, see WPBiography criteria, post to xyz talk, or create a peer reveiw". Just a thought.
Also, can we get something in the template that does something when you set the need-infobox=yes. I expect many people would add them if they knew how too. Perhaps something like the {{ Infoboxneeded}} template that links to the infobox list. Perhaps it could be placed in the "show/hide" feature if not on the main. Just a thought... Morphh 21:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Please change Image:Azure-Cross-Or-Heraldry-small.png to Image:Azure-Cross-Or-Heraldry.svg. Silversmith Hewwo 14:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
See the discussion at Image talk:Two young girls at Camp Christmas Seals2.jpg concerning the image used in the "Biography of Living Persons" (BLP) part of the template. I see a comment above that there was a lot of discussion over the use of an image. Was it this image being discussed? Carcharoth 15:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Visually, these ponderous templates tend to overwhelm low-traffic talk pages. I prefer a cleaner look to most talk pages. Will someone be upset with me if I start removing them from pages where they serve little purpose(i.e., articles to which no one is in a hurry to assign "grades")? Perhaps someone can educate me on the purpose of these templates and why they have to be so huge. And no, I'm not volunteering to redesign the templates to look smaller, I'm just asking if I can delete them from some of the articles I edit frequently.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping to continue and maybe finish work on my plugin today, but I got sidetracked by FAC work (an article from WP:KLF got promoted overnight - hooray!! - so I have to prepare the next nomination), and then along came a massive job for the template. Basically, I've incorporated {{ BRoy}} belonging to WikiProject British Royalty who are becoming a child project of the Royalty workgroup. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Royalty#Template_changed_to_support_the_British_Royalty_child_project for some example template instances.
New parameters:
-- kingboyk 16:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
All fixed, I hope and trust. -- kingboyk 18:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like the changes to the Royalty. How come the Royalty WG was removed? Why should the BR workgroup have a big banner of its own? I think it should look like the other workgroups. Seems to have two rating boxes as well. Morphh 15:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Visual output removed due to auto-category effects // D B D 21:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
{{WPBiography|politician-work-group=yes|british-royalty=yes|needs-infobox=yes|attention=yes}}
It all still works. The only thing missing is the portal box, which could be added if need be. -- kingboyk 17:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the workgroup parameter names are unneccesarily lengthy. Shorter is always better, for editors to remember and to minimise tranclusion size.
|a&e-work-group= |politician-work-group= |british-royalty= |royalty-work-group= |military-work-group=
could have been...
|arts= |politics= |british-royalty= |royalty= |military=
I don't know whether we should rename and retag existing instances or not, but I'd certainly recommend more concise names for any new parameters. -- kingboyk 16:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This priority tag is pure POV. Actors/Actresses etc are rated as low, this is pure POV, those interested in that sot of thing may rate them higher such as medium importance, yet Queen Elisabeth is ranked top priority, i may think she is low priority.
See how it is POV, if there are no objections i will remove this in a few days. thanks/ Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you change the parameter for infobox to "infobox=" instead of "needs-infobox="? Simple=easier to remember/figure out=better. -- Tim4christ17 talk 23:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Why did we remove the image of the two girls from the living persons banner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphh ( talk • contribs)