![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
No offense to anyone, but... the activepol box is ugly. Why isn't this in a separate box like everything else? -- Random832 04:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Danski14 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, that's done:
{{WPBiography|activepol=yes|living=yes|class=NA}} {{WPBiography|activepol=yes|living=yes|class=NA}} {{WPBiography|activepol=yes|class=NA}} {{WPBiography|activepol=yes|class=NA}}
I'll do the new workgroup next, but as I'm getting tired I can't guarantee it will be finished tonight. -- kingboyk 00:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to do a bot run deprecating most of the {{ Activepolitician}} templates, but so far they've all got a parameter describing why the page is tagged. Please see Template_talk:Activepolitician#Bot_run. Thoughts? -- kingboyk 17:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I would think that an active politician would have to be alive, so the case where activepol is selected but living is not selected does not make sense to me. - cgilbert( talk| contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This diff shows my plugin changing a {{ reqphoto}} to a WPBio param, a {{ Activepolitician}} to a WPBio param, converting an old importance= to priority=, and adding a listas=. I think it's pretty cool to find all 4 in one edit :) -- kingboyk 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to integrate WikiProject Porn stars with the WPBiography template. In order to achieve that, a "pornstar-work-group" parameter that performs similarly to British-royalty and musician-work-group sounds like a good idea. Discuss. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 05:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Please can baronets be included as royalty-work-group. - Kittybrewster 10:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The following is from the Baronet page "A baronetcy is unique in two ways:
Consensus seems to be that we add it. We also need to add a param for the porn stars group. Is anyone offering to do it? -- kingboyk 16:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I need more information from the requesting WikiProject before implementing this. I've also proposed that the entire peerage group should become a child project of WPBIO, necessitating two new parameters. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#.7B.7BWPBiography.7D.7D. -- kingboyk 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The old image used, Image:Crystal personal.png, hsa been replaced by Image:Crystal personal.svg, both on the commons. Is it possible to get the template to reflect this switch?-- Vox Rationis ( Talk | contribs) 15:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Arts and Entertainment is very wide in scope and includes Actors • Architects • Artists • Illustrators • Painters • Photographers • Sculptors • Comic artists • Comedians • Dancers • Directors • Musicians • Poets • Writers and critics. Musicians have their own WPBiography parameter. I have been troubled WPBiography tagging articles as part of Arts and Entertainment when I could have easily tagged them as a painter, photographer, dancer, director, actor, etc. At present, people interested in poets have to comb through the Arts and Entertainment tagged articles to find the poet articles. This may have been addressed before, but U think it a good idea to increase WPBiography with a parameter for each of Actors • Architects • Artists • Illustrators • Painters • Photographers • Sculptors • Comic artists • Comedians • Dancers • Directors • Poets • Writers and critics. This way, everyone who is interested in poets, for example, would know about all poet articles tagged via WPBiography. Please post your thoughts below. -- Jreferee 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment If allowed to seperate WikiProject Film Biography covering actors and directors etc it would have large following like films. I'd imagine it would use the Biogrpahy banner with the film bio insertion into it e.g {filmbio|director=yes|class=start|importance=high} or {filmbio|editor=yes|class=stub|importance=low etc. I feel it is important to find a project that unites all characters associated with cinema. THis would be major project if seperated as the Arts and Entertainment is FAR! too broad and needs to split into areas of more specific concentration. However the template would naturally put it in the broader arts and entertainment/bio categories as a whole ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 13:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't create redirects to this template without telling me about it. This is very important: my plugin needs to know what names it may encounter {{ WPBiography}} under; the result - if there are alternative names it doesn't know about - is double tagging like this. Given that my bot can process thousands of pages a day, and other folks might be using it too, the end result could be one hell of a mess. -- kingboyk 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to renew Kingboyk's call for deprecating the "listas=" parmeter. DEFAULTSORT already does this job, and is part of the software now. Doing the same thing with template code is a waste of time for both users and the servers. See Talk:Vilmos Foldes for an example. Note that DEFAULTSORT goes at the top, so both the WP:CUE and WP:BIO talk page headers inherit its value. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that [ Needs-Persondata = yes / no ] be included in the WP:Biography template. -- Camptown 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Kingboyk. -- kingboyk 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Please can WPBiography include a tag needs-succession-box=yes as needs-infobox. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added a "Deceased persons" option to my plugin, so that when tagging dead people categories we can ensure there are no stray living=yes tags.
What I want feedback on is whether I should be just removing living=yes, or whether all dead people will get an explicit living=no. The benefits and drawbacks to writing living=no as I see it:
Great, thanks. living=no it is then. I'm also turning off listas= generation in bot mode, as I've been getting too many complaints about mis-sorted Asian names and so on. -- kingboyk 11:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose another point in favour of living=no is that we could if we ever wanted use living=no to create a category containing dead people (whereas living=<null> or living= not present would be excluded). -- kingboyk 14:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A question/comment if I may. I brought this up before ( Template talk:WPBiography/Archive 2#free-image stipulation), and I'll ask again here in case anybody can help. Can we adjust the template so that needs-photo=yes is subjective based upon living=yes/no?
If yes and yes, then use {{ reqfreephoto}} (with respect to WP:FUC#1), but if yes and no use the more genericized {{ reqphoto}}.
— pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} There seems to be a problem with the template. See below. - miketm - 03:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC) {{WPBiography|class=NA|living=yes|small=yes}}
{{
editprotected}}
Please add an actors and filmmakers workgroup to the template for the new
child project setup for film-related biographies. Our project image is
. --
PhantomS 19:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this was intentional but the recent edits to the WPBiography banner have picked up at least one strange behavior, when the musician-work-group flag is selected, both musician-work-group and a&e workgroup appear in the banner despite the a&e workgroup flag not being selected. - cgilbert( talk| contribs) 04:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
There are some artists who have acted in films and also have worked in other a&e media, but I can't seem to get filmbio-work-group=yes|a&e-work-group=yes to behave as expected. I would expect both to be visible; instead only the first-listed is visible. Listing other combinations of two workgroups is possible, e.g. s&a-work-group=yes|military-work-group=yes does the right thing. Are my expectations wrong for the filmbio-work-group=yes|a&e-work-group=yes combination? ( sdsds - talk) 04:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Please_complete_comments_section_of_evaluation -- kingboyk 11:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Until now, I've always had my bot put the template parameters onto seperate lines. I think it looks neater. However, 2 people have asked me to put it all the same line. I'm therefore inviting opinions. Please note I will only change if there's clear consensus; if folks aren't too bothered I may as well do it the way I like it ;)
Possible solutions:
Example of a fairly large template call from Talk:Napoleon I of France:
{{WPBiography |living=no |class=B |priority=Top |core=yes |politician-work-group=yes |military-work-group=yes }}
{{WPBiography|living=no|class=B|priority=Top|core=yes|politician-work-group=yes|military-work-group=yes}}
-- kingboyk 14:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If the british-royalty parameter is set to yes, the template does not add the article to the relevant biography categories. This seems odd to me, as it is the only work-group that exhibits this behaviour. I propose adding the relevant biography categories for british royalty biographies. Er rab ee 15:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
What's happened to the template? The background color doesn't look right (used to be blue) and the text "style="background: #E5E5FF; border: 1px solid #8888AA;" is showing on some of the talk pages (evidently displaced from the template). DrKiernan 13:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Please put <small>...</small> or CSS equivalent around the "If you rated..." passage, to slightly reduce the amount of talk page real estate consumed by this template.
I suggest we make the following change. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me. Anybody else care to comment? -- kingboyk 22:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The (unnecessarily longwinded) output of needs-photo=yes appears cites WP:NFCC. This sub-template reads, in part, 'Note: Wikipedia's fair use policy almost never permits the use of "fair use" images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like.' I've just read NFCC from top to bottom and there is no verbiage at that policy which appears to support this assertion. Rather, there is such material at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. So:
— SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, {{
WPBiography}} already takes up far, far too much room in its typical fully-specified application. I would suggest removing that entire chunk of code and replacing it with a simple transclusion of {{
Reqphoto}} if the needs-photo=yes condition is met. If there is a consensus that {{
Reqphoto}} needs policy warnings, then that template should be modified to include them, and cite by #id precisely what in NFCC pertains to what the template is warning about. (No editprotected req.; just a proposal for discussion on this issue.)
—
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont ‹(-¿-)› 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
<-- Adding the fair use blurb wasn't my idea so I can't be expected to defend it :) Using reqphoto would lose our special categories for photo needed, and it would add some 350,000 transclusion links to the reqphoto template.
What we do with BLP is transclude some boilerplate text that {{ blp}} also transcludes. If what you're getting it as that both templates - WPBio and reqphoto - need to have the same text message, we could do that.
Otherwise, if the text needs to be trimmed feel free. It was even more verbose before I took a knife to it. -- kingboyk 11:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
In the interim, the bloat of {{ WPBiography}} can be slightly reduced by making the policy note smaller in font-size.
<small>...</small>
or CSS equivalent if preferred, to the policy note in the same needs-photo subtemplate.— SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If both "needs-photo=yes" and "sports-work-group=yes" are included then the page gets put into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople and also Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people. As the first category is already a subcategory of the second, it seems to me that inclusion in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people is unnecessary. For an example of what I mean, see Talk:Alan Dennison.
As this page is fully protected seemingly permanently, it needs one of the standard templates that says so. Don't care which, even the small lock icon version would be fine. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please change the use of image Image:Nuvola apps kcontrol.png to Image:Icon tools.png. Thanks. Siebrand 19:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Done --
kingboyk 20:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add something like Category:Biographical articles to this template, and thus produce a category that allows people to browse all the biographical articles? This would be a big load on the servers, as the warning says, so this would need to be discussed here first. Carcharoth 01:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant. 376,274 is the number I was looking for. Now, is there any way of making that list of 376,274 articles available? The advantage of a category is that people can use {{ largeCategoryTOC}} to go to the point they want to start browsing from. You can't do that with the "what links here" list. Have a look at Category:Unassessed biography articles for that TOC system in operation. I think creating a super-category to contain all biographical articles (just like the proposal I saw for Category:Wikipedia articles), is the way to go. That would go a large step towards replacing LoPbN, at least once pipe-sorting is applied uniformly, or the DEFAULTSORT magic key used uniformly. Carcharoth 23:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Is no-one interested in this? Have a look at the revised proposal at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name#Proposed solution and the new discussion there. Also, see the test compact index for living people I've created at User:Carcharoth/List of living people compact index. That is identical to the URLs used by {{ largeCategoryTOC}}, but using the same layout as at Template:List of people by name compact page-index. I would like to do the same for all biographical articles, but at the moment there is no super-category for that. What is the best way to get approval for a bot to populate and maintain such a category? Carcharoth 23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the phrase, "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." is longer than it needs to be. First it says that controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, then adds especially if potentially libelous. It already must be removed according to the lead clause. Can we shorten this sentence? Sancho 21:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
""Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced, poorly sourced, must be removed immediately." Take special care with potentially libelous material" DGG 18:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I've started working with WikiProjectBannerShell, and have noticed that WPBiography template has a small error in its implementation of nesting. In the 16th line, instead of
! colspan="2"
it should say
! colspan="3"
(rest of the line should remain unchanged, I have quoted only the start of the line)
As noted on Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell, templates that have a {{ Portal}} need its colspan increased to 3. Example: Talk:Hitoshi Doi
Shinhan 15:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
{{ editprotected}}
Im sorry for requesting the same fix for the third time. CBM introduced this fix in revision 139246148, BUT then he undid this fix with his next edit in revision 139914083. Im not calling for undoing of everything CBM did, just for reintroducing the fix he undid (colspan=3). CBM is away for the next 2 weeks so I cant ask him... — Shinhan < talk > 14:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
There are now at least three proposed changes above. If needed, should they all be implemented in one edit to avoiding flooding the job queue? Carcharoth 11:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've benn analizing this and noticed is the most implemented here, I have been improving template:PeruProjectBanner (without work-groups boxes) but I think we need some advice, wonder if could help me. There's an issue I wanna clarify about the importance box, should it be shown allways, or only if the importance is specified with a value; and things like that. thanks -- Andersmusician $ 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I've noticed that when nesting, the message about this being an article about a living person is also hidden. Is that what you want?
-- TimNelson 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ WPBiography}} needs more conditional code, to nest the photo/infobox sub-banners when nested=yes, or it renders {{ WikiProjectBannerShell}} pretty much useless. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if the Actors and Filmmakers WikiProject could be changed from " Image:Fratelli Lumiere.jpg" to " Image:Applications-multimedia.svg". The Luminere photo is rather difficult to make out at such a small size whereas the cartoon clapperboard will work. Discussion on which image to use died out on the project's talk page some months ago—I forgot about it too—so I'm defaulting to my suggestion. Thanks, Doctor Sunshine talk 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
They're currently under unassessed articles when assessed as "list". Could a list category be added in to the template so we don't have this problem?-- Wizardman 01:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
A number of editors have been using scripts to automatically add the "listas" component to talk pages, and are consistently getting Asian names wrong. I recognize that this is the action of the script and not of the editor acting directly, but please please please take some care with this. This has, as far as I am aware, only become a problem within the last few weeks, but as more and more articles are automatically tagged in this manner, the problem becomes larger and larger. Something has to be done to cut it off. Please. LordAmeth 05:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Why does the template ask people to make comments at /Comments (eg Talk:Edward Connellan/Comments) rather than on the talk page? I have seen a few anon. and new users get confused and ask questions on the /Comments page, I always wondered where they got the idea not to use the normal talk page.-- Commander Keane 19:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Here is where it is being worked on: User:The Psychless/WPBiography
And what it will look like... {{User:The Psychless/WPBiography|class=Start|politician-work-group=yes}}
The changes: 1. The [FAQ] link has been changed to a small [FAQ] link
2. Comments, I really think it's unnecessary for the template to ask for comments. Not only does it confuse people, thinking we should be leaving comments on every assessment we do, it makes the template look messy when there aren't any. It's also pointless for a complete page for comments.
Cleaning up all the /Comments pages... Someone (not me, I have no scripting skills) will need to make a bot that generates a list of all the /Comments pages, then create a new section in their respective main talk page titled: Biography Assessment Comments. The bot puts the comments in that section, then blanks the /Comments page. Somehow we'll figure something out with MfD and we can get all those pages deleted. Please comment on this and I'll try to address your concerns as well as I possibly can. Also, if we can reach consensus on this an administrator needs to make the change for me. -- Psychless Type words! 04:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
{{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments|[[Category:Whatever]]}}
. Then, all a bot would have to do is look in the category and move the comments to the main talk page. Once the comments are moved, the bot could speedy-tag the articles (
WP:CSD#G6) and admins could quickly delete them. You'll just need to give admins a heads-up before flooding
CAT:CSD. Cheers. --
MZMcBride 00:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) There's a problem with having a bot tackle this task based on Category:Biography articles with comments, and it may be that this task should not be tackled at all. As Carcharoth noted, other WikiProjects use Comments subpages, as does the WikiProject 1.0 Editorial Team. For more information, please see WP:BOTREQ#WikiProject Biography Comment Moving.
Thanks! — Madman bum and angel ( talk – desk) 04:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
As noted above and elsewhere, there have been problems with this. Please, revert back to the status quo and wait a bit longer (say, a week) for more input to the disucssion before going ahead with this. What is needed now is to repopulate the category of pages with comments, and find out how many biographical articles have comments - if it is too many to copy by hand, another solution may be needed. I would suggest finding the people who originally implemented the comments subpage system and talk to them about it. Carcharoth 10:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
And again, it is the scale thing at work. WPBiography are trying to do a "quick and dirty" assessment of tens of thousands of articles. That may, ultimately, be a waste of time, as more careful assessment, though it takes longer, is probably more productive, and needs to be done later in any case. To take an example, say a mathematician's article gets hastily assessed as start by WPBiography, and then not looked at for a year or so. During that time, a member of WikiProject Mathematics comes along and carefully assesses the article, adds comments, others come to work on the article, and the article is improved to B-class, and eventually, another year later, reaches FA-class. What did the WPBiography's assessment as start contribute to that process? Carcharoth 12:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, we won't deprecate the /Comments page. I still don't think the template should ask for comments. My idea is to transclude the comments into the show/hide More information bar section. I would like the comments to look like they do in Template:WP1.0. For an example of the More information bar thing see here. I've been trying all morning to get the template to work but it just won't. I have very little experience in templates, so it would be greatly appreciated if someone with more experience could get it to work. I think it's fine to leave comments but the template shouldn't ask for them. It would be ideal if all of our articles have comments, but realistically, it isn't going to happen. -- Psy c h less 17:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Apologies in coming to this discussion late, but I, for one, find myself irritated that I can no longer readily get at the 'Comments' subpage. Apparently, I've been among what seems a distinct minority of editors who actually used the comments link on the few biographies to which I've contributed. I argue that there is an advantage in having a distinct area to comment on the editorial issues of a biography, a place that doesn't get lost in the noise of some (not all) biography talk pages. These are the sorts of comment pages I've been maintaining on the few articles I've taken under wing, both for my own and other editors' benefit:
It's the sort of activity I would encourage other editors to do, and now I am a bit chargined that the mechanism to do so has been compromised. I am also chargined by the cavalier implementation of this scheme. How is it, when we place so much emphasis on verification in the main space, that we throw the standard by the wayside in maintenence spaces? By what means has it been established that links to comments confuses people? Who has measured the extent of this confusion? Where are the results published? I feel I had a pretty good understanding of what comment links were for the first time I saw the facility in this template and never felt any confusion whatsoever. Insofar as taking too much time, is concerned, the last time I checked, I'm not being paid for contributions I make to Wikipedia, so nobody can set deadlines and expect me to adhere to them. Therefore, I can take all the time I need for full exercise of editorial craft. This includes using specialized facilities to note structural deficiencies in biographies, write links to promising reference materials and the like. Facilities such as these /Comments pages do suffer from a Catch-22 problem, I think: they are not useful if they are not used, and they won't be used until useful. I prefer the WikiGnome approach of using the facility whenever I can, thereby eroding this vicious circle a little at a time, rather than seeing the facility unceremoniously pulled. I agree with Geometry guy that the reasoning behind this proposal is specious. I feel that the case for /Comments pages raised by SMcCandlish in Why the /Comments place? have not been adequately addressed by the proponents of this change. I object that this discussion was not first aired at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography so that it could have been seen by a wider group of people. Please revert and do not proceed again until there are in the offing more compelling arguments than they take too much time or people are really confused. Diligent editors take whatever time is necessary to communicate with colleagues using every available channel at their disposal, and I fail to see any evidence of confusion paralyzing the Wikipedia community. Take care — Gosgood 01:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
(Unindent) There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The original proposal did involve removing links to /Comments and even deprecating /Comments (!!), and there was an unacceptably hasty attempt to begin to implement it. However several editors (including myself) vigorously objected to this idea, citing exactly the kinds of reasons that you list above, and the plans have been radically altered. Furthermore, the group appears to have learnt a lesson in patience and is proceeding more slowly with the consultation and possible implementation.
If you check out the proposed template at User_talk:The_Psychless/WPBiography, you will see that it does link to the /Comments page. So, in fact most of your concerns (which I share) have been accommodated already. The main difference is that the link is in a show/hide box. Since comments can be rather long, and can be transcluded into several project banners, the use of a show/hide box seems sensible to me. Indeed, as a result of this discussion, I have implemented the same idea at the {{ maths rating}} template.
There is another proposed change which I believe has generated the confusions: The Psychless and others do not want the template to instruct editors to add comments. You may disagree with them, and so do I, at least in part: the maths rating template invites the addition of comments if there are none, and asks editors to update the comments if there are some. However, this is a relatively minor point, and the current proposal seems to be a reasonable compromise to me. Geometry guy 17:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: I guess I should link to the maths rating template in action, lest anyone get the wrong impression from the template page. For an example of an article with comments, see Talk:Subset. For an article without comments, see Talk:Power set. Geometry guy 17:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've changed my version of the template again. Gosgood, please take a look at it here and decide if this a sufficient compromise. Psych less 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
/Comments is part of the Wikipedia 1.0 assessments scheme and their bot. Please don't go changing it without at least understanding that and any consequences. That said, if it's not working you're entitled to ditch it! -- kingboyk 16:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Whoever would like to flood the job queue over grammar, ;), can change on the basis of to regarding. Thanks for compromising Gosgood. Regards, Psych less 18:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
There are currently over 500 articles in the main namespace that link to Template:Infobox Astronaut. A WPBiography banner makes sense for all of these, as does a WPSpace banner linking to WikiProject Space exploration. Could the two be combined, e.g. with a "space-work-group" switch to WPBiography? Or does it make more sense to just go ahead and have double banners on them all? ( sdsds - talk) 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
As I understood it, astronaut bios were being dealt with by Wikipedia:WikiProject Space travellers. Maybe astronaut bios should have their banner instead, and the project be slaved to both WP Human spaceflight and WP Biography? Colds7ream 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Go here to see how it will look when there are comments: User_talk:The_Psychless/WPBiography.
Here's how it will look normally, well with a class of NA: {{User:The_Psychless/WPBiography|class=NA}}
Now I'll let everyone discuss it for a while before asking an administrator to make the change.. -- Psych less 20:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
"Let everyone discuss it for a while." I wonder where that came from... :-) Looks good to me. Carcharoth 17:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} -- Psych less 18:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
No offense to anyone, but... the activepol box is ugly. Why isn't this in a separate box like everything else? -- Random832 04:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Danski14 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, that's done:
{{WPBiography|activepol=yes|living=yes|class=NA}} {{WPBiography|activepol=yes|living=yes|class=NA}} {{WPBiography|activepol=yes|class=NA}} {{WPBiography|activepol=yes|class=NA}}
I'll do the new workgroup next, but as I'm getting tired I can't guarantee it will be finished tonight. -- kingboyk 00:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to do a bot run deprecating most of the {{ Activepolitician}} templates, but so far they've all got a parameter describing why the page is tagged. Please see Template_talk:Activepolitician#Bot_run. Thoughts? -- kingboyk 17:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I would think that an active politician would have to be alive, so the case where activepol is selected but living is not selected does not make sense to me. - cgilbert( talk| contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This diff shows my plugin changing a {{ reqphoto}} to a WPBio param, a {{ Activepolitician}} to a WPBio param, converting an old importance= to priority=, and adding a listas=. I think it's pretty cool to find all 4 in one edit :) -- kingboyk 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to integrate WikiProject Porn stars with the WPBiography template. In order to achieve that, a "pornstar-work-group" parameter that performs similarly to British-royalty and musician-work-group sounds like a good idea. Discuss. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 05:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Please can baronets be included as royalty-work-group. - Kittybrewster 10:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The following is from the Baronet page "A baronetcy is unique in two ways:
Consensus seems to be that we add it. We also need to add a param for the porn stars group. Is anyone offering to do it? -- kingboyk 16:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I need more information from the requesting WikiProject before implementing this. I've also proposed that the entire peerage group should become a child project of WPBIO, necessitating two new parameters. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#.7B.7BWPBiography.7D.7D. -- kingboyk 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The old image used, Image:Crystal personal.png, hsa been replaced by Image:Crystal personal.svg, both on the commons. Is it possible to get the template to reflect this switch?-- Vox Rationis ( Talk | contribs) 15:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Arts and Entertainment is very wide in scope and includes Actors • Architects • Artists • Illustrators • Painters • Photographers • Sculptors • Comic artists • Comedians • Dancers • Directors • Musicians • Poets • Writers and critics. Musicians have their own WPBiography parameter. I have been troubled WPBiography tagging articles as part of Arts and Entertainment when I could have easily tagged them as a painter, photographer, dancer, director, actor, etc. At present, people interested in poets have to comb through the Arts and Entertainment tagged articles to find the poet articles. This may have been addressed before, but U think it a good idea to increase WPBiography with a parameter for each of Actors • Architects • Artists • Illustrators • Painters • Photographers • Sculptors • Comic artists • Comedians • Dancers • Directors • Poets • Writers and critics. This way, everyone who is interested in poets, for example, would know about all poet articles tagged via WPBiography. Please post your thoughts below. -- Jreferee 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment If allowed to seperate WikiProject Film Biography covering actors and directors etc it would have large following like films. I'd imagine it would use the Biogrpahy banner with the film bio insertion into it e.g {filmbio|director=yes|class=start|importance=high} or {filmbio|editor=yes|class=stub|importance=low etc. I feel it is important to find a project that unites all characters associated with cinema. THis would be major project if seperated as the Arts and Entertainment is FAR! too broad and needs to split into areas of more specific concentration. However the template would naturally put it in the broader arts and entertainment/bio categories as a whole ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 13:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't create redirects to this template without telling me about it. This is very important: my plugin needs to know what names it may encounter {{ WPBiography}} under; the result - if there are alternative names it doesn't know about - is double tagging like this. Given that my bot can process thousands of pages a day, and other folks might be using it too, the end result could be one hell of a mess. -- kingboyk 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to renew Kingboyk's call for deprecating the "listas=" parmeter. DEFAULTSORT already does this job, and is part of the software now. Doing the same thing with template code is a waste of time for both users and the servers. See Talk:Vilmos Foldes for an example. Note that DEFAULTSORT goes at the top, so both the WP:CUE and WP:BIO talk page headers inherit its value. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that [ Needs-Persondata = yes / no ] be included in the WP:Biography template. -- Camptown 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Kingboyk. -- kingboyk 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Please can WPBiography include a tag needs-succession-box=yes as needs-infobox. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added a "Deceased persons" option to my plugin, so that when tagging dead people categories we can ensure there are no stray living=yes tags.
What I want feedback on is whether I should be just removing living=yes, or whether all dead people will get an explicit living=no. The benefits and drawbacks to writing living=no as I see it:
Great, thanks. living=no it is then. I'm also turning off listas= generation in bot mode, as I've been getting too many complaints about mis-sorted Asian names and so on. -- kingboyk 11:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose another point in favour of living=no is that we could if we ever wanted use living=no to create a category containing dead people (whereas living=<null> or living= not present would be excluded). -- kingboyk 14:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A question/comment if I may. I brought this up before ( Template talk:WPBiography/Archive 2#free-image stipulation), and I'll ask again here in case anybody can help. Can we adjust the template so that needs-photo=yes is subjective based upon living=yes/no?
If yes and yes, then use {{ reqfreephoto}} (with respect to WP:FUC#1), but if yes and no use the more genericized {{ reqphoto}}.
— pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} There seems to be a problem with the template. See below. - miketm - 03:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC) {{WPBiography|class=NA|living=yes|small=yes}}
{{
editprotected}}
Please add an actors and filmmakers workgroup to the template for the new
child project setup for film-related biographies. Our project image is
. --
PhantomS 19:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this was intentional but the recent edits to the WPBiography banner have picked up at least one strange behavior, when the musician-work-group flag is selected, both musician-work-group and a&e workgroup appear in the banner despite the a&e workgroup flag not being selected. - cgilbert( talk| contribs) 04:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
There are some artists who have acted in films and also have worked in other a&e media, but I can't seem to get filmbio-work-group=yes|a&e-work-group=yes to behave as expected. I would expect both to be visible; instead only the first-listed is visible. Listing other combinations of two workgroups is possible, e.g. s&a-work-group=yes|military-work-group=yes does the right thing. Are my expectations wrong for the filmbio-work-group=yes|a&e-work-group=yes combination? ( sdsds - talk) 04:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Please_complete_comments_section_of_evaluation -- kingboyk 11:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Until now, I've always had my bot put the template parameters onto seperate lines. I think it looks neater. However, 2 people have asked me to put it all the same line. I'm therefore inviting opinions. Please note I will only change if there's clear consensus; if folks aren't too bothered I may as well do it the way I like it ;)
Possible solutions:
Example of a fairly large template call from Talk:Napoleon I of France:
{{WPBiography |living=no |class=B |priority=Top |core=yes |politician-work-group=yes |military-work-group=yes }}
{{WPBiography|living=no|class=B|priority=Top|core=yes|politician-work-group=yes|military-work-group=yes}}
-- kingboyk 14:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If the british-royalty parameter is set to yes, the template does not add the article to the relevant biography categories. This seems odd to me, as it is the only work-group that exhibits this behaviour. I propose adding the relevant biography categories for british royalty biographies. Er rab ee 15:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
What's happened to the template? The background color doesn't look right (used to be blue) and the text "style="background: #E5E5FF; border: 1px solid #8888AA;" is showing on some of the talk pages (evidently displaced from the template). DrKiernan 13:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Please put <small>...</small> or CSS equivalent around the "If you rated..." passage, to slightly reduce the amount of talk page real estate consumed by this template.
I suggest we make the following change. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me. Anybody else care to comment? -- kingboyk 22:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The (unnecessarily longwinded) output of needs-photo=yes appears cites WP:NFCC. This sub-template reads, in part, 'Note: Wikipedia's fair use policy almost never permits the use of "fair use" images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like.' I've just read NFCC from top to bottom and there is no verbiage at that policy which appears to support this assertion. Rather, there is such material at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. So:
— SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, {{
WPBiography}} already takes up far, far too much room in its typical fully-specified application. I would suggest removing that entire chunk of code and replacing it with a simple transclusion of {{
Reqphoto}} if the needs-photo=yes condition is met. If there is a consensus that {{
Reqphoto}} needs policy warnings, then that template should be modified to include them, and cite by #id precisely what in NFCC pertains to what the template is warning about. (No editprotected req.; just a proposal for discussion on this issue.)
—
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont ‹(-¿-)› 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
<-- Adding the fair use blurb wasn't my idea so I can't be expected to defend it :) Using reqphoto would lose our special categories for photo needed, and it would add some 350,000 transclusion links to the reqphoto template.
What we do with BLP is transclude some boilerplate text that {{ blp}} also transcludes. If what you're getting it as that both templates - WPBio and reqphoto - need to have the same text message, we could do that.
Otherwise, if the text needs to be trimmed feel free. It was even more verbose before I took a knife to it. -- kingboyk 11:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
In the interim, the bloat of {{ WPBiography}} can be slightly reduced by making the policy note smaller in font-size.
<small>...</small>
or CSS equivalent if preferred, to the policy note in the same needs-photo subtemplate.— SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If both "needs-photo=yes" and "sports-work-group=yes" are included then the page gets put into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople and also Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people. As the first category is already a subcategory of the second, it seems to me that inclusion in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people is unnecessary. For an example of what I mean, see Talk:Alan Dennison.
As this page is fully protected seemingly permanently, it needs one of the standard templates that says so. Don't care which, even the small lock icon version would be fine. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please change the use of image Image:Nuvola apps kcontrol.png to Image:Icon tools.png. Thanks. Siebrand 19:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Done --
kingboyk 20:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add something like Category:Biographical articles to this template, and thus produce a category that allows people to browse all the biographical articles? This would be a big load on the servers, as the warning says, so this would need to be discussed here first. Carcharoth 01:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant. 376,274 is the number I was looking for. Now, is there any way of making that list of 376,274 articles available? The advantage of a category is that people can use {{ largeCategoryTOC}} to go to the point they want to start browsing from. You can't do that with the "what links here" list. Have a look at Category:Unassessed biography articles for that TOC system in operation. I think creating a super-category to contain all biographical articles (just like the proposal I saw for Category:Wikipedia articles), is the way to go. That would go a large step towards replacing LoPbN, at least once pipe-sorting is applied uniformly, or the DEFAULTSORT magic key used uniformly. Carcharoth 23:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Is no-one interested in this? Have a look at the revised proposal at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name#Proposed solution and the new discussion there. Also, see the test compact index for living people I've created at User:Carcharoth/List of living people compact index. That is identical to the URLs used by {{ largeCategoryTOC}}, but using the same layout as at Template:List of people by name compact page-index. I would like to do the same for all biographical articles, but at the moment there is no super-category for that. What is the best way to get approval for a bot to populate and maintain such a category? Carcharoth 23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the phrase, "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." is longer than it needs to be. First it says that controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, then adds especially if potentially libelous. It already must be removed according to the lead clause. Can we shorten this sentence? Sancho 21:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
""Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced, poorly sourced, must be removed immediately." Take special care with potentially libelous material" DGG 18:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I've started working with WikiProjectBannerShell, and have noticed that WPBiography template has a small error in its implementation of nesting. In the 16th line, instead of
! colspan="2"
it should say
! colspan="3"
(rest of the line should remain unchanged, I have quoted only the start of the line)
As noted on Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell, templates that have a {{ Portal}} need its colspan increased to 3. Example: Talk:Hitoshi Doi
Shinhan 15:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
{{ editprotected}}
Im sorry for requesting the same fix for the third time. CBM introduced this fix in revision 139246148, BUT then he undid this fix with his next edit in revision 139914083. Im not calling for undoing of everything CBM did, just for reintroducing the fix he undid (colspan=3). CBM is away for the next 2 weeks so I cant ask him... — Shinhan < talk > 14:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
There are now at least three proposed changes above. If needed, should they all be implemented in one edit to avoiding flooding the job queue? Carcharoth 11:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've benn analizing this and noticed is the most implemented here, I have been improving template:PeruProjectBanner (without work-groups boxes) but I think we need some advice, wonder if could help me. There's an issue I wanna clarify about the importance box, should it be shown allways, or only if the importance is specified with a value; and things like that. thanks -- Andersmusician $ 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I've noticed that when nesting, the message about this being an article about a living person is also hidden. Is that what you want?
-- TimNelson 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ WPBiography}} needs more conditional code, to nest the photo/infobox sub-banners when nested=yes, or it renders {{ WikiProjectBannerShell}} pretty much useless. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if the Actors and Filmmakers WikiProject could be changed from " Image:Fratelli Lumiere.jpg" to " Image:Applications-multimedia.svg". The Luminere photo is rather difficult to make out at such a small size whereas the cartoon clapperboard will work. Discussion on which image to use died out on the project's talk page some months ago—I forgot about it too—so I'm defaulting to my suggestion. Thanks, Doctor Sunshine talk 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
They're currently under unassessed articles when assessed as "list". Could a list category be added in to the template so we don't have this problem?-- Wizardman 01:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
A number of editors have been using scripts to automatically add the "listas" component to talk pages, and are consistently getting Asian names wrong. I recognize that this is the action of the script and not of the editor acting directly, but please please please take some care with this. This has, as far as I am aware, only become a problem within the last few weeks, but as more and more articles are automatically tagged in this manner, the problem becomes larger and larger. Something has to be done to cut it off. Please. LordAmeth 05:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Why does the template ask people to make comments at /Comments (eg Talk:Edward Connellan/Comments) rather than on the talk page? I have seen a few anon. and new users get confused and ask questions on the /Comments page, I always wondered where they got the idea not to use the normal talk page.-- Commander Keane 19:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Here is where it is being worked on: User:The Psychless/WPBiography
And what it will look like... {{User:The Psychless/WPBiography|class=Start|politician-work-group=yes}}
The changes: 1. The [FAQ] link has been changed to a small [FAQ] link
2. Comments, I really think it's unnecessary for the template to ask for comments. Not only does it confuse people, thinking we should be leaving comments on every assessment we do, it makes the template look messy when there aren't any. It's also pointless for a complete page for comments.
Cleaning up all the /Comments pages... Someone (not me, I have no scripting skills) will need to make a bot that generates a list of all the /Comments pages, then create a new section in their respective main talk page titled: Biography Assessment Comments. The bot puts the comments in that section, then blanks the /Comments page. Somehow we'll figure something out with MfD and we can get all those pages deleted. Please comment on this and I'll try to address your concerns as well as I possibly can. Also, if we can reach consensus on this an administrator needs to make the change for me. -- Psychless Type words! 04:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
{{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments|[[Category:Whatever]]}}
. Then, all a bot would have to do is look in the category and move the comments to the main talk page. Once the comments are moved, the bot could speedy-tag the articles (
WP:CSD#G6) and admins could quickly delete them. You'll just need to give admins a heads-up before flooding
CAT:CSD. Cheers. --
MZMcBride 00:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) There's a problem with having a bot tackle this task based on Category:Biography articles with comments, and it may be that this task should not be tackled at all. As Carcharoth noted, other WikiProjects use Comments subpages, as does the WikiProject 1.0 Editorial Team. For more information, please see WP:BOTREQ#WikiProject Biography Comment Moving.
Thanks! — Madman bum and angel ( talk – desk) 04:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
As noted above and elsewhere, there have been problems with this. Please, revert back to the status quo and wait a bit longer (say, a week) for more input to the disucssion before going ahead with this. What is needed now is to repopulate the category of pages with comments, and find out how many biographical articles have comments - if it is too many to copy by hand, another solution may be needed. I would suggest finding the people who originally implemented the comments subpage system and talk to them about it. Carcharoth 10:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
And again, it is the scale thing at work. WPBiography are trying to do a "quick and dirty" assessment of tens of thousands of articles. That may, ultimately, be a waste of time, as more careful assessment, though it takes longer, is probably more productive, and needs to be done later in any case. To take an example, say a mathematician's article gets hastily assessed as start by WPBiography, and then not looked at for a year or so. During that time, a member of WikiProject Mathematics comes along and carefully assesses the article, adds comments, others come to work on the article, and the article is improved to B-class, and eventually, another year later, reaches FA-class. What did the WPBiography's assessment as start contribute to that process? Carcharoth 12:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, we won't deprecate the /Comments page. I still don't think the template should ask for comments. My idea is to transclude the comments into the show/hide More information bar section. I would like the comments to look like they do in Template:WP1.0. For an example of the More information bar thing see here. I've been trying all morning to get the template to work but it just won't. I have very little experience in templates, so it would be greatly appreciated if someone with more experience could get it to work. I think it's fine to leave comments but the template shouldn't ask for them. It would be ideal if all of our articles have comments, but realistically, it isn't going to happen. -- Psy c h less 17:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Apologies in coming to this discussion late, but I, for one, find myself irritated that I can no longer readily get at the 'Comments' subpage. Apparently, I've been among what seems a distinct minority of editors who actually used the comments link on the few biographies to which I've contributed. I argue that there is an advantage in having a distinct area to comment on the editorial issues of a biography, a place that doesn't get lost in the noise of some (not all) biography talk pages. These are the sorts of comment pages I've been maintaining on the few articles I've taken under wing, both for my own and other editors' benefit:
It's the sort of activity I would encourage other editors to do, and now I am a bit chargined that the mechanism to do so has been compromised. I am also chargined by the cavalier implementation of this scheme. How is it, when we place so much emphasis on verification in the main space, that we throw the standard by the wayside in maintenence spaces? By what means has it been established that links to comments confuses people? Who has measured the extent of this confusion? Where are the results published? I feel I had a pretty good understanding of what comment links were for the first time I saw the facility in this template and never felt any confusion whatsoever. Insofar as taking too much time, is concerned, the last time I checked, I'm not being paid for contributions I make to Wikipedia, so nobody can set deadlines and expect me to adhere to them. Therefore, I can take all the time I need for full exercise of editorial craft. This includes using specialized facilities to note structural deficiencies in biographies, write links to promising reference materials and the like. Facilities such as these /Comments pages do suffer from a Catch-22 problem, I think: they are not useful if they are not used, and they won't be used until useful. I prefer the WikiGnome approach of using the facility whenever I can, thereby eroding this vicious circle a little at a time, rather than seeing the facility unceremoniously pulled. I agree with Geometry guy that the reasoning behind this proposal is specious. I feel that the case for /Comments pages raised by SMcCandlish in Why the /Comments place? have not been adequately addressed by the proponents of this change. I object that this discussion was not first aired at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography so that it could have been seen by a wider group of people. Please revert and do not proceed again until there are in the offing more compelling arguments than they take too much time or people are really confused. Diligent editors take whatever time is necessary to communicate with colleagues using every available channel at their disposal, and I fail to see any evidence of confusion paralyzing the Wikipedia community. Take care — Gosgood 01:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
(Unindent) There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The original proposal did involve removing links to /Comments and even deprecating /Comments (!!), and there was an unacceptably hasty attempt to begin to implement it. However several editors (including myself) vigorously objected to this idea, citing exactly the kinds of reasons that you list above, and the plans have been radically altered. Furthermore, the group appears to have learnt a lesson in patience and is proceeding more slowly with the consultation and possible implementation.
If you check out the proposed template at User_talk:The_Psychless/WPBiography, you will see that it does link to the /Comments page. So, in fact most of your concerns (which I share) have been accommodated already. The main difference is that the link is in a show/hide box. Since comments can be rather long, and can be transcluded into several project banners, the use of a show/hide box seems sensible to me. Indeed, as a result of this discussion, I have implemented the same idea at the {{ maths rating}} template.
There is another proposed change which I believe has generated the confusions: The Psychless and others do not want the template to instruct editors to add comments. You may disagree with them, and so do I, at least in part: the maths rating template invites the addition of comments if there are none, and asks editors to update the comments if there are some. However, this is a relatively minor point, and the current proposal seems to be a reasonable compromise to me. Geometry guy 17:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: I guess I should link to the maths rating template in action, lest anyone get the wrong impression from the template page. For an example of an article with comments, see Talk:Subset. For an article without comments, see Talk:Power set. Geometry guy 17:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've changed my version of the template again. Gosgood, please take a look at it here and decide if this a sufficient compromise. Psych less 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
/Comments is part of the Wikipedia 1.0 assessments scheme and their bot. Please don't go changing it without at least understanding that and any consequences. That said, if it's not working you're entitled to ditch it! -- kingboyk 16:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Whoever would like to flood the job queue over grammar, ;), can change on the basis of to regarding. Thanks for compromising Gosgood. Regards, Psych less 18:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
There are currently over 500 articles in the main namespace that link to Template:Infobox Astronaut. A WPBiography banner makes sense for all of these, as does a WPSpace banner linking to WikiProject Space exploration. Could the two be combined, e.g. with a "space-work-group" switch to WPBiography? Or does it make more sense to just go ahead and have double banners on them all? ( sdsds - talk) 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
As I understood it, astronaut bios were being dealt with by Wikipedia:WikiProject Space travellers. Maybe astronaut bios should have their banner instead, and the project be slaved to both WP Human spaceflight and WP Biography? Colds7ream 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Go here to see how it will look when there are comments: User_talk:The_Psychless/WPBiography.
Here's how it will look normally, well with a class of NA: {{User:The_Psychless/WPBiography|class=NA}}
Now I'll let everyone discuss it for a while before asking an administrator to make the change.. -- Psych less 20:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
"Let everyone discuss it for a while." I wonder where that came from... :-) Looks good to me. Carcharoth 17:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} -- Psych less 18:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)