![]() | 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 |
I noticed this on Albert Einstein's talk page that this banner doesn't play nice when the next banner if there is an extra space in front of the second banner. The temporary solution was to remove the space, however, this should be addressed by this template. -- Farix ( Talk) 02:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
From my talk page; presented here as it would need the template changing. As per my pasted reply, I don't think we need List-class but am happy to implement it if we do. -- kingboyk 20:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
In WikiProject Biography, if you assess articles as List-Class they are still in the Unassessed category. I've looked over the template and seen that it needs to be modified to accept this. Should we just not use List-Class, or do you, or someone you know want to implement List-Class in the project? Regards, Psychless Type words! 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the way the current template looks and works but think that the following improvements could be made when it is used with the nested=yes flag...
I've observed these using IE7 on the cited talk page at time of posting and haven't tested whether these alignment issues could be browser specific.
All of the above are minor cosmetic changes so I wouldn't rate fixing them as a high priority but possibly someone who is familiar with the WikiScripting language could consider these when the template is next reviewed. Asperal 23:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{nested|}}}}}|yes|
! colspan="2" style="text-align: center" {{!}} [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography{{!}}WikiProject Biography]]{{#if:{{{class|}}} | (Rated {{ucfirst:{{{class}}}}}-Class)|}}
}}I think this might also benefit from having colspan = 3 instead. However I don't believe the fix above will completely address the issues. While looking at other templates I did notice that the BannerShell apparently works without problems when colspan=2 with the
Wikiproject Germany template, even though this also includes a portal.
There are other instances of colspan=2 in the template but these (lines 16 & 35) are those which, I believe, relate to the header and thus give bad interations with the bannershell.
Any opinions? or (better) anyone sufficiently able to test such a change.
Asperal 14:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, looking at the revision history and your notes we are talking about exactly the same line. Asperal 14:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
On Talk:Mance Lipscomb, they don't cover the whole width of the BannerShell template area, which looks pretty ugly in my view. BNutzer 23:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} I've made some more changes, I've removed the lines in the actor and filmmakers & musicians workgroup that explain what the wikiprojects are about. I believe it is fairly obvious that WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers is about improving articles on actors and filmmakers, the same for WikiProject Musicians. I've also made some other changes that should be noticeable, just go to this page: User:The Psychless/WPBiography. Psych less 16:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Some of the issues you presented are now fixed. It seems the Einstein talk page no longer has the extra space in it. However, the Engel article issue definitely should be resolved. Re-sorting the class ranks (stub, etc.) and priority ranks (top, mid, etc.) would break conformity among the various projects. The code is generally kept in that order, so changing it doesn't seem to be necessary. I've updated the code on User:The Psychless/WPBiography to no longer use FA|Fa|fa, etc. As for the color of the template, it should remain standard per policy. Cheers. -- MZMcBride 22:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I feel sufficiently confident to complete section 3 myself if I can obtain guidance on whether Wikipedia interprets switch statements as I expect. To clarify the issue I've extracted some code here, with my added line numbering...
(1) {{#switch:{{lc:{{{class}}}}} (2) |fa=[[Category:FA-Class biography (musicians) articles]] (3) |a=[[Category:A-Class biography (musicians) articles]] (4) |ga=[[Category:GA-Class biography (musicians) articles]] (5) |b=[[Category:B-Class biography (musicians) articles]] (6) |start=[[Category:Start-Class biography (musicians) articles]] (7) |stub=[[Category:Stub-Class biography (musicians) articles]] (8) |na|dab|template|cat= (9) |=[[Category:Unassessed biography (musicians) articles]] (10) |#default=[[Category:Unassessed biography (musicians) articles]] (11) }}
My question relates to lines 9 and 10. Given they both lead to the same catogorisation I suspect that line 9 is superfluous and could be removed. However I don't know if there is some problem with this reasoning, perhaps special cases somewhere that require the distinction. If feedback can confirm line 9 as superfluous I'll go through and make the necessary edits. Asperal 10:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} I have recently had to move the old peer review for Hayley Westenra: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Hayley Westenra/Archive 1 to make way for a new review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Hayley Westenra. Yet the link in the bio banner is linking me to the new review when i click on the "this review has been archived". How do i go about changing this link if it is possible at all. This is only a problem if an article has two peer reviews within the same year, so this is bound to crop up again. Thanks for your consideration Woodym555 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Both wikilinks in the sentence link to the current peer review. If i gauge your earlier comment correctly we should remove the old peer review tag if we have the article history tag? I think that would be acceptable although i do think a workaround has to be attempted. Woodym555 11:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the transclusion in the "Usage" section has the "living" and "class" parameters pre-filled? I do not think that we would want to set "living=no" and "class=B" as the default. Black Falcon ( Talk) 17:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} There seems to be a line space underneath the template, which should be avoided. See Talk:Bruno Cullen as an example. SpecialWindler talk 10:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It'd be nice if someone got rid of the ridiculous capital P in the word Project in this template. That's a pretty high profile error for something that's locked from editing. DreamGuy 06:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} template now. -- kingboyk 22:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I've not been keeping a close eye on the template lately, so if I've missed any changes which may affect my plugin please let me know (new redirects, new or deprecated parameters, new logic, etc). I'm working on AWB at the moment and will hopefully be doing a tagging run shortly to test some new features. -- kingboyk 22:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to list all the categories that this template populates? ie. search for "Category:" in the source code and list all of them here? Carcharoth 13:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose to add two new categories to help track the articles that have been tagged with the non-bio parameter and those that have been tagged with the listas parameter. These would function in the same way as the existing categories that this template populates, such as Category:Biography articles of living people (populated with article talk pages where the WPBiography template has the "living=yes" parameter). Since these are internal WikiProject categories, the names should reflect this and the categories should be marked as purely administrative. The new categories I propose are Category:Non-biographical WikiProject Biography articles and Category:Biography articles with listas parameter. Currently, the vast majority of article talk pages don't have this listas parameter filled in. When the balance swings the other way, the category should be changed to Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. Possibly both should be created. The main articles use the DEFAULTSORT magic word directly (the listas parameter also uses this). There are efforts underway to standardise the DEFAULTSORT used in articles and the listas used on talk pages, across articles (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 3, User:Polbot/ideas/defaultsort, and User talk:Carcharoth/Polbot3 trial run). The same project is gathering data with the aim of having every biographical article on Wikipedia have the correct DEFAULTSORT value on both the article and the talk page. Once that is done, a category Category:Biography articles can be created here, and that will have all the articles correctly DEFAULTSORTed (at least that is the theory).
Anyway, for now, can I ask the template wizards here to: (a) write some addition to the code that will correctly populate Category:Non-biographical WikiProject Biography articles and Category:Biography articles with listas parameter as described above; and (b) for someone to update the template once that has been done? Thanks. Carcharoth 13:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm now considering setting up a sandbox template to try and work out how to add these categories. Before I do that, can I ask if any new template code I come up with is likely to be implemented? Carcharoth 00:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Why does this template have an "infobox needed" switch that, when triggered, generates a message claiming falsely that the article "needs" an infobox. No article needs an infobox. That's lunacy. -- Tony Sidaway 22:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} This template contains an extraneous linebreak between lines 512 and 513. It normally does not cause any problems, but will display when this template is immediately followed by a template that similarly contains an extraneous linebreak at the beginning. Please make the following addition to hide this linebreak, as has been done with the other linebreaks in this template:
|=[[Category:Unassessed {{#ifeq:{{{british-royalty|}}}|yes|British royalty|biography}} articles]]
|#default=[[Category:Unassessed {{#ifeq:{{{british-royalty|}}}|yes|British royalty|biography}} articles]]}}}}<!--
-->{{#switch:{{{class|}}}|Stub|stub={{#ifeq:{{{auto|}}}|yes|{{Stubclass
|assessment=Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment
Thanks. Anomie 00:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, a manually generated list of the 212 categories (as of the time of writing) populated by this template is at Template:WPBiography/Categories. I am also adding this link to the template documentation. Carcharoth 01:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I have been testing some changes to this template in a sandbox (see User:Psychless/WPBiography and User talk:Carcharoth/Sandbox2. The change I propose can be seen here. It involves the following additions:
{{#ifeq:{{{non-bio|}}}|yes|[[Category:Non-biographical WikiProject Biography articles]]}}{{#if:{{{listas|}}}|[[Category:Biography articles with listas parameter]]|[[Category:Biography articles without listas parameter]]}}
and:
|template=[[Category:WikiProject Biography templates]] |na=[[Category:WikiProject Biography non-article pages]]
The first addition goes on line 4 as shown in the diff. The second addition replaces the |template|na= bit on line 505. I would appreciate it if people more experienced with templates than me could check the coding is OK. The coding allows the template to populate five new categories:
If no-one raises any objections, could this change be implemented? I will then create the new categories (one of which already exists), and update the template documentation. Carcharoth 03:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
{{WPBiography...}} <!--Templates go above this line.--> {{DEFAULTSORT:...}} [[Category:...]]
Also, could you point me to a discussion of this DEFAULTSORT bug and an example of the bug appearing? I remember trying something like you suggested and not seeing the behaviour you described. It seemed to work fine at the time. Carcharoth 23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[[Category:CATEGORY NAME|{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{#if: {{{listas|}}}|{{{listas}}}|{{PAGENAME}} }} }}
Done{{
Editprotected}}
Please edit the template to replace:
{{Ed right2|Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Project banner|the instructions}}{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Project banner}}
with:
{{template doc}}
and to move:
[[Category:WikiProject Biography templates]] [[Category:WikiProject banners|Biography]] [[Category:Templates using ParserFunctions]]
to the documentation page, at bottom, as:
<includeonly> [[Category:WikiProject Biography templates]] [[Category:WikiProject banners|Biography]] [[Category:Templates using ParserFunctions]] </includeonly>
Then move Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Project banner to Template:WikiProject Biography/doc. And finally, edit that to remove:
'''Please note:''' This template should be transcluded ({{tl|WPBiography}}) <includeonly>(right here!)</includeonly> and not substituted (subst) because it employs conditional code. Transclusion also allows easy updating of all the Project's talk pages without having to edit hundreds of thousands of pages.
and add:
<includeonly>{{template doc page transcluded}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{template doc page viewed directly}}</noinclude> <!-- EDIT TEMPLATE DOCUMENTATION BELOW THIS LINE -->
to the top of the doc page.
— SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
{{intricate template}}
FYI, some comments on the granularity of name & address metadata: Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Granularity. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 12:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This is not a major issue, but on the next update, the fair use information needs to be updated; the term "fair use" is generally being changed to "non-free."
-- Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see here for the latest changes made in the sandbox. This adds the "fair use" to "non free" changes suggested above, the five categories suggested earlier, in addition to the removal of {{ intricate template}}. Once implemented, {{ intricate template}} needs to be added to the documentation subpage. Carcharoth 15:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned in an overlong section above, there are problems with making listas the DEFAULTSORT value. The way DEFAULTSORT works is that only the last appearance of DEFAULTSORT on a page will be used. This is a problem because many talk page templates use DEFAULTSORT in the form "DEFAULTSORT:PAGENAME" to make the pages sort without the "Talk:" prefix, and if they appear below the WPBiography template, they will over-ride WPBiography's attempt to sort by listas. Rather than try and change this in the many talk page templates used around Wikipedia, I think the solution is to make the WPBiography template have DEFAULTSORT:PAGENAME, and then to use listas as a parameter for internal sorting of template categories. Other templates can similarly set up a template parameter if they want to manually over-ride the DEFAULTSORT. Finally, for categories placed outside the template, the solution seems to be for them to have their own DEFAULTSORT if this needs to be different from PAGENAME. This all seems very messy. Can anyone think of a simpler way to deal with this? Carcharoth 10:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to mention this, but your idea of all the pages sorted under "Talk" needing an extra-template DEFAULTSORT is a good idea. It is similar to the system recently setup with Category:Biography articles with listas parameter and Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. That system doesn't quite work yet, but will if the latest change I propose is implemented. Carcharoth 22:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see User talk:CBDunkerson#WPBiography template stuff again for more discussion of listas and DEFAULTSORT coding in the template. I'm now going to tentatively propose a change that should address most issues that are being discussed. Carcharoth 11:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to attempt to summarise the above discussions about listas and DEFAULTSORT and PAGENAME, and give more background.
I think that summarises everything about how these three parameters and magic words work and how they are currently being used. One point I haven't made here yet, but which is important, is that there can be problems of standardisation between three values: DEFAULTSORT on the article, DEFAULTSORT on the talk page, and listas. Sometimes they are different, sometimes one or more are present while others are absent. Sometimes none of them are present.
What I think would be helpful is if people would say below what they think the desired behaviour and interaction of these parameters and magic words should be, and how we can spread best practice and convert existing systems to follow best practice. Carcharoth 13:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
What you need in the first place is a whole lot better instruction to editors on how to use these sort keys. We have a lot of not very bright editors on Wikipedia, who need explicit instructions on how to do it. It seems that most of those involved in this discussion would fall into that category, since this hasn't even been mentioned as far as I can see.
The problem is that we have a very rudimentary, simplistic sort mechanism. Everything in the sort key is sorted. That includes spaces, punctuation marks, whatever. But it isn't sorted in accordance with anybody's sorting rules. It is simply sorted in accordance with Unicode numbers.
The essential factors that need to be noted, and that need to be included in the instructions to people who will be using "listas" or "DEFAULT" sort include these points:
See Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category for more essential pointers.
Gene Nygaard 12:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Note that this applies not only to articles about people, but to all articles. Gene Nygaard 12:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotect}}
This template includes:
{{#ifeq:{{{british-royalty|}}}{{{royalty-work-group|}}}{{{military-task-force|}}}{{{military-work-group|}}}{{{musician-work-group|}}}{{{filmbio-work-group|}}}{{{a&e-work-group|}}}{{{s&a-work-group|}}}{{{baronets-work-group|}}}{{{peerage-work-group|}}}{{{politician-work-group|}}}| |[[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people]]}}
This rule is missing a clause for "sports-work-group." The effect is that a page with "sports-work-group = yes" in its WPBiography template appears in both Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople.
I am not well versed in template conditional logic. I believe this rule should read:
{{#ifeq:{{{british-royalty|}}}{{{royalty-work-group|}}}{{{military-task-force|}}}{{{military-work-group|}}}{{{musician-work-group|}}}{{{filmbio-work-group|}}}{{{a&e-work-group|}}}{{{s&a-work-group|}}}{{{baronets-work-group|}}}{{{peerage-work-group|}}}{{{politician-work-group|}}}{{{sports-work-group|}}}| |[[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people]]}}
Thanks -- Tim Pierce 02:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Now that I have read some of the source code for this template, I see a "military-task-force" parameter that does not appear in the template documentation. I don't think I understand the difference between "military-task-force" and "military-work-group". They appear to be treated differently only in that articles tagged with "military-work-group" are also placed in appropriate categories for their class, importance and priority, and in "military-task-force" articles, these parameters are ignored. That doesn't make any sense, so I think I must have it wrong. Can anyone shed any light on this and possibly update the documentation? Tim Pierce 03:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
|aboriginal = yes
I would suggest a warning box to come up on biographies of deceased aboriginal people like. petedavo 07:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
HI All, I would like to use this template on my personal genealogy wiki. I tried copying the page but things don't seem to work. Is there a way I can use it on non-wikipedia, wikimedia websites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.130.31 ( talk • contribs)
I'm interested in adding a religion-work-group or a saints-work-group to the WPBiography template. Here's why:
I have been working on categorizing the pages in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people by tagging each {{ WPBiography}} template with the appropriate working group. The category is filled with requests for images of saints and other religious figures, however, and there is no appropriate working group. There is a Saints WikiProject, however.
I do not personally have an interest in maintaining or working on this work group -- I just want to streamline the job of categorizing requested photographs and images. What process would I follow to start one or to find someone willing to take it on? Tim Pierce 06:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the text "This article was the Biography WikiProject Collaboration of the Fortnight (dates). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations." should be changed to the simpler "This article was the Biography WikiProject Collaboration (dates)." Then, a collaboration can be selected for any length of time (week/fortnight/month/whatever) without the need to make sure all the time periods on the templates match with one another. DrKiernan 08:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The template says that an article is "within the scope" of the biography wikiproject, but articles are "supported by" the various workgroups. I think it might be better to use "within the scope" throughout, to avoid giving people the wrong idea. Xtifr tälk 14:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I've made some minor visual changes at the sandbox. If the job queue is ever just too low an administrator could make the change :). Otherwise just include it in the next update. Thanks, Psych less 04:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I like Image:P_vip.png, which features prominently on the Portal page. I personnaly dislike portal templates without pictures and would like to start a discussion on its inclusion in the template, like
for WP:WPFS. -- Kl4m Talk Contrib 03:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I am bothered that there may be an issue of overcategorization within the listas categories. When an article has a listas parameter, the article gets tagged with the unnecessary Category:Biography articles with listas parameter category.
To me, what I see is:
It appears that some coding causes both of these categories to be created. If it sees "listas=yes", why does it need to create a category?
My main point is: How do we code the WPBIO box to not create both categories, but only post a notification to support "Biography articles without listas parameter" ? Any info or insight? Guroadrunner 11:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
not real important, but next time the template's updated, can it reflect the change frm 'importance' to 'priority' ie display that rating like the other project templates display the 'importance' rating? ⇒ bsnowball 16:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Please fix the wikilink that currently leads to Slander_and_libel so that it correctly leads to Defamation. Jcc1 04:55, 19 October 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 |
I noticed this on Albert Einstein's talk page that this banner doesn't play nice when the next banner if there is an extra space in front of the second banner. The temporary solution was to remove the space, however, this should be addressed by this template. -- Farix ( Talk) 02:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
From my talk page; presented here as it would need the template changing. As per my pasted reply, I don't think we need List-class but am happy to implement it if we do. -- kingboyk 20:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
In WikiProject Biography, if you assess articles as List-Class they are still in the Unassessed category. I've looked over the template and seen that it needs to be modified to accept this. Should we just not use List-Class, or do you, or someone you know want to implement List-Class in the project? Regards, Psychless Type words! 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the way the current template looks and works but think that the following improvements could be made when it is used with the nested=yes flag...
I've observed these using IE7 on the cited talk page at time of posting and haven't tested whether these alignment issues could be browser specific.
All of the above are minor cosmetic changes so I wouldn't rate fixing them as a high priority but possibly someone who is familiar with the WikiScripting language could consider these when the template is next reviewed. Asperal 23:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{nested|}}}}}|yes|
! colspan="2" style="text-align: center" {{!}} [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography{{!}}WikiProject Biography]]{{#if:{{{class|}}} | (Rated {{ucfirst:{{{class}}}}}-Class)|}}
}}I think this might also benefit from having colspan = 3 instead. However I don't believe the fix above will completely address the issues. While looking at other templates I did notice that the BannerShell apparently works without problems when colspan=2 with the
Wikiproject Germany template, even though this also includes a portal.
There are other instances of colspan=2 in the template but these (lines 16 & 35) are those which, I believe, relate to the header and thus give bad interations with the bannershell.
Any opinions? or (better) anyone sufficiently able to test such a change.
Asperal 14:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, looking at the revision history and your notes we are talking about exactly the same line. Asperal 14:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
On Talk:Mance Lipscomb, they don't cover the whole width of the BannerShell template area, which looks pretty ugly in my view. BNutzer 23:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} I've made some more changes, I've removed the lines in the actor and filmmakers & musicians workgroup that explain what the wikiprojects are about. I believe it is fairly obvious that WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers is about improving articles on actors and filmmakers, the same for WikiProject Musicians. I've also made some other changes that should be noticeable, just go to this page: User:The Psychless/WPBiography. Psych less 16:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Some of the issues you presented are now fixed. It seems the Einstein talk page no longer has the extra space in it. However, the Engel article issue definitely should be resolved. Re-sorting the class ranks (stub, etc.) and priority ranks (top, mid, etc.) would break conformity among the various projects. The code is generally kept in that order, so changing it doesn't seem to be necessary. I've updated the code on User:The Psychless/WPBiography to no longer use FA|Fa|fa, etc. As for the color of the template, it should remain standard per policy. Cheers. -- MZMcBride 22:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I feel sufficiently confident to complete section 3 myself if I can obtain guidance on whether Wikipedia interprets switch statements as I expect. To clarify the issue I've extracted some code here, with my added line numbering...
(1) {{#switch:{{lc:{{{class}}}}} (2) |fa=[[Category:FA-Class biography (musicians) articles]] (3) |a=[[Category:A-Class biography (musicians) articles]] (4) |ga=[[Category:GA-Class biography (musicians) articles]] (5) |b=[[Category:B-Class biography (musicians) articles]] (6) |start=[[Category:Start-Class biography (musicians) articles]] (7) |stub=[[Category:Stub-Class biography (musicians) articles]] (8) |na|dab|template|cat= (9) |=[[Category:Unassessed biography (musicians) articles]] (10) |#default=[[Category:Unassessed biography (musicians) articles]] (11) }}
My question relates to lines 9 and 10. Given they both lead to the same catogorisation I suspect that line 9 is superfluous and could be removed. However I don't know if there is some problem with this reasoning, perhaps special cases somewhere that require the distinction. If feedback can confirm line 9 as superfluous I'll go through and make the necessary edits. Asperal 10:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} I have recently had to move the old peer review for Hayley Westenra: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Hayley Westenra/Archive 1 to make way for a new review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Hayley Westenra. Yet the link in the bio banner is linking me to the new review when i click on the "this review has been archived". How do i go about changing this link if it is possible at all. This is only a problem if an article has two peer reviews within the same year, so this is bound to crop up again. Thanks for your consideration Woodym555 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Both wikilinks in the sentence link to the current peer review. If i gauge your earlier comment correctly we should remove the old peer review tag if we have the article history tag? I think that would be acceptable although i do think a workaround has to be attempted. Woodym555 11:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the transclusion in the "Usage" section has the "living" and "class" parameters pre-filled? I do not think that we would want to set "living=no" and "class=B" as the default. Black Falcon ( Talk) 17:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} There seems to be a line space underneath the template, which should be avoided. See Talk:Bruno Cullen as an example. SpecialWindler talk 10:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It'd be nice if someone got rid of the ridiculous capital P in the word Project in this template. That's a pretty high profile error for something that's locked from editing. DreamGuy 06:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} template now. -- kingboyk 22:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I've not been keeping a close eye on the template lately, so if I've missed any changes which may affect my plugin please let me know (new redirects, new or deprecated parameters, new logic, etc). I'm working on AWB at the moment and will hopefully be doing a tagging run shortly to test some new features. -- kingboyk 22:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to list all the categories that this template populates? ie. search for "Category:" in the source code and list all of them here? Carcharoth 13:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose to add two new categories to help track the articles that have been tagged with the non-bio parameter and those that have been tagged with the listas parameter. These would function in the same way as the existing categories that this template populates, such as Category:Biography articles of living people (populated with article talk pages where the WPBiography template has the "living=yes" parameter). Since these are internal WikiProject categories, the names should reflect this and the categories should be marked as purely administrative. The new categories I propose are Category:Non-biographical WikiProject Biography articles and Category:Biography articles with listas parameter. Currently, the vast majority of article talk pages don't have this listas parameter filled in. When the balance swings the other way, the category should be changed to Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. Possibly both should be created. The main articles use the DEFAULTSORT magic word directly (the listas parameter also uses this). There are efforts underway to standardise the DEFAULTSORT used in articles and the listas used on talk pages, across articles (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 3, User:Polbot/ideas/defaultsort, and User talk:Carcharoth/Polbot3 trial run). The same project is gathering data with the aim of having every biographical article on Wikipedia have the correct DEFAULTSORT value on both the article and the talk page. Once that is done, a category Category:Biography articles can be created here, and that will have all the articles correctly DEFAULTSORTed (at least that is the theory).
Anyway, for now, can I ask the template wizards here to: (a) write some addition to the code that will correctly populate Category:Non-biographical WikiProject Biography articles and Category:Biography articles with listas parameter as described above; and (b) for someone to update the template once that has been done? Thanks. Carcharoth 13:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm now considering setting up a sandbox template to try and work out how to add these categories. Before I do that, can I ask if any new template code I come up with is likely to be implemented? Carcharoth 00:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Why does this template have an "infobox needed" switch that, when triggered, generates a message claiming falsely that the article "needs" an infobox. No article needs an infobox. That's lunacy. -- Tony Sidaway 22:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} This template contains an extraneous linebreak between lines 512 and 513. It normally does not cause any problems, but will display when this template is immediately followed by a template that similarly contains an extraneous linebreak at the beginning. Please make the following addition to hide this linebreak, as has been done with the other linebreaks in this template:
|=[[Category:Unassessed {{#ifeq:{{{british-royalty|}}}|yes|British royalty|biography}} articles]]
|#default=[[Category:Unassessed {{#ifeq:{{{british-royalty|}}}|yes|British royalty|biography}} articles]]}}}}<!--
-->{{#switch:{{{class|}}}|Stub|stub={{#ifeq:{{{auto|}}}|yes|{{Stubclass
|assessment=Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment
Thanks. Anomie 00:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, a manually generated list of the 212 categories (as of the time of writing) populated by this template is at Template:WPBiography/Categories. I am also adding this link to the template documentation. Carcharoth 01:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I have been testing some changes to this template in a sandbox (see User:Psychless/WPBiography and User talk:Carcharoth/Sandbox2. The change I propose can be seen here. It involves the following additions:
{{#ifeq:{{{non-bio|}}}|yes|[[Category:Non-biographical WikiProject Biography articles]]}}{{#if:{{{listas|}}}|[[Category:Biography articles with listas parameter]]|[[Category:Biography articles without listas parameter]]}}
and:
|template=[[Category:WikiProject Biography templates]] |na=[[Category:WikiProject Biography non-article pages]]
The first addition goes on line 4 as shown in the diff. The second addition replaces the |template|na= bit on line 505. I would appreciate it if people more experienced with templates than me could check the coding is OK. The coding allows the template to populate five new categories:
If no-one raises any objections, could this change be implemented? I will then create the new categories (one of which already exists), and update the template documentation. Carcharoth 03:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
{{WPBiography...}} <!--Templates go above this line.--> {{DEFAULTSORT:...}} [[Category:...]]
Also, could you point me to a discussion of this DEFAULTSORT bug and an example of the bug appearing? I remember trying something like you suggested and not seeing the behaviour you described. It seemed to work fine at the time. Carcharoth 23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[[Category:CATEGORY NAME|{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{#if: {{{listas|}}}|{{{listas}}}|{{PAGENAME}} }} }}
Done{{
Editprotected}}
Please edit the template to replace:
{{Ed right2|Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Project banner|the instructions}}{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Project banner}}
with:
{{template doc}}
and to move:
[[Category:WikiProject Biography templates]] [[Category:WikiProject banners|Biography]] [[Category:Templates using ParserFunctions]]
to the documentation page, at bottom, as:
<includeonly> [[Category:WikiProject Biography templates]] [[Category:WikiProject banners|Biography]] [[Category:Templates using ParserFunctions]] </includeonly>
Then move Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Project banner to Template:WikiProject Biography/doc. And finally, edit that to remove:
'''Please note:''' This template should be transcluded ({{tl|WPBiography}}) <includeonly>(right here!)</includeonly> and not substituted (subst) because it employs conditional code. Transclusion also allows easy updating of all the Project's talk pages without having to edit hundreds of thousands of pages.
and add:
<includeonly>{{template doc page transcluded}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{template doc page viewed directly}}</noinclude> <!-- EDIT TEMPLATE DOCUMENTATION BELOW THIS LINE -->
to the top of the doc page.
— SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
{{intricate template}}
FYI, some comments on the granularity of name & address metadata: Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Granularity. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 12:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This is not a major issue, but on the next update, the fair use information needs to be updated; the term "fair use" is generally being changed to "non-free."
-- Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see here for the latest changes made in the sandbox. This adds the "fair use" to "non free" changes suggested above, the five categories suggested earlier, in addition to the removal of {{ intricate template}}. Once implemented, {{ intricate template}} needs to be added to the documentation subpage. Carcharoth 15:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned in an overlong section above, there are problems with making listas the DEFAULTSORT value. The way DEFAULTSORT works is that only the last appearance of DEFAULTSORT on a page will be used. This is a problem because many talk page templates use DEFAULTSORT in the form "DEFAULTSORT:PAGENAME" to make the pages sort without the "Talk:" prefix, and if they appear below the WPBiography template, they will over-ride WPBiography's attempt to sort by listas. Rather than try and change this in the many talk page templates used around Wikipedia, I think the solution is to make the WPBiography template have DEFAULTSORT:PAGENAME, and then to use listas as a parameter for internal sorting of template categories. Other templates can similarly set up a template parameter if they want to manually over-ride the DEFAULTSORT. Finally, for categories placed outside the template, the solution seems to be for them to have their own DEFAULTSORT if this needs to be different from PAGENAME. This all seems very messy. Can anyone think of a simpler way to deal with this? Carcharoth 10:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to mention this, but your idea of all the pages sorted under "Talk" needing an extra-template DEFAULTSORT is a good idea. It is similar to the system recently setup with Category:Biography articles with listas parameter and Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. That system doesn't quite work yet, but will if the latest change I propose is implemented. Carcharoth 22:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see User talk:CBDunkerson#WPBiography template stuff again for more discussion of listas and DEFAULTSORT coding in the template. I'm now going to tentatively propose a change that should address most issues that are being discussed. Carcharoth 11:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to attempt to summarise the above discussions about listas and DEFAULTSORT and PAGENAME, and give more background.
I think that summarises everything about how these three parameters and magic words work and how they are currently being used. One point I haven't made here yet, but which is important, is that there can be problems of standardisation between three values: DEFAULTSORT on the article, DEFAULTSORT on the talk page, and listas. Sometimes they are different, sometimes one or more are present while others are absent. Sometimes none of them are present.
What I think would be helpful is if people would say below what they think the desired behaviour and interaction of these parameters and magic words should be, and how we can spread best practice and convert existing systems to follow best practice. Carcharoth 13:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
What you need in the first place is a whole lot better instruction to editors on how to use these sort keys. We have a lot of not very bright editors on Wikipedia, who need explicit instructions on how to do it. It seems that most of those involved in this discussion would fall into that category, since this hasn't even been mentioned as far as I can see.
The problem is that we have a very rudimentary, simplistic sort mechanism. Everything in the sort key is sorted. That includes spaces, punctuation marks, whatever. But it isn't sorted in accordance with anybody's sorting rules. It is simply sorted in accordance with Unicode numbers.
The essential factors that need to be noted, and that need to be included in the instructions to people who will be using "listas" or "DEFAULT" sort include these points:
See Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category for more essential pointers.
Gene Nygaard 12:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Note that this applies not only to articles about people, but to all articles. Gene Nygaard 12:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotect}}
This template includes:
{{#ifeq:{{{british-royalty|}}}{{{royalty-work-group|}}}{{{military-task-force|}}}{{{military-work-group|}}}{{{musician-work-group|}}}{{{filmbio-work-group|}}}{{{a&e-work-group|}}}{{{s&a-work-group|}}}{{{baronets-work-group|}}}{{{peerage-work-group|}}}{{{politician-work-group|}}}| |[[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people]]}}
This rule is missing a clause for "sports-work-group." The effect is that a page with "sports-work-group = yes" in its WPBiography template appears in both Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople.
I am not well versed in template conditional logic. I believe this rule should read:
{{#ifeq:{{{british-royalty|}}}{{{royalty-work-group|}}}{{{military-task-force|}}}{{{military-work-group|}}}{{{musician-work-group|}}}{{{filmbio-work-group|}}}{{{a&e-work-group|}}}{{{s&a-work-group|}}}{{{baronets-work-group|}}}{{{peerage-work-group|}}}{{{politician-work-group|}}}{{{sports-work-group|}}}| |[[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people]]}}
Thanks -- Tim Pierce 02:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Now that I have read some of the source code for this template, I see a "military-task-force" parameter that does not appear in the template documentation. I don't think I understand the difference between "military-task-force" and "military-work-group". They appear to be treated differently only in that articles tagged with "military-work-group" are also placed in appropriate categories for their class, importance and priority, and in "military-task-force" articles, these parameters are ignored. That doesn't make any sense, so I think I must have it wrong. Can anyone shed any light on this and possibly update the documentation? Tim Pierce 03:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
|aboriginal = yes
I would suggest a warning box to come up on biographies of deceased aboriginal people like. petedavo 07:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
HI All, I would like to use this template on my personal genealogy wiki. I tried copying the page but things don't seem to work. Is there a way I can use it on non-wikipedia, wikimedia websites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.130.31 ( talk • contribs)
I'm interested in adding a religion-work-group or a saints-work-group to the WPBiography template. Here's why:
I have been working on categorizing the pages in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people by tagging each {{ WPBiography}} template with the appropriate working group. The category is filled with requests for images of saints and other religious figures, however, and there is no appropriate working group. There is a Saints WikiProject, however.
I do not personally have an interest in maintaining or working on this work group -- I just want to streamline the job of categorizing requested photographs and images. What process would I follow to start one or to find someone willing to take it on? Tim Pierce 06:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the text "This article was the Biography WikiProject Collaboration of the Fortnight (dates). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations." should be changed to the simpler "This article was the Biography WikiProject Collaboration (dates)." Then, a collaboration can be selected for any length of time (week/fortnight/month/whatever) without the need to make sure all the time periods on the templates match with one another. DrKiernan 08:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The template says that an article is "within the scope" of the biography wikiproject, but articles are "supported by" the various workgroups. I think it might be better to use "within the scope" throughout, to avoid giving people the wrong idea. Xtifr tälk 14:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I've made some minor visual changes at the sandbox. If the job queue is ever just too low an administrator could make the change :). Otherwise just include it in the next update. Thanks, Psych less 04:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I like Image:P_vip.png, which features prominently on the Portal page. I personnaly dislike portal templates without pictures and would like to start a discussion on its inclusion in the template, like
for WP:WPFS. -- Kl4m Talk Contrib 03:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I am bothered that there may be an issue of overcategorization within the listas categories. When an article has a listas parameter, the article gets tagged with the unnecessary Category:Biography articles with listas parameter category.
To me, what I see is:
It appears that some coding causes both of these categories to be created. If it sees "listas=yes", why does it need to create a category?
My main point is: How do we code the WPBIO box to not create both categories, but only post a notification to support "Biography articles without listas parameter" ? Any info or insight? Guroadrunner 11:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
not real important, but next time the template's updated, can it reflect the change frm 'importance' to 'priority' ie display that rating like the other project templates display the 'importance' rating? ⇒ bsnowball 16:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Please fix the wikilink that currently leads to Slander_and_libel so that it correctly leads to Defamation. Jcc1 04:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)