This page 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.

I like the idea of it, however, there's two major problems with it which can't be fixed easily. First, the lack of eyes on the page almost defeats the purpose of having it, since pages just sit there. More seriously though, the gap between GAs and FAs seems to be quite smaller than it used to be, making A-class a pretty small step between the two. As a result, there seems to relatively little need for it at all. I mean, I don't think the 20 bios would mind going back to GA. Thoughts? Wizardman 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure demotion would go down well. Perhaps a freeze on new promotions as a first step? DrKiernan ( talk) 15:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I could accept that. I have recently invited another experienced reviewer to help out there, and he agreed, so it might not get as little attention as it has in the past. I think it can be useful as a less formal way for people who have gotten GA approval to less formally see any obstacles to FA that they might face. And, as long as A class exists, which I think will pretty much always be the case, someone will have to determine what falls in that grade. I wouldn't object to seeing it continue, if only to allow for the comparatively less formal peer review prior to FA consideration, which is what most of the nominees are ultimately seeking anyway. John Carter ( talk) 15:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Could somebody rate this page - Giourkas Seitaridis. The-Real-ZEUS ( talk) 02:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's already been rated as start, which I support. Wizardman 15:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a recent DYK article and my goal is for it to reach GA status. I listed the article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Clarence Lightner/archive1, but was told it might be a good idea to leave a note on the project talk pages for helpful suggestions. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 17:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated this article for Featured Article Review. Please come and review it, and help it retain FA status! Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 22:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

William IV of the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Chwech 00:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please help to watch Walter Lippmann. AFAIK, Lippmann died in 1974. Vandals keep inserting the info that he is still alive and 119 years old. -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 18:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom Brinkman has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Daysleeper47 ( talk) 13:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted this over at WikiProject Texas, but no action was taken. I assume there might be more people interested over here. I personally do not have the time to do this. Here is my recommendation: Aside from Laura Bush and Anita Thigpen Perry there are not that many articles about the First Ladies of Texas (the wives of the governors). Here are some that can be written about with links to sites with some info on them.

• Linda Gale Thompson: Governors: Mark White
• Rita Crocker Clements: Texas Women's Hall of Fame: Rita Crocker Clements
• Janey Briscoe: Governor Dolph Briscoe and Janey Briscoe
• Ima Smith: Smith_donor_highlight.pdf

You can also talk to the people over at WikiProject Biographies [Well, I guess for you this means you can talk with the people at WikiProject Texas.] for help with this. I can also help you whenever I have spare time. -- M e r ond e 11:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Would some people care to come and give their opinions on this discussion on country of birth. We seem to have been going round in circles for a while, and some fresh input may help. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Tenacious D article is currently undergoing a peer review. I need some outside help, as I am the only one editing this at the moment. I think the article can make FA class. Please help by adding to the suggestions on this here. Thanks. Tenacious D Fan ( talk) 17:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody take a look at the Thomas McEvilley talk/page. There is somebody opposing this article for weeks. Apparently not knowing how wikipedia wordks. I try to communicate with him but that doesn't work out that well. As a not native speaker I don't seem to be capable of handling this problem. -- Mdd ( talk) 17:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not able to go through every BLP article obviously, but I've noticed quite a few which are arguably written by the subject in hand or at the very least someone associated with them. A lot of the times the articles are of d-list directors, writers, etc that no one really knows about. A lot of these follow these criteria:

1. The user editing the article is only associated with the article of the person, or editing related articles to include his name. Said user's edits make up the bulk of the article.
2. The article is a written in a non-neutral, almost advertising tone
3. The entire article reads like a fluff piece from IMDB, or a full-fledged biography detailing everything but the name of the school.
4. Little to no reliable sources can be found.

I suppose a good example would be Nick Palumbo, although I've noticed quite a few more. Check out this version [1].

What I'm asking is if those who monitor biographies can give a look into this and try to prune those that fit the criteria.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 16:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly right. You might want to check more directly with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, and maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Films as well. As a non-specialist in films, I have to admit that even I thought the version you linked to was, well, maybe a bit too self-aggrandizing? There are some vague intentions of maybe trying to get the general Biography project a bit more obviously coordinated in the near future, and with any luck at that time we'll have a few more people actively supervising such things. John Carter ( talk) 16:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll post it there as well.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 19:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That kind of thing is turning up everywhere, Barbara_Westermann this one isn't at all an objective article, it is basically the artist's resume. EraserGirl ( talk) 15:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This may be a little presumptious of me. But there are going to be 4 new U.S. congressmen elected in the next 2-3 months. I am going to go out on a limb and say they are likely to be Jackie Speier, Steve Scalise, Woody Jenkins, & Greg Davis (Mississippi politician). Speier is extremely likely and her article is in pretty good shape but Scalise, Davis and especially Woody Jenkins need work. It'd be cool if wikipedia could get ahead of the game on these pages. I'm not sure what else I can add (or remove) to them. We may also want to work on Don Cazayoux (which is actually in pretty good shape thanks to User:Billy Hathorn) and Travis Childers in case I'm wrong.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 15:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson has been nominated for Featured article. I'd like as many editors as possible to participate in the review to ensure passing. Please help review! Bookkeeperoftheoccult ( talk) 08:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob Marshall (wilderness activist), which falls under this WikiProject, has recently been promoted to Good Article status. As the principle contributor, I'm looking for detailed feedback for how to improve it for a future nomination at WP:FAC. If wonderful, selfless reviewers and interested parties could take part in the Peer Review, listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bob Marshall (wilderness activist)/archive1, I would be very grateful. Thanks! María ( habla con migo) 20:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this article, which falls under the scoope of your project, is currently listed as a Featured Article. I felt that there is sufficient reason to revisit this assessment, so I have listed it for a Featured Article Review. My preference is to see the concerns addressed and have the article remain at its current level, but some work its needed. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Wayne Gretzky. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 21:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear colleagues—This week, it's all about how reviewing at these locations are critical to maintaining WP's high standards, and the other advantages of being a reviewer. Here's the link:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches

We're happy for the word to be spread, since we need more reviewers; if you have a mind to review, please drop in. TONY (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Replace this image male.svg A recent discussion concerning the use of image placeholders on biographies lacking photos has moved to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. A group of editors is requesting a community-wide discussion of these image placeholders and whether and how they should be used. Please contribute your thoughts there and publicize this discussion anywhere you feel would be appropriate. Thank you. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 07:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Recently, there was a discussion about including deaths of prominent individuals in the ITN section on the Main page. One of the current proposals is to have a list of top important/prominent/notable people and if anyone from the list dies, he is mentioned in the templaet, otherwise not. In order not to create a list from a scratch, I turn to you, do you have anything appropriate? I checked the importance assesments, top importance category lists almost no living people and high importance is already quite big. Is there anything in between that lists only living people? Thanks for feedback, greetings. -- Tone 19:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

We basically don't rate the biography articles by importance very much; given the fact that we've got about 15% of all of wikipedia to deal with, that could be a bit of a problem. It might be possible to somehow integrate in the information from the various assessments so that any biography ranked of top importance by any project, as shown here, could be included, but you'd probably want to talk with the 1.0 people for that. John Carter ( talk) 20:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, thanks. I'll ask there. -- Tone 20:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Computer man in University mail : janmaleky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosijan ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For some reason in the software, some of the content doesn't appear on the main page (save for the edit feature page). Can someone figure this out? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 19:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The article Emery Molyneux is up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 00:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On other articles Legendre is simply named as Legendre.

This has baffled me for sometime, why are some people, usually those from the 19th century, referred to by only their last name as if some legend by their own right? No one, for instance, will ever use the word Icahn in an article where Carl Icahn is referenced.

No mathematician (or anyone else, for that matter) I know of in the 20th century has ever achieved the status of being referred to only in their last name. And here on Wikipedia, we continue the strangeness.

This isn't really a vote for or against the use of last names only in articles, but more or less trying to start a discussion on whether or not we need to lend credence to people like this.

Or in simple-speaK: I am just really weirded out by some people being referred to in only their last names, why is that?

Scryer_360 ( talk) 23:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is done in biographies based on the Manual of Style guideline for use of subsequent names in articles, once the complete name is given. It gives a more encyclopedic voice to the article and avoids familiarity. As far as to how a person is referred in other articles, the complete name should be given at the first use, followed by the use of the surname only. I didn't go through and check each and every article linking to the Legendre article, but the majority I checked use the full name when referring to the person, and the surname only when discussing a mathematical theorem, principle or proof (which was also my experience in college when discussing mathematical principles).

To answer your last question, perhaps it's just a factor of how you're perceiving it. As far as credence - or notability, which I believe would be the same - anyone with an article on Wikipedia is considered notable and discussion regarding that person's work and life is given credence. If you were reading a news article or scientific journal entry, you would be seeing the name Legendre, not the use of a first name. In randomly checking a 20th century mathematician article, Andrew Wiles, these same factors hold true. So no, there's no artificial aggrandizing and no one has started out to puff up dead mathematicians, rather, what you're seeing is adherence to Wikipedia guidelines. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Would some editors please look at this article? An editor wishes to remove information from it, and I would like to get an objective opinion. If possible, please leave comments on the talk page of the Romm article. Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to invite all interested parties to participate in the RfC on how should the birth place of the Slovene hockey player Anže Kopitar be stated. Currently it says "born in Jesenice, Yugoslavia, now Slovenia". I think this is unclear and should be rectified. It makes it seem like Jesenice was previously not part of Slovenia or like Slovenia did not exist at that time, nothing of which makes sense. The phrasing "born in Jesenice, Slovenia, Yugoslavia" leaves no doubt. -- Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has been put as Featured Article Candidate at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Akhtar Hameed Khan for opinions and comments. -- Isles Cape ^Talk 19:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I spent several hours last night rewriting this article to try to limit the influx of fringe theories into it. I would now appreciate several more sets of eyes and some comments on the talk page of the article in an effort to vaguely establish a consensus for the rewrite compared to its original version. I hope you can help! Best wishes Fritzpoll ( talk) 15:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an additional comment that this has been prompted by IP reversions and my suspicion that the edits I've make are rather contentious for some. Fritzpoll ( talk) 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed: see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Proposal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 19:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I recently came across the Biographical Database of the British Chemical Community, 1880-1970, from the Open University. I see that it is used in several articles already, but as it has details on "some 4860 chemists", we could use it a lot more. Could someone please list the page somewhere where others will be able to find and use it. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver Meetup Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details. This box: view •  talk •

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 15:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi all! I was hoping someone could direct me to relevant policy (or at least a discussion) on the following issue. When a woman is more commonly known by her married name rather than her maiden name, we call the article title by her married name. BUT in the article body itself, when describing events before she was married, do we call her by her married name?

Example:
Jane Smith (nee Brown, 20 June 1930 - 13 December 1984) was blah blah blah notable.
Jane Brown was born 20 June 1930 in the town of Townburg. Brown attended school at a local school. On 15 April 1955 she met Joe Smith and they were married on 22 September that year. Later in life, Smith went on to become highly notable for all manner of things.

Is the above correct? Or should I use Smith the whole way through, with the unfortunate consequence that on a casual reading it looks like she's married her relative? I can't find an explicit comment at the manual of style one way or the other. (See Hillary Rodham Clinton for a GA example of an article following the above format.) Thanks. - DustFormsWords ( talk) 03:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)