Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Biography

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive/June 2008. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Discussions about article assessment (including complaints and suggestions) should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Assessment


Archive
Archives

2003-2006

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7

2007

2008


Contents

[edit] Laura Nativo

I would be eternally grateful if someone could make sure I have added information to this article correctly. I'm still learning the ropes so obviously don't want to make things difficult. I was unable to find much information about her, though I did add her full filmography. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samdvd1 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion item in info box

I was sent over here from the Hillary Clinton article after I changed her listed religion in the info box thing from "United Methodist" to "Christian (United Methodist)". Barack Obama lists his as "Christian (United Church of Christ)". I was told that it was a WP convention to give Christians' individual church denominations but not "Christian" itself in the info boxes. I personally think this is wrong and maybe even offensive to some people. If you asked a member of the United Methodist Church or the United Church of Christ what his or her religion was I am sure they would answer "Christian" and only give the name of the demonination if asked about that. I personally think it would be an improvement if the way WP does this were changed. Thanks. Please let me know if there is a better place to post this. Redddogg (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the right place to post it. And I acknowledge your point regarding what the subject themselves might say. However, as I'm sure you'd probably agree, it's generally assumed that, in like Hillary's case, the Christianity can be fairly easily assumed by most people based on the "United Methodist" info, and those who don't know it could easily follow the link to see what broader faith it belongs to. I note that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lists his religion as "Shi'a Islam", not "Islam", so I think the convention is to use the most precise reasonable term in the infobox as possible. For rather unusual religious affiliations, like say Majalli Wahabi, it would probably even make sense to list only the word "Druze" instead of "Islam - Druze" because of the potential dispute regarding whether the Druze are Islamic. Maybe it'd be clearer if the word "denomination" were used, but that word has its own problems. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two new core biographies needing attention - IMMEDIATELY!

Unhelpful thread removed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Close the assessment department?

Articles are no longer being assessed. Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Assessment#Close the assessment department? to discuss the issue. Thanks, Melty girl (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with Ataúlfo Argenta

I just came across this article which is definitely not in compliance with verifiability. It is full of original research and the repetition of rumours verging on slander. It has been the subject of persistent attempts by the single purpose account Tilleadh to revert the removal of the unsourced, unverifiable, and potentially biased information. The subject died 50 years ago (although his son is still alive) hence I'm assuming it's not suitable for the BLP noticeboard. If this is not the right page to bring this up, can let me know where I should post it? (I'm also notifying Wikipedia Project Spain.) Thanks Voceditenore (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wu Zetian

I've expanded Wu Zetian and requested a peer review of it. Any review by project members and further refining/expansion would be appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hillary Clinton at WP:GAR

Hillary Clinton has been at WP:GAR since Feb. 11.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 403 featured articles on people!

Please see User:Carcharoth/Featured articles needing regular updates#Featured articles on people. Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mikhail Margelov

This is my first biographical article for Wikipedia. Could anyone give me feedback on style, content and ways to improve the article? Thank you.--Conjoiner (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Che Guevara Feature article review notice

Che Guevara 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.

[edit] Louis XIV

Members of this project may be interested at a discussion going on at the Louis XIV talk page. If you have anything to add to this obscure discussion, additional opinions would be welcome. Coemgenus 16:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Being a rather long thread and, hence, more difficult to follow all the arguments on either side of the debate(s), these have been summarized on the next thread. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resurrecting an old topic...

We still need a religious work group; as well as crime, business - and I still feel activist as well (since you can't very put them into the politician work group unless you change it from "politician" to political). --Ozgod (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Samantha Smith

Hi, just to let you know that Samantha Smith, an article within this project's scope, is at featured article review. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Samantha Smith if interested in contributing. Thanks Dspark76 (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spring 2008 Assessment Drive

I would like to invite you all to join me in a Spring 2008 Assessment Drive to help clear out our backlog of unassessed articles. I am looking at launching the drive on March 14, 2008 and having it run for three months, until May 14, 2008 June 14, 2008 or the ending Friday of that week. --Ozgod (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, wouldn't 3 months put it at ending on June 14? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it would. My bad. --Ozgod (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll do what I can to help. John Carter (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We (Milhist) will be running a tagging drive starting (hopefully) mid-April. It strikes me that if you could tag any bios of military people for Milhist, we could tag any Military bios we come across for Biography? Does this make sense, pooling resources a little? --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. The only questions which come to mind to me would be which task forces, if any, of MilHist to tag the articles for. But, when the page for the assessment drive is created, I can try to ensure that the relevant material for MilHist would also be included. John Carter (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense and is completely doable - I believe MilHist shows up on Outriggr's script; I'll double check it to be sure. --Ozgod (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


(outdent) Sorry to take a while to get back on this but I had it in my mind that this drive was starting at the end of March! Oh well, better late than never. Anyhow, here are a few suggestions for addressing the practicalities.

Tagging

The least-demanding option is for editors to add: {{WPMILHIST|class = |Biography=yes}}. This adds the article to Category:Unassessed military history articles, which is regularly checked and assessed.

The adventurous could add the class too, using the standard codes, class = B. Milhist has its own B-class criteria but we can easily pick up articles which have B-class set but not the parameters so that is no problem.

The really adventurous could add Milhist task forces. However, there are over fifty of them so this can be a daunting job. The most popular ones are: WWI=yes (World War I), WWII=yes (World War II), US=yes (American), British=yes (British), Russian=yes (Russian), Maritime=yes (Naval), and Aviation=yes (Aviation). A complete list can be found in the Milhist template: {{WPMILHIST}}.

Rewards

Obviously any contributing editors would be entitled to Milhist service awards. These are awarded on the following basis:

250 articles - One stripe

500 articles - Two stripes

1000 - Three stripes

I could award them but it may be easier if you do this yourselves at the end of the drive. The

{{subst:Milhist-1stripe|For tagging '''''250''''' articles for the joint ''[[WP:WikiProject Biography|Wikiproject Biography]] / [[WP:MILHIST|Military history Wikiproject]]'' Spring 2008 drive, by order of the coordinators of the ''[[WP:MILHIST|Military history WikiProject]]'' I hereby present you with this Service Award. ~~~~}}

{{subst:Milhist-2stripe|For tagging '''''500''''' articles for the joint ''[[WP:WikiProject Biography|Wikiproject Biography]] / [[WP:MILHIST|Military history Wikiproject]]'' Spring 2008 drive, by order of the coordinators of the ''[[WP:MILHIST|Military history WikiProject]]'' I hereby present you with this Service Award. ~~~~}}

{{subst:Milhist-3stripe|For tagging '''''1000''''' articles for the joint ''[[WP:WikiProject Biography|Wikiproject Biography]] / [[WP:MILHIST|Military history Wikiproject]]'' Spring 2008 drive, by order of the coordinators of the ''[[WP:MILHIST|Military history WikiProject]]'' I hereby present you with this Service Award. ~~~~}}

I think that's everything covered. Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm noticing Outriggr's script does not allow us to tag to other WikiProjects - anyone else noticing that? It would simplify the process in helping to tag for MILHIST as well. --Ozgod (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I found it didn't work for me at all last year. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The script allows you to add the banners you specify in Special:Mypage/monobook.js. So in order to use WPBIO and MILHIST banners (and no others) with BIO as the default, try putting something like this:
assessmentMyTemplateCode = ["{{WPBiography|class=|priority=}}", "{{WPMILHIST|class=}}"];
assessmentDefaultProject = "WPBiography"; </code>
instead of the previous lines startingwith assessmentMyTemplateCode = and assessmentDefaultProject = in your monobook.js. I haven't come across a project banner that can't be added to script in this way, but you do have to specify every banner you want to be available. Hemmingsen 16:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old Magazines

Greetings, WikiProject Biography! I am Cryptic C62 from Wikiproject Chemistry. I went to a massive low-price book sale today and found two old magazines with some articles you mind find interesting:

If any of you are interested in using these magazines as sources, or if you're simply curious, I am offering to ship them at no cost other than the shipping charge. I have a complete list of the articles in each magazine, and will gladly provide any additional information needed. Anyone who is interested should respond on my Talk Page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Annie Lee Moss

Can anyone lend a third pair of eyes for the article Annie Lee Moss. There is a dispute over whether historical references in the New York Times and Washington Post should be deleted from the article in favor of newer references from books. Thanks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, (as I've tried to explained to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) multiple times) the dispute is over the appropriateness and usefulness of some footnotes that RAN insists on adding. As the other party in the dispute, I certainly would welcome some additional opinions. RedSpruce (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed amendment to notability guidelines

There have been many arguments at multiple biographical AfDs about articles on the victims of murders that have received significant press coverage. I have, in conjunction with other editors, formulated a guideline proposal at User:Fritzpoll/Notability (criminal acts) which would potentially cause a slight reinterpretation of WP:BIO if consensus is reached. I would like to ask people to come, read the proposed guideline and make comments or suggestions on the talk page. Best wishes - Fritzpoll (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal now exists in project space at WP:FELONY WP:N/CA Fritzpoll (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Screenwriters

I am trying to figure how best to jumpstart the stagnant Screenwriters Project: And it has been suggested that it be curtailed to a Task Force or Subproject and merged with WikiProject: Biography or even Wikiproject Actors and Filmmakers. The structure of a full wikiproject is a little overwhelming for a such a limited number of editors. I am well versed in the subject matter but I am not at all versed in Wikiproject management. I am finding the disconnect between categories, lists and indexes of the Screenwriters Project wildly misleading, thoroughly subjective, often irrelevant, and possibly sexist. I think that organized a different manner as a project with a small 'p', it could give equal weight to all eras and disciplines. I am deeply engaged in writing well researched articles about dead women screenwriters, however, I would like to see template standardization applied to all screenwriter articles and would be willing to do much of the heavy lifting towards this end. I am looking for other editors who are interested in breathing some life into this neglected topic. Any thoughts? EraserGirl (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#WikiProject Screenwriters. I, as opposed to you, rarely write anything, really, but am pretty good with the project management end, and I would support a merger to either project. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Still trying to drum up interest in the Screenwriters project/taskforce. Anyone at all? this is quite depressing, all these dead screenwriters and no one will speak for them. EraserGirl (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, there are some very worthy screenwriters that are alive and well, imo. I wrote Tamara Jenkins' article and greatly cleaned up Diablo Cody's not too long ago. Don't narrow yourself to those who are only six feet under. ;) Anyway, I'd be interested to see where this task force leads, but I'm spread a little thin to take much of a part, I'm afraid. It seems that the proposal has received enough support to move forward, so that's a start. María (habla conmigo) 15:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Right now, the question is how to deal with it. Personally, I think the best place to go would be to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and filmmakers as a logical parent, as they are more directly tied to the cinema than we here are. Also, it would probably help a lot if you could merge into it, to get separate assessments.
Regarding lack of interest by others, that's a problem for a lot of subjects. The best guess I would have would be to try to maybe prioritize the articles by general "importance", and try to get the better known articles involved in some sort of collaborative effort. That would indicate both the project's activity and help draw attention to it. Right now, I'm a bit tentative about adjusting the Biography banner, because there are potentially a lot of projects to be added to it in the near future, and it raises hob with the server when we alter anything transcluded as often as it, but I don't think the Actors and Filmmakers banner would be quite so problematic to alter. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I started at actors and filmmakers, and was sent here. Now I am being sent back? i may just bag the entire community thing, and just keep writing articles on my own. EraserGirl (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't explain why they sent you here. But this the Biography banner on about half a million pages, it's technically a lot easier and a lot less burden to change their banner. If you wanted, I could work on adding parameters to it, although it might take a day or to. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure, at least from this discussion, that the Actors and Filmmakers project isn't interested in the inclusion of screenwriters. I do a lot of work for that project, including lately doing the assessments as they come up, but I was of the impression that screenwriters were already included in the broader scope of the project from its inception. I do see that Blofeld has responded on this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, they are. And they do use the Biography banner, don't they. The old brain ain't working today. Give me maybe a week or so to finish the project directory, so we can start talking about which groups to add to the Biography banner all at the same time. When I'm done, I'll have a better idea of which groups should be included. Does that sound fair? John Carter (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
That's fair to me. I'm always around (well, except this evening) working on projects. I'd like to also grab this opportunity to mention that the Gene Wilder article was promoted to GA this weekend. It's alive!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

All I am looking for is direction. I am not interested in striking out on my own and revamping something that already exists, or taking over anything. I was actually hoping that there was actually a bureaucratic structure in place that would want to apply MY labors to something constructive. Granted I am new to WP, but I am passionate and learned about this topic and a highly skilled researcher. When someone comes up with a game plan, gimme a holler, I will be around. I like writing biographies of people no one else remembers. No offense but I can' be less interested in people who are still breathing, articles on the newly famous seem to have a plethora of laborers. EraserGirl (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just sending up my monthly flare. I would like to see this abandoned project folded into an active task force, but it seems to lie in a no man's land between WP:BIO and WP:FILM. If I knew how to do any of it I would. If anyone has an ideas, you know where I'll be. EraserGirl (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Most of the time this is really a matter of just doing what you like. I myself am editing here and there almost abandoned biographical articles relating to the Traditionalist School. The lack of other people willing to do the same you want isn't a reason for you to not do it anyway. Down to the basics, all these projects and task forces and the like are just groups of roughly same-minded people writing about what they find interesting in a standardized fashion. If right now the group of persons also interested in writing about what you like is composed of just yourself, well, go for it! The more there's written and well written, the most likely attracting more people to improve upon it becomes. :-) -- alexgieg (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Writer template is broken

The {{Infobox Writer}} template is broken (see Template talk:Infobox Writer). 67.100.45.72 (contribs) 01:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC).

It's not broke. As you pointed out at Template talk:Infobox Writer, "I'm using an antiquated version of Mozilla that predates Firefox". I am working on a solution. pete 17:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment Drive is up

The Spring 2008 assessment drive is up and running and I look forward to working with all of you! --Ozgod (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinators revisited

I see some other projects are now in the process of setting up coordinators like MILHIST does. Personally, given the scope of this project, and the amount of work to keep it going, I think that this project would probably stand to have a few individuals at least stated somewhere to be individuals who can be contacted regarding certain matters and/or who commit to help keeping the project's activities current. If MILHIST has nine, considering we have about 10 times the number of articles they have, I think we could probably use at least 9 as well. Also, I think it might help if we had at least one of the coordinators able to, perhaps, focus a bit of concentrated attention on the various work group and subprojects, maybe even designating them that group's primary coordinator. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC) --66.195.91.61 (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)dwqdsqedesqafkkkkkkfkdllelllllldfkkkkfkkwekq;THE NADE KILLED HIM SUP

Yeah, I remember my first time being drunk, too. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
My interest waxes and wanes, but I'm likely to stick around and be available in the long-term, if not the short-term, so keep me informed about stuff if you need anyone to help. Carcharoth (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of people needing categorization by birth or death

I've compiled three lists of people needing categorization by birth or death (as of mid-March 2008):

Any help gratefully received in adding the appropriate categories to these! Dsp13 (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of unclear notability

Hello,

on Wikipedia, there are currently more than 3100 biographies with their notability questioned. Based on a database snapshot of March 12, I have listed them here, sorted by workgroup.

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have further questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alma Mater

What counts as the alma mater for the "person" infobox? Please post your thoughts at Template talk:Infobox Person#Alma Mater. Thanks --Tim4christ17 talk 22:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should A-Class review go?

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)

[edit] Rate

[edit] Clarence Lightner

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)

[edit] James K. Polk

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)

[edit] William IV of the United Kingdom

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)


[edit] Walter Lippmann, recently vandal target, please watch

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)

[edit] Tom Brinkman

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)

[edit] First Ladies of Texas

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.

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. --Merond e 11:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] County of birth

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 57 18:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tenacious D

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)

[edit] Thomas McEvilley

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)

[edit] Something that I think should be dealt with

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)

[edit] Up and coming Congressmen

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)

[edit] Janet Jackson FAC

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)

[edit] Bob Marshall (wilderness activist) up for Peer Review

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 conmigo) 20:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wayne Gretzky Featured Article Review

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)

[edit] WP Signpost on FAC and FAR/C reviewing

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)

[edit] Image Placeholders

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)

[edit] Hello from ITN team

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)

[edit] mostafa janmaleki

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

[edit] DMX (rapper)

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)

[edit] Emery Molyneux

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

[edit] Something I noticed in the Legendre article...

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)

[edit] Joseph Romm

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)

[edit] Anže Kopitar

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)

[edit] Akhtar Hameed Khan for WP:FAC

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

[edit] Robert F. Kennedy assassination - some help needed

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)

[edit] Good article icon

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)

[edit] Useful biographical resource

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)

[edit] Vancouver, British Columbia meet-up

Wikimedia 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 • edit

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

[edit] Addresses

I noticed that the Jeremy Edwards article listed his address (not the house number, but the street). I've removed the street name but I was wondering if there's a policy on this anywhere? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Answered here. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Manson at WP:GAN

The Charles Manson article has been nominated for good article and is currently listed for review. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain peer review

Just wanted to mention that I've requested Peer Review of the John McCain article, in case anyone would like to join in.[2]Ferrylodge (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{BDA}}

Hi all just thought I'd point you too {{BDA}} , i could be handy for you Gnevin (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Hamilton

Hello. I'm not sure this is the correct place to do so, but I would like to request help for the Alexander Hamilton biography. I previously posted a help request to the American History Taskforce, but there doesn't seem to be anyone home there. This article needs a great deal of help from the widest possible variety of quality editors. The Hamilton article, rather bizarrely, is shockingly contentious and POV. The article is guarded by a longtime editor, PMAnderson. This editor admits to disagreeing with the consensus of current historical research about Hamilton, and works to promote and preserve edits that skew the biography of Hamilton towards a far more negative version than the consensus of historical sources supports. I have tried improving parts of the article, only to find myself personally attacked over and over. I continue to work with him, but frankly, I am exhausted, and need help. PMAnderson edits Wikipedia almost all day long and almost everyday. He is deeply entrenched in this article. I do not have the time to keep up with him on my own. If you can, please, please help this article--new editors can only help it. All I want is for the article to reflect the historical consensus about Hamilton. Hamilton is such a basic American historical biography that it absolutely needs to be accurate. If this article does not within the scope of this project, please forward this SOS to an appropriate group, and/or let me know where I can find additional quality editors to lend the article some help. Thank you. AdRem (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theodore Roosevelt FAR

Theodore Roosevelt 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.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of scope

Someone put the WPBiography template on Talk:Bright Star (film). I'm removing it, though I thought I should mention it here: the movie is, apparently, biograpical in nature.  — AnnaKucsma  Speak! 17:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've explained my reasoning for having removed the banner. I've asked that further commints be posted here, but it may be worth keeping an eye on Talk:Bright Star (film)#Removal of biography project banner.  — AnnaKucsma  Speak! 17:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] living=maybe as a default

Many articles have WPBiography but have "living" left blank. I recommend the following changes to {{WPBiography}} if the living parameter is missing:

  • Put up a box similar to the BLP box saying this person "may be living" and the BLP policy should be followed until he's known or presumed dead.
  • Add the article to a new category that a robot or person can browse through
  • Create a robot that compares the life-related elements of the article and fixes up the living= parameter if possible. For example, if the person is in Category:1999 deaths or Category:1801 births then a bot can tag him living=false, if he's in Category:living people or a related category, then a bot can mark him living=yes.

Good idea? No? Your thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I see the intent but I think it would be better as maybe a hidden/maintenance cat than a box on the talk page, which could lead to confusion for our readers (and also probably look a little silly for obviously-dead people). I like the idea of a bot that could be programmed to tag as "living=no" better. Biographies of dead people still way outnumber biographies of living people. Is there are a category for "living= parameter not filled in"? That would be the same for maintenance purposes, I think, and would force a human to check the biography out. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black Knight

I've never needed to delete a Project tag before, not sure if theres any process to go through, the current version of the article has no relation to a biography, nor does the previous which dealt with a made up class of warrior (which are properly infact called knight-errants, not Black Knights who are individual literary creations). Anyways, if someone wants to get rid of it or let me know if I don't have to ask you guys about deleting your tag thing, that would be cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, but sure, you can do yourself these edits when you see something is wrongly tagged, or is lacking a tag you know should be there. WikiProject members are just normal users who say: "Hey, I like this! Let me add my name to the member list!", and start acting accordingly. Whether you added your name to the list or not doesn't matter much. -- alexgieg (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nils Bejerot

The Nils Bejerot article is are in a dire need of help. I don't want to involve (to much) as I find it to hard write about him neutrally in a language thats not my own. I think he is a scientific charlatan and an asshole, to be frank. That is, however, the direct opposite to the primary author of the article. It has also been the used as a trash bin for content mainly about him from an other article. Also by the same main author in question. Steinberger (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Augustus Heber

I have had to delete almost the entire content of this article as a copyvio (see here). I've also reclassified him as American (though German-born) as his career seems to have been entirely carried out over here. He is obviously important, but I haven't been able to find material to quickly cobble something together. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paperbot hero

I wanted to tag a couple of writers with a writer template, but can't find one. Did I miss it? Trekphiler (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the article talk page, so that the article is tagged as being under the umbrella of WikiProject Biography, you should use {{WPBiography}} and, if the writer fits some of the task force projects, set it's parameter as "yes". A fiction writer will typically be tagged with |a&e-work-group=yes (for the "Arts and Entertainment task force"), while a non-fiction one usually goes under |s&a-work-group=yes (for the "Science and Academia work group") if he's an academic. But it might be some of the others tags, or more than one. Read the template thoroughly for the many options.
If you mean the article page itself, then you're after an infobox. For a fiction writer the most used one is {{Infobox Writer}}, but if he's a non-fiction writer you'll find more appropriate ones at the previous link.
Nothing prevents you adding both, though. And just for the sake of completeness, I'd also add a Persondata to the article page too. Nothing like doing it all in a single go. :-)
But please note that these templates are for use on biographical articles only. You linked an article about a music band above, and that certainly doesn't fit WikiProject Biography, although it does fit WikiProject Music. Maybe you're look for something they might have? -- alexgieg (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Lifetime considered for deletion

The {{Lifetime}} template is being considered for deletion. If you're interested in the matter, please go to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 22#Template:Lifetime and cast your vote. Mine was "keep". -- alexgieg (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charlemagne Tower

Hi everyone. I'm still relatively new at this, so I apologize if I'm going about this the wrong way. I have recently updated and overhauled the article on Charlemagne Tower, which was already tagged with the Biography Wikiproject label when I found it. I wanted to submit this for review with the project. How do I go about doing that? Thanks for your help! Bowie60 (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review#Instructions -- alexgieg (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
In the meantime, I have upgraded the WP Biography assessment to B class. -- Lini (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] member of project is creating tons of non-notable actor articles

I see that User:Hashmi, Usman is creating lots of articles on non-notable actors like here and then labelling them as part of this project [3]. Can someone that knows about actor articles speak to this user about this? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OBI biography

Apologies in advance if this has already been linked to in the past, but as the missing wikiproject list has started a monthly focus on OBI Biographies I invite anyone with some time and general interest in articles about general individuals to have a look at the list and see if they can help in any way. The project is almost complete with 210~ or so articles left (out of a couple of thousand) so any input would be great. I figure this would be the best (possibly only) other place to advertise it since its a list about individuals...which this project is abouit. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientists needed

There are tons of evil, evil redlinks at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Natural_sciences#People_in_science.2FScientists. If you're interested in writing science biographies, this would be a great place to start! Best, shoy 14:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA Review Brian Close

Brian Close 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. Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harbhajan Singh -FA Review

Harbhajan Singh 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. Arman (Talk) 03:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming discussion

Dear all, there is a discussion currently occurring at Naming conventions (names and titles) about "simplifying titles, through which it is suggested that we remove "prince" from royals with substantive titles. The proposal was "passed" after 12 days, with the input of only five editors. I strongly encourage every one here to take part in the discussion such that a properly-agreed solution can be reached. † DBD 23:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Gomez

I am aiming to nominate this article for GA and to be a FA on 21 June. If you can suggest any improvements to the article please let me know.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] How much info on embarassing associates should be in a presidential candidate's biography?

The Barack Obama Featured Article is one of the more prominent biography articles in Wikipedia, and an important discussion is going on there now (at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details) that could affect other articles on presidential candidates.

Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Examples:

Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles. Noroton (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

On some other pages where I've posted this, people have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at the Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin'. I promise not to do it again (on this page). Noroton (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Isaac Brock nominated for FA review

Isaac Brock 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.

[edit] Andrew Johnson

I've been doing quite a lot of work on Andrew Johnson and think it's come a long way since it was assessed as a B-class article back in May 2006. Would appreciate a bit of help finishing it up to GA status or possibly even higher.

Cheers. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on Harvey Milk

A request for comment has been posted at Talk:Harvey Milk#REQUEST FOR COMMENT: Milk's involvement with Jim Jones/Peoples Temple. Other editor's input would be appreciated. Banjeboi 04:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jim McKay on Fark.com

Just to give you guys a warning, the Jim McKay article has been linked to on the main page of Fark.com. I've already added a high traffic warning to the talk page. JPINFV (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced BLPs

Hello everyone,

In case you're not aware, Messedrocker has been kind enough to update his list of unreferenced biographies of living people. There are over 14,000 biographies that are listed as being entirely unreferenced! Let's get to work :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WPBIO country taskforces versus country WikiProjects?

Hi guys. I've had a quick look around and couldn't find anything that addressed this directly. Is there any kind of long-term plan to set up country-based taskforces within WPBIO, or is it just going to be handled informally based on the intersection of WPBIO and the various country Wikiprojects? It would just be nice to know because I'm in the middle of a tagging frenzy for WikiProject Italy and I thought I'd check before tagging 12,000-odd articles. Given that the Italy Project only has about 8500 "town" articles and ~2000 "other" articles at present, I can't help worrying that I'm about to turn WP:Italy into WP:Italy-biography by default. So assigning those 12,000 articles to a taskforce of WP:BIO might make more sense, although we can probably survive taking them on directly. There is a precendent for this, we've effectively outsourced our football articles to the Italy taskforce of WP:FOOTY, and I'm a bit worried about negating the whole point of having a WikiProject in the first place, that it allows you to focus on a particular set of articles. I'lll obvious WPBIO-tag any that need it as I go along, from what I've seen they're fairly good in that regard, and there's some fun bits of history in there, lots of medieval nobility and condottieri and the like. I've plenty of non-bio articles to tag first, and I can see that any decision to set up country taskforces would be a big deal for you guys, so I'm happy to let this one stew a while.... FlagSteward (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spotlight

Spotlight
An article covered by this WikiProject, Michaelangelo, is currently under the Spotlight. If you wish to help, please join the editors in #wikipedia-spotlight on the freenode IRC network where the project is coordinated. (See the IRC tutorial for help with IRC)

...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 11:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jack O'Reilly (gangster)

Not sure how legit this article is. I found the text tagged on to end of Jack O'Reilly (footballer) and then created separate article. This guy sounds a bit scary. Don’t really want to edit it as he seems to be still alive. I have linked some of it thou. Any takers Djln--Djln (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Lizzie Borden

A request for comments on issues arising on the Lizzie Borden article has been opened. Please visit Talk:Lizzie Borden#Request for Comments to respond. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)