Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Proposal of adding/removing people

Since new people will only be added if someone is removed, how about when someone adds a new person to be considered they list a person who they think should be replaced, and people will vote on that particular swap. That way you can look at just the two people and determine who deserves to be on the list more. If someone gets deleted from the list someone can just re-nominate it against someone they feel is less important. This wouldn't have been a very efficient way to start the process, but now we have gotten down to the point where everyone on the list is pretty important and at least has 2 supporters each. VegaDark 04:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it'd work, because, for example, if someone wanted to remove Christopher Columbus to add Adolf Hitler, Hitler would probably win and Columbus would be removed. Both arguably deserve to be on the list though — and this is an example, I realize both are already on the list.
You know what, I thought we had already finalized the list weeks ago. After we deal with Errabee's nominations, I'm going to start a finalization vote until at LEAST Wikipedia 1.0. Otherwise, new people will keep joining in on the discussion every other day to add more people. ♠ SG →Talk 06:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought of that but I think we are to the point where most of the people who are deserving of being on the list (by our consensus) are already on there, so I wouldn't imagine there being too many changes. But yes, I agree this should be the last round of nominations for a long while, perhaps use this idea when they are being accepted again. VegaDark 06:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
You know, maybe we should just do it your way, but instead have people vote for both the addition and deletion candidates. If both succeed, then it works. If the deletion succeeds but not the addition, then the next addition which passes won't need a deletion candidate.
Hell, I think we should just contact everyone who was active in the last vote and get them to list one addition and one deletion each, or just one of either, or none at all if they only want to vote. We'll vote on all of the candidates, make the vote last only 48 hours to get this damn project going. What do you think? ♠ SG →Talk 09:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) - I really don't think we should have any more votes, even the ones above. We thought we had a finalized list and went through the work of tagging them and assessing, only to have another round, and so we need to make sure the new changes get tagged/untagged. And the real purpose of this project isn't the list itself being perfect, but as a starting point for us to start working on these articles, and I don't feel like we've gotten anywhere in that direction. We can just state strong the real purpose of the list and ask people to help assess and improve, otherwise we're always going to have someone who doesn't think the list is perfect and we'll be stuck in an eddy, working to improve this list instead of the articles on it :-) --plange 15:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Everyone and their brother wants to work on changing the list, but so far plange and myself are the only people who have actually done any assessments. Let's leave the list alone until we finish the assessments. Here's a proposal: In order to nominate a person for addition or deletion from the list, you have to do at least 5 article assessments (with comments). Maybe that way we could actually get some work done. Kaldari 19:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I like that idea! --plange 19:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. First up, let's have a finalization vote. I'd like to officially close the list for at least Wikipedia 1.0, but that is incredibly far away; instead, how about we make the list unchangeable until January 1, 2007? ♠ SG →Talk 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the list as-is is fine until then. VegaDark 00:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, no more voting, let's stop refining and start working :-) --plange 00:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is the worklist in case anyone forgot where it is :) Kaldari 00:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Rolling up sleeves

Let's see if we can knock out the rest of the articles on the list that are missing assessments. You can see those on the work list at the bottom (they say "Unassessed" instead of Start or GA, etc)... --plange 17:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

We're down to 50 now. Kaldari 03:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Only 30 articles left to assess! Kaldari 17:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Only 20 left. Kaldari 23:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Down to the last 7! Pick an article to assess before they're all gone :)

Kaldari 23:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I did Francis Bacon and Henrik Ibsen. Still 5 to go! Errabee 01:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll take Frank Lloyd Wright --plange 01:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I've got Hobbes. Kaldari 21:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I did Giotto. Two left! Errabee 21:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Current FARs and FARCs

FYI, I've been nominating articles to FAR that no longer meet the criteria. We now have two in this process. Please lend a hand in getting these up to current FA standards!

--plange 22:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Current status of core biographies

What follows is a list of the status, as determined by the assessments on the talk pages, of the core biographies:

  • FA – Albert Einstein; Queen Elizabeth I; Galileo Galilei; Mahatma Gandhi; Carl Friedrich Gauss; Che Guevara; Henry VIII of England; Joan of Arc; James Joyce; Søren Kierkegaard; Abraham Lincoln; Louis XIV of France; Isaac Newton; Robert Oppenheimer; Blaise Pascal; Franklin D. Roosevelt; Max Weber; William Butler Yeats;
  • A – Attila the Hun; Cyrus the Great; Leonhard Euler; Michael Faraday; Henry Ford; Stephen Hawking; Ernest Hemingway; Victor Hugo; David Hume; Linus Pauling; Plato; Edgar Allan Poe; Thucydides; Vincent van Gogh;
  • GA – Thomas Aquinas; Johann Sebastian Bach; The Beatles; Jorge Luis Borges; Julius Caesar; Charlemagne; Winston Churchill; Charles Darwin; Thomas Edison; Hippocrates; Thomas Jefferson; Jesus; Antoine Lavoisier; Martin Luther; Babe Ruth; William Shakespeare; Nikola Tesla; George Washington;
  • B – Aeschylus; Akbar; Alexander the Great; Muhammed Ali; Dante Alighieri; Archimedes; Aristotle; Augustine of Hippo; Augustus; Jane Austen; Charles Babbage; Ludwig van Beethoven; Alexander Graham Bell; Otto von Bismarck; Simón Bolívar; Gautama Buddha; George Byron, 6th Baron Byron; Miguel de Cervantes; Charlie Chaplin; Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor; Cleopatra VII of Egypt; Christopher Columbus; Confucius; Constantine I; Nicolaus Copernicus; Hernán Cortés; Leonardo da Vinci; René Descartes; Charles Dickens; Walt Disney; Fyodor Dostoyevsky; T. S. Eliot; Euclid; Francis of Assisi; Benjamin Franklin; Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor; Frederick II of Prussia; Sigmund Freud; Johann Wolfgang Goethe; Johannes Gutenberg; Hannibal; Zheng He; Heraclius; Herodotus; Alfred Hitchcock; Adolf Hitler; Homer; Qin Shi Huang; Ivan IV of Russia; Michael Jordan; Franz Kafka; Immanuel Kant; John Maynard Keynes; Genghis Khan; Martin Luther King, Jr.; Akira Kurosawa; Laozi; Leibniz; Vladimir Lenin; Carolus Linnaeus; Niccolò Machiavelli; Nelson Mandela; Karl Marx; James Clerk Maxwell; Gregor Mendel; Michelangelo; Ho Chi Minh; Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart; Muhammad; Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi; Napolean I of France; Friedrich Nietzsche; Jesse Owens; Louis Pasteur; Paul of Tarsus; Pele; Peter I of Russia; Philip II of Spain; Pablo Picasso; Marco Polo; Ezra Pound; Elvis Presley; Marcel Proust; Pythagoras; Rembrandt; Jackie Robinson; Jean-Jacques Rousseau; Saladin; Walter Scott; Shaka; Adam Smith; Socrates; Joseph Stalin; Suleiman the Magnificent; Mother Teresa; Timur; Leo Tolstoy; Giuseppe Verdi; Virgil; Voltaire; Andy Warhol; James Watt; Walt Whitman; William I of England; Wright brothers; Mao Zedong; Zoroaster;
  • Start – Mikhail Baryshnikov; Columba; Frederick Douglass; Pierre de Fermat; Edward Gibbon; Hammurabi; Cai Lun; Claude Monet; Benito Mussolini; Raphael; Auguste Rodin; Ernest Rutherford; Emperor Taizong of Tang; Sun Tzu; Mary Wollstonecraft;
  • Unassessed – Neil Armstrong; Francis Bacon; Edmund Burke; John Calvin; Catherine II of Russia; Marie Curie; Louis Daguerre; Giotto di Dondone; Mikhail Gorbachev; Brothers Grimm; Henry II of England; Thomas Hobbes; Henrik Ibsen; Johannes Kepler; Bruce Lee; Joseph Lister, 1st Baron Lister; John Locke; Ferdinand Magellan; Guglielmio Marconi; Thomas Malthus; John Milton; Max Planck; Ptolemy; Margaret Sanger; Henry David Thoreau; Mark Twain; William Wordsworth; Frank Lloyd Wright;

Hope the information proves at least somewhat useful. Badbilltucker 16:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In your list above, you show the biography page for "Akira Kurosawa" as a "B" article when it is now appearing as a "C" article on this page and on Kurosawa's own page. Does this mean that it has already been promoted to "B" status, or was this just an error?
My goal is to promote the Kurosawa article to "B" (or "A") status, prior to it being nominated as a Featured Article (and then featured on Wikipedia's homepage). The target is to accomplish this by AK's centennial birthday on March 23, 2010, or, failing that, to do this at least by the end of his centennial year. (Wikipedia is helpful on how to promote an article as a Good or Featured article, but most unhelpful, in my opinion, in explaining how to accomplish *this* part of the process: that is, the promotion of an article from, for example, "C" to "B" or "B" to "A.") Your assistance in helping me accomplish this goal would be appreciated. Thanks. --Dylanexpert (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The article has been improved significantly since this message was originally posted. This message was posted over three years ago. Gary King (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Columba

Someone else is going to have to explain how this individual qualifies for inclusion on this list. Personally, I can only see him qualifying on the basis of his possibly being the "grandfather" of medieval monasticism. Certainly, nothing in the biogrphy as it exists, or any of the brief biographies I've read, lead me to think that he is thought of as that. Unfortunately, I have no references before me that do provide such a basis for his inclusion. I am not suggesting that he be removed from the list, simply indicating that I hope someone can find a justification for his being included. Badbilltucker 13:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to ask Calgacus. He put up a rather persistant campaign to have Columba included. Personally, I consider his notability to be marginal at best. Kaldari 16:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
There was an effort by some editors to ensure there was at least one Scottish figure included in this project. I think similar objections could be made to the inclusion of Walter Scott. Catchpole 07:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It is remotely possible that he could be marked as significant as being a pivotal figure in How the Irish Saved Civilization (if he's mentioned in that book). And I agree about Walter Scott as well. Maybe in time we can propose the possible replacement with, for example, James II of England, Mary I of Scotland, Robert the Bruce, Robert Burns, William Wallace, or some similar Scottish figures. Alternately, the founder of monasticism, Saint Benedict, isn't on the list yet either, and maybe an exchange could be made there if he was included on religious reasons. Anyway, I'll try to find some more info about Columba to round out the article as time permits. Badbilltucker 23:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
He's definitely mentioned in that book... --plange 23:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
There are, actually, a number of Scots in the list, probably out of proportion to the size of the nation. Besides Walter Scott and Columba we have James Watt, David Hume and Adam Smith. Even Alexander Graham Bell was born in Scotland. White Guard 00:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I think there are more important people in the world than some obscure Scottish saint, or local Scottish rulers who have had no real impact on the world (don't let the popularity of the movie Braveheart fool you!). People with real impact on the world: Anthony van Leeuwenhoek, the inventor of the microscope; Christiaan Huygens, who proposed the wave character of light (see wave-particle duality), Saint Peter, first pope; Pericles, the most important statesman of ancient Athens, he commissioned the building of the Acropolis; Tutankhamun, insignificant during his lifetime, but of great importance when his tomb was discovered, untouched by grave robbers; Ramses II, the most important Egyptian pharaoh, (probably erroneously) believed by many to be the Pharaoh during the time of Moses; Moses himself, enough said; King Solomon, builder of the first temple in Jerusalem, known for his wisdom in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I could go on for ages, but as the voting booth is closed, there probably is no point in doing so. Errabee 00:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a can of worms-best kept closed. White Guard 00:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I will attempt to determine in what way Columba is mentioned in the above named book. If it points him out as being a pivotal figure in the foundation of medieval monasticism, and, by extenion, the reintroduction of Aristotlean thought to the west and so on, then I'll try to create a section in the page to that effect. That would definitely be sufficient cause for his inclusion. Badbilltucker 14:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, don't try to make him sound more important than he is just for the sake of the list. I imagine he will be removed at some point in the future anyway. Kaldari 15:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
He may well be. However, there is a really good case in favor of medieval monasticism being of sufficient importance to have someone included on the list to reflect it, and right now he's as good a choice to carry that banner as anyone else. And, of course, every name on the list, particularly the names closer to the bottom, are almost by definition eligible for being removed later. Badbilltucker 18:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

For the project members who encounter an In popular culture section during their work on core biographies, I have a suggestion: I recently created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the Alexander the Great page. This follows a precedent I started a year ago at Joan of Arc where, in the process of raising the article to FA, I branched and expanded the popular culture section into Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a FL. Other core biography figures probably have a similar mix of high culture and popular culture references that could merit a separate reference list. I'll be looking for more such instances. In the meantime, I'd like to encourage project participants to either imitate this example or contact me about biographies that could benefit from similar branching lists. Regards, Durova 14:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have created a worksheet for this effort at User:Durova/Cultural depictions of core biography figures. Durova 19:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessments complete, where from here?

All of the Core Biographies have been assessed for quality. Here are the results:

Total: 200 articles! Index · Statistics · Log

Maybe we should figure out which articles are in the worst shape and nominate them for collaboration. Certainly Cai Lun and Hammurabi need a lot of help. Both are barely more than a stub. Columba, Ernest Rutherford, Louis Daguerre, Mikhail Baryshnikov, Pierre de Fermat, and Sun Tzu are also in pretty sad shape. Kaldari 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Start quality has been reduced to 18 articles. Apparently, Cai Lun had a secondary talk page under Talk:Ts'ai Lun, which I've now redirected. Errabee 15:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I think nominating for collab is a smart move-- we can try and find the appropriate pre-existing collab for one of them and nom, if there's no appropriate project we can just do it at AID. This way we'll hopefully have more editors helping...--plange 15:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Take a Start class article to FA would be the best approach. Don't let up until all 200 are FA. --kingboyk 16:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Well the guidelines for Wikipedia 1.0 suggest at least GA quality. Perhaps we should shoot for that first. Kaldari 16:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
If inline citations are being used (which I think GA currently demands) there's probably not a lot of difference. Of course, you'll be aiming for comprehensive articles and brilliant prose anyway... Certainly I think make the core bios the key focus of WPBIO collaboration until they're all at least GA. They're our equivalent of the "eponymous article" aren't they? :) --kingboyk 16:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the 18 start-class articles should be the first priority, collaborating on them to get them better. After that we can discuss the next step. VegaDark 20:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ :) First, we should identify which B-class articles are close to GA-grade, and which A-class articles and GA-class articles are close to FA-status. We should nominate them for GA resp FA and see what comments we can get. That way, our percentage of FA/GA gets up quickly. Errabee 20:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW, Mark Twain is very close to winning ascension on Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive. This is a core article currently rated B class. You should all go vote for it if you haven't already. Kaldari 20:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Yup, but I nominated Jane Austen there last month and she didn't succeed. She's also flagged for cleanup. Durova 01:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, there are 4 hours left and Mark Twain and Coffee are both tied at 41 votes! Kaldari 20:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I subtracted 1 from FA-quality articles. Those 20 included the "to do" page from Plange. That makes 200. Hope you don't mind me editing the numbers. Errabee 18:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey Plange, do you need to keep the WPBio template on your "to do" page? Kaldari 19:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Nope,, sorry, was using that for a sandbox for some new code will get that deleted.... I have another proposition too for next steps. We have 3 articles in danger of losing their FA (I've listed them on the new announcements page)... maybe we work together to try and save them? --plange 18:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark Twain was picked! --plange 22:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Louis XIV was just demoted from FA --plange 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As was Abraham Lincoln a couple weeks ago. Kaldari 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh has been nominated to become GA collaboration of the week. Durova 20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

Whoa, this page just got real ugly. What happened? Kaldari 22:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry, you guys can revert it if you want... I was formatting it to match the rest of WPBiography and wanted to include the dynamic statistics log and also added a new announcements/to-do area.... --plange 21:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I like the stats and announcements. Not so fond of all the boxes and borders and having to scroll down a few pages to see the actual list. If other people are fine with it though, I'll leave it alone :) Kaldari 21:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Progress so far

Since we first completed our assessments a month ago, here is the progress that has been made:

  • a net total of 3 articles dropped from Featured Article class to A class
  • a net total of 3 articles dropped from Good Article class to B class or Start class

Hmm, not so exciting, huh? Kaldari 01:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got an idea for how to acheive some actual progress. Let's identify the one core biography that is most in need of help. Once we have agreed on it, we will nominate it for Article Creation and Improvement Drive and try to drum up support for it. While we're waiting on it to win the drive nomination, we can start collaborating on it ourselves. Sound like a good idea? Let's take a look at our 19 Start class articles and see which ones are the worst (and could potentially garner interest from your average Wikipedian)...

Core Bio most needing help - cast your votes!

Kaldari 02:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Help with a peer review

I have put Mary Wollstonecraft up for peer review. I'm hoping this can be our first example of bringing a Start-class article up to FA-quality. If you have the time, please read over the article and contribute your thoughts to the peer review. Thanks! Kaldari 06:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft is now a featured article candidate. Feel free to review the article and add comments to the nomination. Kaldari 22:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive candidates

Three of the core biographies, Archimedes, Jesus, and Vladimir Lenin, are current candidates for the Article Improvement Drive. This might be one way to help get some of them up to higher status. Badbilltucker 00:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark or Delete FAs

It might be useful to mark or delete the FA Core biographies so that people don't click on biographies that don't need help. Awadewit 04:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've marked them with GA or FA symbols. Errabee 13:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I've also included all A-class articles that have a current GA-status. What worried me, was that several A-class articles didn't have GA-status; one was explicitly delisted as GA. Perhaps it is time to look into these biographies and put them up for an official GA status? It concerns the following articles:
I switched all of them over to B until they get nominated for GA. I think they will all need work to some extent or another before going through GA. - Mocko13 14:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I think demoted FA's should automatically get A status, which is why I rated Linus Pauling A-class. Even if the article used to be a GA, they are automatically removed from that when they reach FA status so any demoted article will not be a GA unless someone submits that for review. VegaDark 23:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that they should automatically get A status. If they were FA for a long time and got demoted, chances are with the inflation on standards, they don't even live up to the GA standards, and should be rated B. Errabee 23:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess it couldn't hurt to put them up for GA review first. VegaDark 23:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Nominating them for GA was my original intention, but some of them have a lot of citation needed tags and I thought they wouldn't make it through the GA process. If you all are willing to help respond to what I think will be almost inevitable holds on each of the articles, I'll go ahead and nominate them. - Mocko13 01:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe in a few weeks during spring break. I've been really busy with school lately as well with other Wikipedia duties so I doubt I would be able to help much right now. VegaDark 02:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

<- A related point: somebody proposed setting up an A class review department. If you folks want to support (or oppose) that idea or help set it up please comment there. --kingboyk 12:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Only 14 start articles!

Why not pick a manageable target of the 14 start core articles, and aim to improve them all to B-class? If there are 14 people interested, everyone could take an article and make some improvements to it. The articles are:

What do people think? Obviously saving featured articles would take priority if any went up for WP:FAR. Carcharoth 20:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In between my other activities, I can try to add a bit to Columba. There isn't a lot that is definitely known about him, which might be some of the problem to date, but I can do what I can. I might be able to try to do a bit with some of the others as well. No guarantees there, though. John Carter 21:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the Plato and Emperor Taizong of Tang articles could certianly both be moved up to B-Class as-is. Anyone disagree? VegaDark 07:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
No disagreement here. John Carter 18:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The main contributor to Plato, Yannismarou, has already reverted my upgrade to B-class, because he feels the article isn't structured properly. Errabee 21:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe send it to GA or Peer Review - or see if Yannismarou wants to go that route yet. If an editor is still working on it, then fine, but there should be some sort of reasonable time limit on holding up a progression to B, which in the overall scheme of things can mean just that it has progressed beyond start. And from what I can see, Plato is in no way a 'start' article. Carcharoth 11:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I agree with you (otherwise I wouldn't have changed it to B-class in the first place), but I think someone else should talk to Yannismarou. Errabee 12:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Jesus FAC

Since this is listed as a core biography article, I thought y'all ought to know that its been nominated for FA status, just in case anyone wants to help out with some of the things in the nomination, looks like it'd be the 20th Core Biography FA if it passed. Homestarmy 17:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles

Anyone know why this article has had the Biography banner removed? The removal of that banner seems to be why the article count is only 199. John Carter 18:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't be due to that, no. The Beatles template has the WPBio features in it, and if you check Category:GA-Class biography (core) articles you should see The Beatles there. --kingboyk 18:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... The Beatles are on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography (core) articles by quality, and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography (core) articles by quality statistics says 200. Therefore, you're probably talking about some other issue and I'm missing the glaringly obvious? :) --kingboyk 19:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
No, but I might be. The articles by quality box on the "non-talk" page for core biographies lists the total as only 199. Any idea why the discrepancy? John Carter 19:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Give me a URL or a wikilink please, and I'll take a look. --kingboyk 19:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah the just-updated Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality statistics lists 199 core. Hmm. I'll investigate further, but we might have to wait until WP1 bot does the core list then we can easily see what's dropped off :) --kingboyk 19:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The Beatles are on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality/1 as core/GA too. Must be another article that's missing. I suggest waiting til the bot updates the core list. --kingboyk 20:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely the Beatles that are missing. Your last link was updated on 4 April. As I make up from the history, you (Kingboyk) removed the WPBio banner on 6 April because it was already incorporated in the WPBeatles template. Obviously something is not quite right with the Beatles template. Errabee 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. My bad. It wasn't in Category:Top-priority biography articles. So, it was appearing on the biography (core) list but not Top priority on the main list. --kingboyk 21:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Linus Pauling A-class review

In the recently founded A-class review department, Linus Pauling has been nominated for A-class review. Comments are welcome here. Errabee 12:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a suggestion but an observation

Funny how Moses seemed to have fallen through the cracks. -- Avi 16:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Just remember, the selection isn't intended to be a formal list of the top 200 people of all time. I do note that the Biography project does have a bit of what strikes me personally as underrepresentation from the religion projects. Right now, the nominations for this list are closed, but we would welcome any help in improving any of these articles, or others. Also, as a member of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, I think that we could use knowledgable editors in religion in the selection and review there. John Carter 16:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Debate on Moses' inclusion can be found here. Trust me, we didn't overlook anyone. Kaldari 01:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

seem to have lost a core bio

We seem to have lost a core bio somehow as we now stand at 199 assessed core bios. Kaldari 16:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln?

How did Abraham Lincoln con his way onto the list? He might be very important within the United States, but this list is suppose to show global importance. For that matter, why are there four U.S. presidents plus a founding father? I've no doubt that these are important figures, but it gives me the impression that this list is a bit too America-focused. --24.235.231.206 16:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible revision of core biography status

I'm thinking that maybe this list is maybe too small. Would it make sense to the rest of you if all those biographies which are designated by a major project as being of "Top" importance were included in the grouping? By major project, I mean those which seem to deal with a major subject area. Thus, for instance, Frank Lloyd Wright, who might be top importance to WikiProject Architecture, might be included, while Neil Finn, who might be of top importance to only WikiProject Crowded House, might not. I think doing so would stimulate interest in working on these biographies, and that's really the objective anyway, isn't it? John Carter 17:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Two problems:
  1. The criteria for choosing "Top" importance is not standardized across all WikiProjects, thus the actual meaning of that rank may vary considerably. Kaldari 17:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. There's no obvious method of choosing which WikiProjects are "major". Kaldari 17:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Good points. Unfortunately, I'm posting here because I don't know if I'll be around when the irc discussion starts, and I want to make sure that this proposal gets on the table.
Right now, I think the biggest problem this particular page might have is that, pardon the coarseness of the language that follows, it is a list made up by a bunch of pointy-headed bureaucratic types who decides that they had the right to tell everyone else what to do. Personally, I'm not saying that I myself perceive it this way, but I can easily imagine that several people might have a similar, if possibly less extreme, reaction to that stated above. The list, by saying no changes will be made anytime soon, also probably seriously alienates at least a few people right there. As a citizen of the US, I personally think that right now Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney are probably more important than at least 50 of the names on the list, given their great, if possibly temporary, importance right now. A static list cannot account for such changes.
My proposal of a revision of this list tries, at least, to address these matters. It is as follows:
We announce that every member in good standing of the Biography project (which for these purposes includes participants in the Musicians, Actors and Filmmakers, and similar related projects) will be able to vote for what they consider the 25 biography articles currently at B class or lower which are of greatest importance. In the event someone tries to pull a fast one with "tie" votes, the top 25 names will be chosen, regardless of numerical position assigned them. These 25 articles will each receive 1 point in the basic selection, and out of them the list of the top 100 votegetters, which will be the new core biography list, will be taken. This list will exist primarily for reference purposes, but will not necessarily relate to the active collaboration aspect.
Additionally, of these 25 names selected, a predetermined group, probably no more than 5, will be counted separately. These, let's say five, top votes on each ballot will receive inverse points relative to their numerical position: 5 points for 1st, 4 for 2nd, etc. From these "top" votegetters, the top 25 articles will be selected. These articles will serve as the proximate basis for collaborative effort. When a given number, let's say 5 again, are promoted to GA status or higher, a new round of voting will take place to choose the 5 replacements. Here, again, 5 votes per member, with 5 points for #1, 4 for #2, ... will take place, and the five "winners" will be added to the bottom of the list.
I think a process like this, where the editors involved can take into account the temporary elevation of importance certain people have, will help bring some life to the process. Also, if in any given round a given voter's choices didn't make it, the only way they will be included is if some of the names that did get to GA status. This gives that individual an incentive to maybe do at least a little work on these articles, even if they don't interest him/her directly.
I know that this proposal probably has serious flaws in it as well, but it or something like it would help breathe some live and probably sustained interest in the core biographies. Sorry for taking so long, by the way. John Carter 21:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You do not sound like you are familiar with the history of this project. It is not a completely arbitrary list. It is basically a composite of the figures most often mentioned in the following lists, with some additions and subtractions based on months of discussion among numerous editors:
  1. A list of "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" [1], chosen by Michael H. Hart.
  2. 1,000 Years, 1,000 People: Ranking the Men and Women Who Shaped the Millennium (Book published in 1998)
  3. Life magazine's list of the Top 100 people who made the Millennium, ranked in order of importance.
  4. Lists by Charles Murray, from the book "Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 BC to 1950", compiled mathematically
  5. 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written, from book by Martin Seymour-Smith
  6. Time magazine's 100 people of the century
Thus I would contend that our list is far more objective and verifiable than a proposal such as yours, not to mention manageable. I admit that our list does not feature people of up-and-coming importance, and that is an issue that has been discussed here before. The previous consensus was to include only people who's importance had been well-established by history. Kaldari 23:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I am familiar with the history of the list. Unfortunately, the majority of the material I posted above about the possible "complaints" and possible/probable reasons for the comparative lack of attention the page has received lately are based on the lack of attention and activity the subproject has shown of late. If that was what was decided by others, many of whom are no longer even at all active in wikipedia, maybe the time has come to revisit the basis for those conclusions, particularly considering the rather unimpressive results that have been achieved by following those goals. What I had proposed above I think would still be at least 50% or so historically active, but would also have a good deal more activity. The current list, academic sound as it is, seems to be basically a turn-off to most of the editors who see it. If that is in fact the case, maybe the time has come to try something else. Right now, I regret to say, the results that have been achieved are not what anyone would call impressive. John Carter 00:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I would be up for a change if you though it would create actual results, rather than just a lot of work rehashing the list. Kaldari 23:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The biggest problem this list has right now, as I see it, is that, with the exception of a few editors (both of us among them), most people are more interested in biographies relating to a specific topic (their own personal field) than biographies in general. In effect, we are basically, for all of our size, a kind of backup project on a lot of these articles. Personally, my preferred way would be to multiply subprojects like Military history has done, ask the members of the specific groups to choose who they consider to be the most significant people for their group, and then collect all those names together into one big "project" list. Many of these biographies will, of course, be relevant to more than one subproject. That might also stimulate some action in some of the newer work groups, as it would provide a collaboration list for that group as well. I actually proposed something like this on a page I wrote over the weekend, but don't know how to implement such ideas on my own, or whether I would have the authority to do so. The two people I think would have been trusted to do so, Plange and Kingboyk, are both inactive now, and that leaves us without much of a rudder. I know you've been here longer, and would welcome any ideas you might have. One option would be to go through proposing all such proposed subprojects as I listed here, but I'm not sure if that would be the best way to go or not. John Carter 14:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It is astounding how after the list was decided there has been virtually no work actually done on the articles on the list, at least not work organised by this WikiProject. It seems to have been nothing more than a glorified "let's come up with our own top 200 list" exercise, in effect if not intent. I'm sorry if that comes across as overly caustic, but I am trying to be brutally honest here. Carcharoth 17:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Presumably this list is somehow important to the folks who are working on Wikipedia 1.0 (if they still are; I've been mostly away from meta stuff and have no idea of current status or how this fits in). If it is, they ought to be consulted before there's any radical changes. If on the other hand this is merely a worklist I'd make 2 suggestions: 1) whoever is active round here right now isn't necessarily bound by what went before; things evolve and get improved. 2) if you're waiting for some massive taskforce to appear to work on these articles it's probably not going to happen. In my experience the only way to get articles improved is to work on them yourself. If you're lucky (as I have been on occasion) other folks notice the good work and start chipping in too! :) NB: I might be wrong on all counts and probably am! --kingboyk (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
They are, I'm one of them. I'm not entirely sure that this list per se is particularly important to them, though, because they had their own selection criteria. It might be a good idea to alter the list, to reflect the articles chosen for 1.0 release and maybe rank them by which selection they were included for. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an easier way to decide the "core" biographies:

  1. Anyone can add any biography to the category.
  2. Anyone can remove any biography from the category.
  3. If a biography is removed from the category and you disagree with the removal, add it back.
  4. If a biography is added to the category and you disagree with the addition, remove it. DrKiernan (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

So I noticed John Lennon wasn't on the list, and I thought "Wow." I was going to add him, so I went to read over the page first, then saw it was limited to 200, and that no suggestions for changes are being accepted at this time. So I was thinking about it and I wonder, the page says "This page has been developed by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography to be a list of the 200 most important biographies in WP as a way to have a work list of articles to improve." So, why are FAs listed? Shouldn't articles be dropped once they achieve FA and replaced with those that are in greater need of improvement? Lara❤Love 04:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the article for this "John Lennon" guy, and he seems to be just some musician. Why in the world would he be one of the 200 most important people? There are way too many politicians and inventors and philosophers for some random musician to ever make the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.231.206 (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Random? Some random musician would be Jim Keltner or some such :) --kingboyk (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The Beatles are there, which in itself is a pretty good show for pop music. Perhaps Lennon can be considered next time. Really, take away his Beatle-status and he's not among the 200 most important people who ever walked the earth. --kingboyk (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Even with his Beatles-status his notability is not all that high. As much as people like music, songwriters aren't as important as politicians, philosophers, inventors, and warlords in the big scheme of things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.164.93 (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I propose:

  1. We reopen the list, removing the restrictions.
  2. We transclude the automatically generated list at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography (core) articles by quality to this page, and remove the manually maintained list.

If there are no objections in 24 hours, I'll be bold. DrKiernan (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was meant to be a core worklist of articles to work on with the aim of bringing them all up to FA standard eventually, rather than a core set of quality assessments? I don't have any objections to your changes, as the idea of working on these biographies seems to have died a slow death, but this is a major change you are proposing. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
No, not at all. I'm not suggesting the aims or objectives of this sub-project change. The automatically generated list is the worklist with the articles in most need of work at the bottom. DrKiernan (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
So you are suggesting that the limit be changed from 200? It will probably balloon in size then and become unworkable. But if it actually gets more work done on the articles, that would be worth it. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're proposing that the list simply consist of whoever anyone marks as "core"? Seems like it would degenerate rather haphazardly. Also, I think that opening the list back up would merely have editors wasting more time on debating who's important rather than working on articles. I for one, use this list frequently when deciding what new articles to work on. I would personally be opposed to the current suggestion. Kaldari (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the process of listing all the biographies included in the various release versions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Recognized content. If anyone wants to "expand" the list, that would probably be the way to do so. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oxford DNB

Would anyone listed in the Oxford DNB be considered 'core'? This makes sense to me. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Importance of living people

WP:ITN/C is a forum for proposing and developing a consensus on which news items should be included on the ITN template. Because of repeated disputes about objectively assessing the importance of a recently deceased person (specifically the non-inclusion of Edmund Hillary, Pavarotti, Arthur C. Clarke, Bobby Fischer) in light of the limits imposed by existing criteria, we are attempting to compile a reasonably authoritative list of important living people in connection with revising the criteria. The proposal is that if someone on the list died, that would warrant an automatic nomination at the very least. The list does not have a hard ceiling on size, but it is anticipated that, unlike recent deaths, there would be no more than on the order of 1 name per week (yes, it's morbid); thus importance might be calibrated to the 50 most important people who died in 2007. Given your experience with making evaluations on importance, your contributions and feedback to this list and its criteria would be much appreciated. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Core_biographies/Archive_10&oldid=1137392351"