The word libelous is spelled as the variant libellous in the template. But click on the link libellous that appears wikilinked in the template and the word there is spelled libelous. Someone please consider if libellous should be changed to libelous. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this is that the variant spellings are more relation to English variant usages between the US and British spellings. In that regard, unless the article is particular to one or the other nationalities, neither is right nor wrong, but based on the variant employed when the article was written. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's something you would have to bring up at Template talk:BLP, not here. PC78 (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake. I'll bring it up there, and thanks, everyone, for commenting. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request for the addition of the new Book-class to the template at Template talk:WPBiography/class. The proposal was made initially at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Book-class a few days ago but has received no comments other than my own. Hopefully this is considered a non-controversial edit. Road Wizard (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid split discussions I've redirected the /class talkpage here and I'm moving your request to this page. Hope this is okay. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can the new book-class be added to this protected template please? Per the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books/Book-Class setup, the following code should be used to replace the existing template code:

{{class mask|{{{class|}}}
 |topic=biography
 |topic1=biography (arts and entertainment)
 |topic2=biography (politics and government)
 |topic3=biography (royalty)
 |topic4=biography (science and academia)
 |topic5=biography (sports and games)
 |category=yes
 |disambig=yes
 |template=yes
 |book=yes
}}

A proposal for the change was listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Book-class. As no other editors have commented on the proposal a silent consensus can be assumed. Road Wizard (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silent consensus is all very well, but as this template is so highly used, it might be as well to leave this proposal up here for a couple of days before going ahead, to see if there are any comments forthcoming. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. I have removed the protected edit request for now to allow discussion to continue. It can be restored again in a few days. Road Wizard (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I'm for it, if only because WP Biography is much better equipped to handle problems like BLPs than WP Wikipedia-Books, and that there's a ton of biographical books in Category:Wikipedia Books. (And also I'm the one who proposed it, so it would be pretty weird for me to oppose :P). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there was no opposition to this proposal, I have now added the Book-class. Would someone like to create the required categories? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think 4 days discussion for adding a new class is not enough. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to revert me, but it was first proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography a week ago. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have time to read the whole discussion. It just seemed to me as an important change and I was planning to read about it during the weekend. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you are more than welcome to revert and continue the discussion. I have no particular view on this new class and was just acting on what seemed to be unanimous support. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be too huffy and puffy about procedure, so far out of everyone approached, every project adopted the book-class (or didn't reply yet). It's been a week, and no one said anything against. At worse it'll be reverted. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no priority assessment for general biographical articles, that are not part of any work group. I think there should be a general Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography priority assessment, and would like to request it be added to this template. Debresser (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. With so many articles tagged for this project, assigning priority ratings would be hopelessy arbitrary and be a huge, huge task to undertake with little real benefit. PC78 (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is little benefit to it, why do most WikiProjects have a priority assessment? And also, nobody said we have to do all articles at once. And criteria must have been developed on many other WikiProjects, and can be easily adapted to here. Debresser (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because other projects find it useful, perhaps? It doesn't necessarily follow that it will be useful here, and I've already said why. Increasing the already huge assessment backlog by several factors for the sake of an arbitrary and subjective "priority" rating will not benefit this project. PC78 (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some one decided, with no discussion that I have been able to locate, that each of the work groups had to have its own priority and changed the template to reflect that decision. I assume that the editor who made this change feels that |a&e-priority=, |filmbio-priority=, |musician-priority=, |military-priority=, |peerage-priority=, |politician-priority=, |royalty-priority=, |s&a-priority= and |sports-priority= should have valid values. Why should the articles that are not in a work group not have a valid value for |priority=?

On the other hand, just after the change was made there were roughly 92,000 articles in Category:Biography articles needing priority parameter replacement which was originally for those articles with an |importance= that needed to be changed to |priority=. There are now just over 100,000 articles in the category. I think it is safe to infer that the parameter is of little or no concern and should be eliminated from the template in all its forms. JimCubb (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest Jim. That change was discussed and agreed on, any problem you may have with it doesn't change that. The decision made by this project not to use priority ratings is a longstanding one that goes back as far as 2006. Check the archives, it's all there. As for replacing the parameter, I was all for having a bot take care of it, but there was some opposition to the idea as I recall. PC78 (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did that come from?

You wrote that priority was not useful here. I merely provided additional evidence as to the perception of its usefulness here. I did not state an opinion regarding the template change that created work group priorities because I have none although in my very slow progress of adding values to |listas= I have been changing |priority= by prefixing with a work group when a work group has claimed the article.

Opposition to unleashing bots has been very effective in stopping the bots' owners in the past in my experience. Try AGF, you may like it. JimCubb (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're a fine one to talk about AGF after some of your previous rants on this page. "Some one decided, with no discussion that I have been able to locate, that each of the work groups had to have its own priority and changed the template to reflect that decision." That's patently untrue. I made the proposal, several people agreed that it was a good change, and despite some reticence from Magioladitis no one opposed it. Like I said, check the archives. I don't see you providing any "evidence" for the usefulness of priority ratings, I just see you retreading ground we covered several months ago. PC78 (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I provide any evidence for the usefulness of priority ratings? As I have tried to say above and will state clearly here, there is no recent evidence that priority rating are considered useful by any one.

Why should I have to waste my time searching through the archives? You made the change. Shouldn't you have to provide justification for the change? I do not oppose the change. I merely take issue with the way it was done and its outcome. JimCubb (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I merely provided additional evidence as to the perception of its usefulness here." Your words; I'm not suggesting you do anything, and frankly I don't think you even know what you're talking about. Search the archives to find where the change was discussed. If you're too lazy to do that then that's your problem, because I'm not going to repeat myself. How can you "take issue with the way it was done and its outcome" if you can't be bothered to look at the original discussion? PC78 (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please exclude book class from requiring the |living=? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean, "can Category:Biography articles without living parameter be removed from Book-class?" Or is there some other requirement that you are referring to? Road Wizard (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has been happening since I updated Template:Pagetype a few days ago so that it recognised that books weren't articles. I checked a few and none of the books seem to be in that category now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the {{PAGESIZE}} since it is flooding the job queue with refreshLinks jobs and making the site run slowly. -- Tim Starling (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]