Category talk:Biography articles needing priority parameter replacement

Biography Category‑class

	Biography portal This category is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

What on earth...[edit]

... does "Biography articles needing priority parameter replacement" mean? --Cunningham 13:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They use markup like

{{WPBiography|importance=Low}}

instead of

{{WPBiography|priority=Low}}

and the result is that each of the instances of this template has a note in it asking for the parameter to be changed. If you go to one of the articles linked from here, you'll see the note. There was presumably a debate about the use of the word 'priority' instead of 'importance', and so it was changed. I don't know anything about that; I just read the note on the template. grendel|khan 22:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why No Bot?[edit]

This category could be empty had the bot been used. I'll take care of the articles manually Sunday afternoon.

JimCubb (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got sidetracked, sorry. The last 90 of the original articles are also missing the listas parameter. Rather than leave them in that swamp I will add the listas parameter as well as any other parameters that need to be added, such as living=yes/no.

JimCubb (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done! (For now)[edit]

This category is now empty. Pages are certain to be added to it as they are created with the wrong parameter or exist with the wrong parameter and are edited.

I will monitor this category and take care of the pages that appear.

JimCubb (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No More Monitoring[edit]

When this category reverts to its original purpose, that is after the work-group parameter errors have been eliminated, I will go back to repairing the pages that drop into it. It is almost too bad that a separate category could not have been created for the new problem.

JimCubb (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original report had 24 articles being in two working groups, not 90k+. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall seeing that many in the category since April but I am not going to wade through my contributions to see what was the maximum number of "Importance --> Priority" edits so I will take your word for it. JimCubb (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation Problem Perceived[edit]

How is a concerned editor who belongs to only one or two work groups going to find the the pages that are in his work group(s) in this category? JimCubb (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't. This isn't an issue that is restricted to individual work groups. Why do you perceive this as a problem? PC78 (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have dumped nearly 100,000 pages into this category. Somehow this category need to be depopulated. This can only be done by a person who is qualified to assess the level of priority of a given article. A person who qualified to assess a purely historical article, one in military or royalty, may not be qualified to assess a popular culture article, one in a&e or musician. Why should this person have to wade through the latter to repair the former?

Could it be that you are a person who only exposes a problem but has no desire to fix the problem that has been exposed? I do not need another blow to AGF. JimCubb (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to split up the category it would still add up to the same amount, so I don't see what that would buy you. Clearly this is too big a job for one person, and no one is asking or expecting you to do any of it, so feel free to leave it alone. There is no urgency in clearing this category, and it's something that could most likely be handled by a bot anyway. PC78 (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This category can easily be handled by a bot. Most if not all of these is jsut a manner of switching the already filled in priority= parameter with the equivalent one from the workgroup. -- œ ^™ 00:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Was Accomplished By Making Priority Work-Group Specific?[edit]

Talk:Frank Mario popped into this category. In the Biog banner |sports-work-group=yes and |priority==low. At the bottom of the page it indicates that the page is in Category:Low-priority biography (sports and games) articles and there it is between Talk:Mario Ramón Hidalgo and Talk:Dutch Marion. I changed the priority parameter to |sports-priority=low. The category designations did not change and the page did not move within the category. So just what was accomplished by making the change other than a lot of computer time, a lot of bot time and a lot of trivial edits? JimCubb (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now pages can be in multiple work-groups with different priorities. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that is a good thing. I wonder if it will be used for anything that enhances the encyclopedia. JimCubb (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about this and wonder if it is known how many articles will benefit from the change. Plainly, how many articles are in more than one work group and how many of those articles have different priorities. While one is gathering data about this anyway, how many articles are in a work-group and in a wikiproject that is the same or very similar? (Such as the military work-group and MILHIST or the politicians work-group and WP Politics.) Of these, how many have the same priority for the work group as they do for the project? Wouldn't that be interesting to know? JimCubb (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]