Template talk:BLP unreferenced/Archive 1

Archive 1

Move?

Can we move this to Template:BLPunreferenced to be similar to the non BLP version? -- Jeandré, 2008-11-22t20:55z

I've created it as a redirect to here, so it should work now. Fram (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sneak attack

1. Why does this template add people to Category:Living people, something not mentioned in its documentation?
2. When it does so, why doesn't it sort them properly?

Either take that sneaky template out, or explain it in the documentation and add a parameter for a sort key. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because every article with this template is, per definition, an article about a living person, even though many of them did not have the category.

Why not in the documentation? Forgotten, will add it now.

Why doesn't it sort them properly? I'm sorry, but it does. It follows the default sort key when there is one in the article, and takes the order by first name if there isn't. Kust like any category does. If you want to improve the template even further by adding a sort parameter for those cases where there is no defaultsort yet, be my guest. Just make sure that it doesn't clash with the defaultsort (like the "lifetime" template does).

But I completely don't understand why you consider this clear improvement a "sneak attack" at all, and why it should be removed. Do you have any actual examples of articles where the template makes things actually worse? If not, then what's the problem? Take e.g. Tarek Yehia: it was not categorized in "living people", while now it is not only in that category, but under "Yehia" as well, since it had a defaultsort already. Great, no? On the other hand, Yusuf Olatunji was not added to the cat yet, and has no defaultsort. It is now listed under "Yu", and will be listed under Ol once someone adds a defaultsort.

So, once again, if you can improve this template, be my guest, but please don't call something a "sneaky template" without actually showing what problems it causes. As far as I can see, it is not perfect, but it is an improvement for many articles it is placed upon, and does no harm ob the others. Fram (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It is quite legitimate to sort categories with a sort key in each category. Articles which do that do not need, and often do not use, the DEFAULTSORT magic word.

The DEFAULTSORT is merely a tool to simplify the process, something which can legitimately be accomplished in other ways. You cannot assume that an article which does not have a DEFAULTSORT key sorts in accordance with the default to the article name in any of its categories whatsoever, let alone that it should do so in the category you sneakily put into the article.

Therefore, if you are going to add the category, you need to add a parameter for the sort key as well. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And--for articles about living people, in more than 99% of the cases the article name does not give the proper sort key. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No article needs the defaultsort, but certainly biographies often sort all the categories in the same way (contrary to e.g. lists). But you can also still add Surname, First name to an article which has this template (in fact, it is best that people add the actual category, since the template should be removed when the article is sufficiently sourced). Take e.g. Heikki Häiväoja: it is correctly listed in Cat Living people under "Ha", not under "He". So, again, what's the problem? Which article or category is worse because of this "sneaky template"? If you feel it would be even better with a sort parameter added, and if you are reasonably sure that it won't mess up things (what if we have two contradictory sort keys?), then you are invited to add it, in the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT. But I still don't see why you felt the need to be so negative about this helpful feature of the template. It is much, much better to have the articles in the category but badly sorted (just like many articles already were before this template existed), than to not have them at all. Fram (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, most templates that categorize articles (e.g. all stub templates) lack a parameter for the sort key. And many articles in the Cat living people are sorted on first name without this template as well. There are e.g. 18 people listed on their first name Charles, with only two of those with the BLP template. Those two weren't listed in the category at all before I added the template, so it is an improvement (since most people use the category to track changes to articles about living people, for which it has no importance whatsoever if the article is sorted on first of last name). Fram (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Living people has 87 times as many articles now (it was likely higher when you got your numbers) as Category:All unreferenced BLPs. Clearly for the particular numbers in your example, Category:Living people is much better sorted. And some of them such as Bonnie Prince Charles should be sorted under "Charles".

What I can't figure out is why a [[Category:Living people]] added by this template overrides an entry [[Category:Living people|Lastname, Firstname]] which comes later in the article.

When that parameter isn't used in the template, it should still default to just adding [[Category:Living people]] (rather than adding {{{Pagename}}} as a sort key, for example). That isn't so difficult for someone used to dealing with the parameters in templates.

The option of adding that sort key within this template should exist. Sure, I can fix it myself, as you suggested--or at least try to. It might be better for you to do so, rather than taking the chance that you might have to clean up after me.

If there is some way that the template can be written so that it only adds the category if the category isn't already included, that would be better yet. I don't know if that is possible, however. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The only actual complaint you have, "What I can't figure out is why a [[Category:Living people]] added by this template overrides an entry [[Category:Living people|Lastname, Firstname]] which comes later in the article.", is incorrect, as the example of Heikki Häiväoja, which I already gave above, shows. And I don't care for your requested change, and you have not given any correct and concrete indication that the template as it stands is not an improvement to all articles it is included in. so I'll not make this change myself, but I wouldn't mind you or anyone interested in extra functionality implementing it. Cleaning up when it is done incorrectly will normally only mean undoing the changes to the template, so that's not too bad. Fram (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Possibly living people

I'm following up on this BLPN request. For Abdullah Yaqta and other articles tagged with Category:Possibly living people, this template incorrectly adds Category:Living people to the article. Can you change the category feature to include a conditional if statement, such as if the article is tagged with Category:Possibly living people, then do not add Category:Living people to the article. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not found yet how to doi this, so I have temporarily added a "disadvantage" line to the documentation, and I have removed the template again from the Abdullah Yaqta article. Any help on implementing this (e.g. pointers to templates with a similar problem and a solution) are more than welcome. Fram (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I don't know if it's possible to do this with #if: parser functions. It may be possible with some regex stuff but I don't know anything about how to use that on wiki. The easiest way to do this (easiest from the template writer's perspective, not from the user's perspective) would be to add an extra parameter, something like |missing=, that defaults to no, but if the user explicitly writes |missing=yes then the template would add the article to Category:Possibly living people rather than Category:Living people. That might make the template a bit more complicated for the editors who actually use it, but I believe it would be very easy to code. If you want to look into having the template do this automatically like you suggested (by searching the article for [[Category:Possibly living people]], you might want to get in touch with someone who programs bots (I assume people like that are better at regex and this stuff) or something like that—that's not to say that this needs a bot, but just that I think a bot programmer would be better able to handle that. If you just want to do it with an extra parameter like I described above, we shouldn't need any outside help. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The extra parameter seems the best solution, actually checking whether a cat is present in the article is harder (and what if the cat is added later than the template?). IF you thinkyou can implement the extra parameter, I would be grateful (my first attempt failed). I'll try looking further into it as well. Fram (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, the switch statement kind of confuses me.... I was going to try to do the category stuff with the following code, but I don't know where to put it:

<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{{missing|no}}}|yes|[[Category:Possibly living people]]|[[Category:Living people]]}}</includeonly>

Any ideas? Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I have added the code to the correct position, and at first glance it seems to work. I have added the new "missing" parameter to all articles about possibly living people listed in WP:BLPN. The default action is still addition to the cat:living people, but now we have the ability to override this. Fram (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Search tool link

Could someone add some code to the template to link into a google search for the pagename. This would make the job of finding and adding sources easier. I'd do it myself, but I'm not exactly sure how to code it and although I've seen it elsewhere, I can't remember where. AndrewRT(Talk) 12:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Amalthea did, and it seems to work perfectly. Thanks to you both for the idea and the execution of it. Fram (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Amalthea you're a star! I think that will make working through the backlog of unsourced BLPs significantly quicker. 155.202.254.82 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot tagging

{{editprotected}} After I TFD'd a template meant for bot tagging of unsourced BLP's, basically this with the amendment of saying its a BLP that's "probably" unsourced (which just seemed weird to me), I have suggested that there be a parameter for noting if this tag was placed by an automated process.

Please add the following:
{{#if:{{{bot|}}}|<small>This template was added by an [[Wikipedia:Bots|automated process]]. If this tag was placed in error, it may be removed. If this tag was placed correctly, the "<code>|bot=yes</code>" may be removed from it to hide this message.</small>}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by ViperSnake151 (talk • contribs)

I've done it, managing to make the wording slightly shorter. I'm not convinced the formatting and layout is the best though - it's quite a long message if bot=yes now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation needed

I think there is some confusion (with regard to new visitors and editors) over the line "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material [must be removed immediately]", with the tendency to read that, subconsciously, as "Unsourced material or poorly sourced contentious material [...]", when in fact what we mean (and I think what it should say), is, I believe "Unsourced - or poorly sourced - contentious material [...]". I realise that there is some debate about whether there is room for unsourced material at all, but IIRC the consensus is with allowing some time for this to be corrected.

I would therefore propose the addition of the dashes: "Unsourced – or poorly sourced – contentious material [...]". Or commas, if more aesthetically pleasing. I'll add an ER later if no-one has any differing views.

- Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Another way of rephrasing would be 'contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately'. PhilKnight (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine by me also, naturally. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please edit link to Google news

{{editprotected}} Please remove all Google News search arguments that would show press releases. Those are promotional in nature, and thus unreliable. Alexius08 (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the way the link is set up is meant to exclude press releases. Anyway, please obtain a consensus before placing the {{editprotected}}, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

update link to Google scholar

The link to Google Scholar does not seem to carry forward the search argument. For example, from Thuy Thu Le it calls for http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_epq=Thuy+Thu+Le , which changes to http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en at GS. It looks like it should be http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Thuy+Thu+Le%22&hl=en&btnG=Search . TJRC (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Libellous or harmful

I wonder if the last line, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful", conveys the message we this template to. To a non-editor, the last clause seems to emphasise libel over subject-harm, when as far as I know, the stakeholders in Wikipedia (i.e. WMF, editors) do not have much to worry about from a legal perspective (unless they are adding dodgy claims). If I am following it correctly, the primary goals of the BLP crusade is to prevent harm to article subjects and to shore up the credibility of the encyclopaedia. If this is the case, perhaps "harmful or inaccurate" or something similar might be more appropriate wording. Thoughts?  Skomorokh  18:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove living indicator from this template

I'd like to propose to remove completely the indicator "living" or "possiby living" from this template. It can be added autonomously, or with {{Lifetime}}, but there is really no reason to do this as a side effect of a maintenance template. Another argument could be that in the present state of affairs editors might not understand where the categories come from. But the main point is that this falls outside of the scope of what a maintenance template is supposed to do. Debresser (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Your second argument is contradicted by your first: if the category can be added by lifetime, it can be added by other templates as well. Furthermore, removing it will have the effect that we have articles tagged as a BLP which are not categorized as (possibly) living people, which is to me bizarre. I also consider the cat "living people" as such as a mainetnace category, not a true category, and have argued to make it a hidden category. These categories are routinely added by templates. I don't see a serious disadvantage in having the cat included in the template~, and a few advantages. Fram (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason it should come out is that it is an unexpected side effect to finding a reference for an article that the article is no longer in the living people category. Rich Farmbrough, 16:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

That's an excellent point. Adding a reference and removing the {{BLP unsourced}} template should not cause the article to be removed from the living people category. TJRC (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK I'm removing it. I note also that {{BLP unsourced}} can be added to articles not about people, for example about a scandal or crime. Rich Farmbrough, 12:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

That's a very odd reasoning. Removing it from the template now will remove the category from hundreds of articles immediately, instead of when the template itself isremoved. How is that an improvement? Can anyone explain to me what is actually lost by having the cat included in the template? Oh, and the BLP unsourced should only be used on an unsourced BLP, and a BLP should always be in the cat:living people. Misuse of the template by putting it on articles about events is no reason to change the template. Fram (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a neutral notice about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Living people. Fram (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We have two strong arguments that show that the category sorting must be removed. If that will leave some articles without a "living" category, well, then just add it the way it was always supposed to be added [[Category:Living people]]. Debresser (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Which are these two strong arguments? One is that when removing the template, the articles will no longer be in the cat. By removing the cat from the template, they are also no longer in the cat, so removing it is not an improvement. The second (and thus the only one remaining) is that editors may not understand where the cat comes from. This is the case with e.g. the template:lifetime as well, and with most or all maintenance templates. Cat:living people, while for some obscure reason not a "hidden" cat, is almost exclusively used for maintenance (like putting up the edit notice), not for browsing. So in my opinion, the first argument is incorrect (not including it makes it even worse), and the second is too weak when weighed against the advantages this has (like automatically putting the cat:living people edit notice on articles which have the BLP unsourced template). Fram (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, can we not remove it from the template until we manage to get the categorization of these articles completed. We've already had to go through tens of thousands of articles to add them to Cat:BLP, so let me get with MZMcBride and figure out the best way to handle this. Lara 14:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your refutation of the first argument sounds like "The situation is fucked up. You are trying to fix it, but just create another fucked up situation." That is correct. The difference being that before, the situation was systematically fucked up. So I think this was a big step forward. Perhaps a bot can be of help here. Debresser (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The second argument isa bit more complex than you make it seem. It includes that adding article categories is not supposed to be a function of maintenance categories. Which, by the way, also makes it a lot harder to guess the source of the category (than e.g. with {{Lifetime}}). Debresser (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If we have a (daily or so) bot that goes through all the BLP unsourced tagged articles and adds the cat:living people to them (where not already present), I have obviously no problem with the category not being in the template itself. As for the second argument: I don't consider cat:living people an "article category", in my opinion it is a maintenance cat. And it is equally obscure when added through lifetime. But as stated, if a bot can add them, I have no objections (the short time without the cat is not a real problem, they usually don't get corrected immediately anyway). Fram (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

1997 Santano Murders is the first hit... Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

A lot of them are dead or "possibly living". Rich Farmbrough, 17:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

Dead ones should not have the BLPunsourced template, possibly living ones should have |missing=yes added to the template (it added them to the posibly living cat instead of the living cat). But the policy is that if it is unclear from an article whether the subject is living or not, it should be considered a BLP. Better to be safe than sorry. Fram (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't yet figured out the exact specifics of this problem, but I want to make a general comment that we should be incredibly careful to not shoot ourselves in the foot. No decision here should be rash or unplanned; doing so could cause a lot of duplicated effort and make the BLP problem even worse. If there are particular bot requests needed, LaraBot should be able to do simple tasks (assuming I have time), or someone at BOTREQ should be able to help out if I can't do it. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I just checked 50 random occurances of {{BLP unsourced}} and found that all but 2 had the Category:Living people on board already. So although this would still amount to a good number, percentage wise it is not that much. Debresser (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That may in part be because many of these articles start initially in relative bad shape, and also commonly lack DEFAULTSORT and other things. When I notice a mis-sorted article in Category:Living people, I sort it, and if it's there because of this template, I routinely add appropriate categories as well. In other words, Debresser's stats may in part be a side effect of the complained-about inclusion of the category in the template leading to folks like me fixing articles, not a bad thing by itself. That said, I strongly support removing the category from the template, ideally after a bot has verified that all articles with the template have the category otherwise supplied. My reasons are: 1) someone adding a reference and removing the template is not particularly likely to add the category if it's missing 2) categories hidden in templates make automated tools harder to create 3) categories hidden in templates are more likely to lead to silly category conflicts (e.g. article has this template, subject dies and the proper death cats are added, but no references and the template remains -> category conflict: a year of death category and a living people cat. Not the end of the world, but...). I personally loathe templates that include the Living people category, including and especially the Lifetime template. Studerby (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I just did it there were a few hundred I added the category to. Meanwhile the discussion continues at Template talk:Lifetime. Rich Farmbrough, 22:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

Possible spelling mistake

The "bot" part of the template contains the word "automatocaly", which was changed from the correct spelling. I can't see any reason for this so I assume it is a mistake, it should probably be changed back. snigbrook (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 22:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

Category:All probably unreferenced BLPs

As Template:BLP probably unsourced has been deleted, the category is empty. One of the reasons for the deletion was that it was unnecessary after changes were made to Template:BLP unsourced, but it was also suggested that the word "probably" should be avoided. The template is now eligible for speedy deletion so unless the category is now intended to be added by this template it should probably be deleted. snigbrook (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know if there are any false positives with the bot? If not, or if it is insignificant we can remove the bot-cruft from the template. It seems unnecessary anyway- an incorrect tag can be removed, whether added by human or bot. And encouraging peopel to make an edit to affirm that the bot was in fact correct seems pointless. Rich Farmbrough, 22:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

I haven't noticed any false positives yet, but there are bound to be some (articles without external links or refs, but with a book added at the bottom or so). But I have no problem with removing the bot-part from the template text, it is unnecessary clutter. Fram (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have that bot thing removed for all the good reasons Rich mentioned, and in general because it like templates to be as simple and straightforward as can be. Debresser (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Done.

Seemed to be the bot apologising for its silicon nature. Rich Farmbrough, 09:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC).

Update first sentence to include section parameter

{{editprotected}} As per this discussion can we change the first bold sentence to this: '''This [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|article}} containing biographical information about a living person]] does not [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|cite]] any [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|references or sources]].''' Thanks. Also, why is this template fully protected but {{BLP sources}} is only semi-protected? Couldn't they both be semi-protected? ~ Paul^T+/_C 16:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea to add the "section" option. However "article containing biographical information" is much more awkward than "biography". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please no, make a separate template for sections. This template is used on over 50,000 articles, indicating that they have no sources. If in an article, one or two sections have no sources, then it should be noted, but shouldn't be dumped in the same category as totally unsourced articles.

As for the protection: vandalism on this template would turn up on over 50,000 pages at once, making it a high risk template, which doesn't need that many changes anyway (it is now more volatile for a short while, but then it will again be stable for a year or so). No idea why the other is semi-protected, but this one should stay fully protected. Fram (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

 Not done Please get consensus before making protected edit requests.  Skomorokh  21:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm no template coder but a similar discussion was held here and in the section below it to solve a similar problem. I would suggest that the text could be:

The template could be coded to add articles with a section parameter (which should have at least one reference, otherwise why not use {{BLPunsourced}}?) to Category:BLP articles lacking sources rather than Category:Unreferenced BLPs as is the case with the related {{unref}} templates. Hope this helps. ascidian | talk-to-me 00:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea is a logical one, and is implemented in various templates. I tentatively support it. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a basin full of that. Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

Small fix

{{editprotected}} Can a sysop please add a space before the date? Currently, if the date parameter is specified, it's bumped up against the full stop of the previous sentence (unlike its sibling templates). • Anakin ^(talk) 21:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted this. Please let me know and restore the {{editprotected}} if it does not work. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit shouldn't make a difference in this issue. Replace removed immediately'''. <small>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''}} by removed immediately'''. <small>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''}} with a space. That will do the trick. BTW, the other space right I removed is redundant. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That do it? <insert obligatory why-aren't-you-an-admin-yet query here>. Cheers,  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. :) Debresser (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Style tweaks

New sandbox created with some minor style tweaks to match similar cleanup templates. If there are no objections I'll have this synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Much better, at least as far as my browser is concerned.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Google Scholar link doesn't work

The current Google Scholar link is broken: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_epq=Archive+1

It should be changed to http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Archive+1 for it to work --Davidkazuhiro (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, those links shouldn't be there at all per consensus in a recent discussion. So I've removed them. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in this template

Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in templates that are placed outside the "External links" section of an article?

In April this year a search tool link was added to this template after very little discussion on the talk page (See above Search tool link).

There is a an RFC at talk:Refimprove, on whether this should be done for another template, and by implication also a retrospective on the inclusion of the link here. Given that the editors who maintain this template have experience of this type of linking, it would be helpful if those editors could comment in the RFC. --PBS (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we add the findsources template to this template?

Can we add the {{findsources3}} template to this template? Okip 02:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Links to search engines were removed quite recently as a result of a discussion at Template_talk:Refimprove#RFC:_Should_a_link_to_a_commercial_search_engine_be_included_in_the_template_Refimprove. However, many people opposed the outcome after the discussion was closed, so I recommend you start another RfC on the issue, limited to this template only. This is a case where the urgency of fixing these articles should probably be prioritized over concerns that the best research resources to link to happen to be "commercial sites".

What the template used to look like with the search links included is like so, and I've created a sandboxed version with {{findsources3}} incorporated, for comparison: [1]. The formatting for either can be tweaked, natch.--Father Goose (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether to take a new gauge of consensus or whether to rely on previous discussions is probably down to

• how relevant the discussion was to this issue;
• how long ago the discussion took place.

In this case the discussion was completely relevant and took place just over two months ago. So I suggest that holding a new discussion in the hope of getting your desired response is not justified in this case. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There's also the question of where it was held, and who participated. I see no evidence that the discussion regarding changes to this template was advertised on this template page. Oops. Well, let me put it this way: one posting can easily be overlooked. Ongoing discussion on the relevant page attracts the right participants via their watchlists. So I think it's appropriate to re-test the consensus on this page regarding changes to this specific template.--Father Goose (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I was about to propose the exact same thing. Let's get it added here asap. We need to encourage adding sources to these. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Add an RfA RfC here so we can see what the community's response is.--Father Goose (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is Template:findsources3 addition to this tag warranted in light of the ongoing backlog of unsourced BLPs for which this tag is used?

Recently {{find}} and variations were removed from several clean-up tags. As noted above there was opposition to the removal after the RFC had closed. As there is ongoing efforts to understand and strengthen what are the best ways to approach BLP issues no one disputes that unsourced BLPs can cause problems and adding sources, ideally high-quality reliable ones, would be a good thing. In light of the thousands of BLPs that the tag is used on (approximately 41,000 as of mid-March 2010) and in light that {{find}} can be a helpful tool to assist even newby editors to find sources, can we re-add this search feature here? -- Banjeboi 14:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I am not taking sides in this debate, but this does seem to be forum shopping, as a previous RfC about this issue was held very recently (December 2009) at Talk:Refimprove and the result was conclusive. It does seem somewhat disingenuous that the statement above fails to even mention this previous RfC and its result. It is also rather one-sided and not neutral as it should be. Please correct this immediately. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  I've taken a stab at the first issue, do you dispute "{{find}} is one of the best tools to assist even newby editors"? Or could you clarify what still needs to be reworked? I was really disappointed with that RfC so let's see if we can be more neutral with this one. -- Banjeboi 17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  It's a subjective/biased sentence because it states your view. It certainly is possible that some editors would dispute such a sentence. About the previous RfC, what was the problem actually? I suspect you mean that you were disappointed with the result. Looking at it again, the opening statement seems completely neutral, it was advertised well, and its result pretty much unequivocal. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  Yes I see what you mean that I re-read it. I've tweaked again, better? The previous RfC seemed POV to me in that it focussed just on that we were somehow supporting a commercial search engine. My take is that we use the best tools available and add them to find. If there was an open source search that did a better job than Google then we would use that. If Google was found to be greatly deficient then we would find some better way to fix that. The issues, in short, seemed to be focussed on problems within the find templates rather than the concept of having a tool on the template that helped address the problem the template itself was placed to addressed. The end goal is improving articles and much fuss is made over unsourced BLPs. As such I find it disappointing how the RfC proceeded and the result. -- Banjeboi 20:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  The prior RfC failed to reflect the renewed urgency regarding the need to source BLPs. A new discussion of this template in light of that sweeping change in the community's handling of BLPs is warranted.--Father Goose (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• I support adding some form of "find sources" template to this one. (Two examples of how it could be implemented: smaller larger.) Given how the recent BLP RfC transpired, the community's goal -- perhaps even its mandate, given the ArbCom's stance on the issue -- is to make sure the {{BLP unsourced}} template is eventually not used on any articles, and the only way to achieve that is to source the BLPs worth keeping and delete those that are not. Given that certain commercial search resources are the best resources available to us to source these articles, and given that we have to source them in the near future, or watch them get deleted, I find it entirely conscionable to include links to those resources. In the space of a year, with any luck, {{BLP unsourced}} will be almost completely unused, and if adding links to search resources helps to bring that about, then that's exactly what we should do.--Father Goose (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No further objection, support, comments?--Father Goose (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Great idea, but unfortunately every time someone does it it gets reverted. ϢereSpielChequers 14:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Change

• I suggest changing the wording from "biography of a living person" to "biographical article" (not unlike the wording in {{BLPsources}}). Bands, for example, are living people too, aren't they? Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Section parameter

Per Template talk:BLP unsourced/Archive 1#Update first sentence to include section parameter, seems that there was consensus for adding a section parameter, as long as the article was categorized as if it had a {{BLP sources}} tag. I have changed the sandbox to add that parameter, and also have identical categorization to an article tagged with {{BLP sources}}. Anyone opposed?  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 18:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I actively support this (two years later). The automated conversion of tags to [sic] tags continues to this day, pusing the articles incorrectly into the "All unreferenced BLPs" category. Making this change is, in my view, the most effective way to cure this ill for good. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

TfD of Template:Userspace BLP

{{edit protected}} I think Plastikspork's edit only partially implemented the consensus of the TfD of Template:Userspace BLP. Please replace the code with:

Code moved to Template:BLP unsourced/sandbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This prevents this template, an ambox template, for articles only, from appearing on and categorizing user pages. --Bsherr (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've read the entirety of the TfD and I see that although this is the compromise you reached with PC78, it is not altogether clear that this was the conclusion of the discussion as closed by Plastikspork. I would suggest clarifying this with Plastik, but for now I will at least change ambox to mbox to that the styling is namespace-consistent. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw you put a talkback on Plastikspork's talk page. I'll wait for Plastikspork's comments. --Bsherr (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this seems fine with me. We suppress the notice if it is on a user's talk page, and include the NOINDEX as well. Please let me know and/or revert if this is controversial. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Determination of usage needed for the BLP unsourced template

Based on recent comments on my talk page and some things I have observed I started a policy clarification discussion regarding the use of the BLP unsourced template at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Determination of usage needed for the BLP unsourced template. --Kumioko (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Change "cite" to "include"

I have spent innumerable hours doing cleanup on mistagged BLPs. I suspect part of the issue is that articles that have a source, but do not use an inline citation to it are getting this tag applied to them, even though the community does not consider them completely unsourced BLPs. We should change "cite" to "include" so that this tag is only applied to truly unsourced BLPs. Gigs (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The misapplication of "unsourced" tags to articles that are poorly sourced or lack inline citations is rampant and artificially inflates the unreferenced BLP backlog. I would support a rewording of the template to clarify its intended application. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The important thing is not the backlog, it is to identify BLP that are problematic in sourcing and require checking. Maybe we need a {{BLP badsource}} to flag up "badly sourced" BLPs. Badly sourced are often worse than unsourced because there's no telling if the source at the bottom of the article relates to a bunch of material added later that didn't originate from the source. I'm happy to see this template made more specific, providing we don't end up removing it from thousands of problematic article just to make life easier. Sweeping dirt under the carpet isn't a shortcut for cleaning the house. What we need is a template for "poor sourcing" and to agree that the poor soucing backlog is no less urgent than the unreferenced one.--Scott Mac 21:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The other templates to use are called Template:BLP sources and Template:Refimprove. It's quite clear that those should be the ones being used for these sorts of articles, rather than an unsourced tag. I support this change in wording for the template. Hopefully this lessens the number of mistakes that take up time for the rest of us. Silverseren^C 21:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that anyone is proposing mass-removing {{BLP unsourced}}; that would be silly and counterintuitive. What I have been doing, among with many other editors, is replacing incorrect BLP unsourced tags (they have at least one source, but it's insufficient/inadequate/unreliable/whatever) with {{BLP refimprove}} which should signal to all that there's still a sourcing issue, but at least one source (even though quite possibly primary/unreliable) is present. I expect that after we've gotten through the vast majority of the unreferenced BLPs, the poorly sourced ones will be the next focus of attention. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. I do not support any kind of automatic mass removal of BLP unsourced. Unfortunately it has to be manually reviewed on a case by case basis, which I and others have devoted many hours to doing. That's why it's important that editors do not put the tag on articles that merely need better sourcing, and why I have proposed this change to make it clearer that they need to be using {{BLP sources}} on poorly sourced articles. Gigs (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Change "cite" to "include" retaining the same link that the word links to. Gigs (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Dabomb87 (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect wording of BLP unsourced section

The template BLP unsourced section incorrectly says: This biographical section of an article needs additional citations for verification. It should say This biographical section of an article does not cite any references or sources. Can someone fix it? thanks. Mattg82 (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's trying to reuse (and modify the wording of) the wrong base template, so it's not a 10 second fix. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Grossly inappropriate template revision without genuine consensus

{{editprotected}} I am quite disappointed to see that a controversial change like the recent modification of the BLPunsourced template was allowed to squeak through after very limited discussion by a small number of users over a holiday period when it was unlikely to be noticed, and without any general notification or notification to users who had participated in prior discussions on the issues involved. The template in que4stion was placed on tens of thousands of articles by thousands of editors until, in the recent past, its use was disputed by a few members of a Wikiproject; those disputes, several of which I participated in, produced no consensus for change, but a great deal of heat.
The template text was tied to the principles of WP:BLP, which call for much stronger verifiability standards for BLPs. It is vital that the essential components of biographies of living persons be demonstrably verifiable, and that requires actual citations on essential points. Removing the "unsourced" label from thousands, probably tens of thousands, of BLPx because in lieu of actual citations they include external links to generic sourcex (typically IMDB) without any ties to the article texts is not an improvement to Wikipedia; but that's the major effect, and probably the impulse behind this proposal.. It's little more than sweeping a major problem under the rug, damages Wikipedia's credibility, and impedes efforts to genuinely address the BLP problem.
A tag/template that was employed as extensively as this one was, by as many editors as this one was should not be eviscerated without a genuine consensus that revision is required, and that requires full and well-publicized discussion. The process here fails that standard completely. It's clear that the change received little if any notice and the brief discussion was clearly inadequate. It should be reversed expeditiously. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but unsourced is unsourced, inadequately sourced is inadequately sourced. If you don't like the fact that inadequately sourced articles are not called "unsourced", then the problem is semantics. I agree that undersourced is not particularly better than unsourced, but the real crime is to twist the definition of "unsourced". If you want to propose that BLP refimprove be treated just like BLP unsourced articles, I'd be much more supportive of that than torturing the definitions of unsourced and undersourced just because undersourced BLPs are just as bad as unsourced. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jclemens - 'unsourced' means "zero sources present", not "sources present but not presented in the preferred style". If there is any link in the article that verifies any of the content (whether it be presented inline, as an embedded link, or as an external link, or simply listed under the reference or note section) then the article is not unsourced. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not the way the template was interpreted for years, and its use should not have been changed after a brief, unpublicized discussion that involved fewer editors than were involved in several of the prior discussions on the topic. "Unsourced" was just a shorthand label in the template title; the essential element was the does not cite phrasing in the template text. If that trivial dissonance bothered folks, the better course would have been to changed the template shorthand title to something like "BLP uncited" rather than making a major, substantive change. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

All the more reason that the semantics should have been more clear from the beginning. Contra your assertion, I've never undertstood {{BLP unsourced}} any different than {{unsourced}}--the difference wasn't in the level of sourcing, but in the nature of the content, as far as I was and am concerned. For those of us who engaged in the discussion, there was no expectation that anything was being changed--we clarified the template to cut down on what I believed to be inappropriate overuse of the template. The net effect of the change is probably less than you're stating as well: I've changed hundreds of articles from BLP unsourced to refimprove... so they now appear in a different cleanup list. I'm not seeing a big problem with that. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo has asked me to revert my change from nearly two months ago. As several editors have expressed the opinion that this change is beneficial, I'm not inclined to revert myself based on the complaint of (so far) one editor. However, I have placed an {{editprotected}} tag at the top of this section to allow another uninvolved admin to review the situation; if he or she feels that the word change should be reverted until further discussion has taken place, that's more than fine by me. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Consensus currently seems to be in favor of retaining the change. decltype (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Add new category

{{editprotect}} Because that it is only for living people articles, how about that when you add this to an article it automatically adds "Category:Living People" to the page? ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A category tag should only be transcluded from a template when it is dependent on that template. The Living people category is dependent on the subject's date of death, not whether the article is sourced. — Bility (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Request

{{editprotected}} Because that this template is only for Living People, how about when you add this template, it also adds Category:Living People. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 14:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: As mentioned above, please establish consensus for this change. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Contentious material about living people

Can we have the Contentious material about living people part of this template link to the policy WP:BLPREMOVE. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What kind of article can have this template?

Should this template only be used on articles where the main topic is the biography of a living person, or should it be used on any unsourced article that contains information on a living person? The template was intended to be used in the former case, but the language of WP:BLP gives the impression that the latter is acceptable as well, which would expand the scope of the template seriously (e.g. every unsourced article on a school that mentions the principal could be tagged, just like every unsourced band article, book article by a living writer, ...). Where do we draw the line? Fram (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it's for people only. For unsourced BLP content in another article, removing it per BURDEN is the way to go. Of course, if that eviscerates the article, then PRODing the article normally may be a reasonable step. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP is clear on this point "This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages." I suggest if your really interested in changing the policy then discussion on WT:BLP is advised. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The BLP policy applies everywhere; BLP PRODs are only applicable to articles that are solely BLPs, because a mixed article, by definition, contains non-BLP material. Thus, you can't nuke a mixed page with a BLP-specific process, because at least some part of the page is not covered by the BLP policy. Hence, deleting it and requiring a source for readding per BURDEN is the policy-based way to handle BLP material in a non-BLP article. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"a mixed article, by definition, contains non-BLP material" not true because an article can contain only BLP information from multiple people. That aside it's irrelevant as WP:BLP makes it clear to include 'material about living persons on other pages' and also {{BLP Sources}} is explicitly included in that so no grey areas here. It seems most likely the confusion is maybe thinking of WP:BLPPROD which is an exception. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk)

SunCreator, the question is not if we want to change the policy, the question is on what kind of articles this template belongs. You can easily create a template "this unsourced article contains info on BLPs" if you want to have an indication of which unsourced articles also contain BLP info: this template however is intended solely for those articles where the subject is a single LP (which is also the category where BLPProd applies). Using this template in a more strict sense than the application of the policy doesn't mean that the policy has been changed. Fram (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Fram this template is for living people, BLP policy applies to all articles with information on living people, but the template is just for individuals with a pulse. J04n(talk page) 12:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"the question is on what kind of articles this template belongs", according to BLP policy this template belongs on any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages. If either of you wish to change the BLP policy then please create a discussion on WT:BLP, I don't have this page watchlisted and am unlikely to reply here again. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We have millions of articles on locations, pop groups, battles, companies, schools and sports teams. The BLP policy applies to information in all of them and anywhere else on the project if that information is about a living person. However this particular template is for unsourced biographies of living people and diluting it by extending it in such a way is not required by the BLP policy. Nor in my view would it be helpful. ϢereSpielChequers 14:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

BLPprod

It has been suggested on the talkpage of BLPprod that we get two versions of this template, the current version and one for articles that for some reason are not eligible for BLPprod. They don't need to appear that different - a hidden category is probably all we need. ϢereSpielChequers 14:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No concerns with this idea. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

From the Help Desk:--GoP_T^C_N 09:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

In your guidelines on citations, you write:

Controversial, poorly-sourced claims in biographies of living people should be deleted immediately.

I suggest you make it clear whether the first comma means 'and' (ie Controversial and poorly-sourced claims...) or 'or'.

Morten Berg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.101.42 (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding this template

See here. --J04n(talk page) 14:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Please make active the following parameter

@Dabomb87:, @Joe Decker:, @Joshua Scott:, @MSGJ:, @Plastikspork:, the "section" parameter, toggled on via "|section" or "|section=yes" does not appear to be active for this article tag. Failing to have this active means that the tag {{unreferenced section}} (without the BLP links and content)—which is therefore less accurate and less likely to elicit attention—must instead be used, or an article tag placed when only a section is at issue. Having a non-BLP section tag on a BLP article section populates to-be-edited lists frequented mostly by non-BLP interested editors, and so adds unnecessarily to those lists, with limited positive editorial impact.

I would formally request that this template be modified for explicit use in WP:VERIFY-offending sections in BLP articles.

I would note that this matter was apparently already discussed and a consensus reached, see Template_talk:BLP_unsourced#Section_parameter above, but action seems to have fallen by the wayside.

Thank you in advance for your effort. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Question: We have {{BLP unsourced section}}. Is that not suitable? fredgandt 03:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

This has been sitting here a couple days and 1) there is an apparent alternative and 2) the request for change is not clear. Izno (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 June 2016

Please add |removalnotice = yes inside the {{ambox}} template. Many of the other maintenance templates contain this and this one should be the same. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_131#Implementing_Help:Maintenance_template_removal.

Omni Flames (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)