Template talk:BLP

Suggestion regarding the Biography of Living persons statement on article talk pages
I have initiated a conversation about a suggested change to the way we display the BLP banner on article talk pages at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Please take some time and leave a comment about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Template standardization
Would there be any objection to standardizing the template to return it to the look of a tmbox-content? Right now, it doesn't resemble one at all, and I'm concerned efforts to make it more distinct have actually made it less distinct. Additionally, I think it would benefit from the increased recognition associated with the uniform design features. Content tmboxes are rare enough that it's unlikely to need differentiation. --Bsherr (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have an example of a tmbox? Garion96 (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course. So, this template is a tmbox. It's just so modified that it's not recognizable. I propose simply deleting the image, style, and background parameters, so they operate as their default. I've put the result in the template's sandbox. --Bsherr (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now I can see the difference. I don't see a benefit though. To me making it distinct, does make it more distinct. :) Garion96 (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but the dress it's in right now is actually less bold than the standard tmbox, don't you agree? --Bsherr (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Garion. As a newbie, I just glazed over all the tmboxes; they all looked the same and therefore essentially were all the same to me. I would read this one though, because it's in a different format and therefore popped out when casually reading. Every small bit helps in explaining our BLP policy.  NW  ( Talk ) 23:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Hmm, not really. Especially since this template is always together with other templates. See for instance Talk:Bill_Clinton. If your sandbox version would be implemented this template wouldn't stand out anyore. Garion96 (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand those concerns, but please take a look at Template:BLP/testcases. I think you'll find that the template does stand out, because of the image and the orange border. I understand you wish to view this warning as important, but it's just as important as any other content warning on the talk page. If each such template adopted its own distinct look out of reaction to the one adopted here, there would be no consistency of dress to identify important content warnings, no matter what their topic. If I can't appeal to you on asthetics, please consider whether the arguments here truly justify contraverting the guidelines at Talk page templates. --Bsherr (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand you wish to view this warning as important, but it's just as important as any other content warning on the talk page. I completely disagree. I view this template as the most important warning template that we show and think that we ought to make it stand out as much as possible.  NW  ( Talk ) 15:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Is there a way we can do that while still complying with the guidelines? --Bsherr (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And if that is indeed true, why is the "small" parameter passed through? --Bsherr (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think this template is one of the most important warnings, so it should stand out over the other templates. Whether it passes or not the guidelines...who cares. :) Regarding "small", don't know. I don't remember ever seeing it used with the small parameter. Garion96 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the guidelines represent the community consensus on what the best practice is. A consensus cared enough to adopt them, so they should generally be heeded unless there's a compelling reason not to. At the least, what if the entire template, as designed, were put into a tmbox that met the guidelines. Would that not be satisfactory? --Bsherr (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any benefit in that, since there is a compelling reason this template should stand out. Garion96 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The benefit would be preserving the status quo while still complying with the guidelines. --Bsherr (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider Template:BLP/sandbox1. Relatively harmless change, yet compliant with the guidelines. Would it really be disagreeable? --Bsherr (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not as good as the current one. Therefore I still fail to see any benefit in the change. But let's see if other editors agree or not. I think it's safe to say we have to agree to disagree. :) Garion96 (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The guidelines are just that: guidelines. Quoting from the large banner box at the top: [The guideline] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. (emphasis mine). I believe that this is a special case where an exception applies.  NW  ( Talk ) 12:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific about what might be wrong with it? If it happened to be the status quo, would you object to it? --Bsherr (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so no specific concerns about the latest proposal at sandbox1, right? Perhaps it represents a good compromise? --Bsherr (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made modifications to the proposal at sandbox to address the difficulty of efficiently coding the proposal at sandbox1, while addressing the above concerns. I'm going to give it a try for implementation.

editprotected
 * Please replace the tmbox portion of the code of this template with the code at sandbox. Please also remove the protection template transclusion, as it is redundant. --Bsherr (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the proposed version looks rather untidy. The table-within-a-table could add a cluttered look to the talk page. I personally would not have a problem with some tweaks to the style of the current box, but the proposed version seems less consistent (and compliant) with template standardisation actually. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how it might be tidied in your view, please? Do you want the message box within the message box deleted? I was trying to address the request in the section below. I'll delay the editprotected request. --Bsherr (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

editprotected
 * I've removed the message box. We can implement it without it, and then determine further refinements if needed. --Bsherr (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the box-within-a-box format of Template:BLP/sandbox1. If you are not proposing this version, please can you clarify which sandbox you are referring to. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok! As I said above, I've made modifications to the proposal at sandbox to address the difficulty of efficiently coding the proposal at sandbox1, while addressing the above concerns. Template:BLP/sandbox is the proposal. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that one looks viable. I've made a few tweaks, how does it look now? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that just looks too jarring, too likely to seem like we are yelling at the person. I'm not sure if it is an improvement.  NW  ( Talk ) 13:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We could indeed do a specific image instead of the general one. I've designed one to match the WikiProject Biographies icon plus the warning icon, so it has a consistent look. For line height, when one increases the font size by a percent, if one does not also increate the line height, it has the effect of actually shrinking the line height relative to normal. I assume that was unintentional, so I've put them back in parity. What do you think now? --Bsherr (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then.

edit protected
 * --Bsherr (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 18:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoah, just seen the new look template and I can't say I'm a fan. While I don't object to using the default tmbox stylings, I don't think that there is any need for an icon or the oversized text. Considering this is a highly visible template, I'm not seeing much in the way of concensus in the above discussion. Can I suggest reverting back to the old version for now and giving this a bit more discussion. PC78 (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * PC78, perhaps we can look to progressively improve the template instead of reverting? As you can see, it wasn't really a "bold" edit; it's taken over three weeks to get this far. I can tell you in the case of the oversized text, the concern to which I was responding was an opinion that this template is the most important content template, and needs to be highly distinctive (I don't think I agree, but I don't believe there was consensus for my view). This was the way of responding to that concern while maintaining standardization. I do stand behind the use of an icon because they are proven to improve noticeability and compliance. --Bsherr (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect, there are only four editors involved in the above discussion (including yourself), and I'm not seeing much enthusiasm for change, or even much recognition that there needs to be a change. Reverting does not preclude further discussion, and whether it's taken three weeks or three months, we're not in any rush. If use of an icon has "proven" benefits, I assume you can point me towards the proof. PC78 (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Undone. There is no consensus for such a change. Start an RFC on the matter if you wish.  NW  ( Talk ) 20:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, fine. Let's keep discussing. Starting from the beginning, this template does not conform to Talk page templates. Without wanting to paraphrase, the only justification that has been given is that the template needs to eschew the guidelines in order to remain distinctive. I believe it is possible, with cooperation, to produce a template that (1) is still distinctive, and (2) complies with the guidelines. To that end, could you please let me know how the template in the sandbox might be improved to meet consensus? As to the proof regarding the symbols and improvement of recognition and compliance, see W.A. Rogers et al., Warning research: An integrative perspective. Human Factors v.42, 102-139 (2000). --Bsherr (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Going back to the start of this discussion and re-reading what's been said, I'm not convinced that you've made a sufficient case for change, so to my eyes this appears to be a solution searching for a problem. To echo what NuclearWarfare said above, a guideline is ultimately just a guide and not an absolute; to quote the "Chosen scheme" section (and hopefully not out of context), "this is not a firm policy". Conformity for conformity's sake is not the most compelling argument. Having said that, I'm sympathetic to your initial proposal, which IMO is the most level of change we need if there is to be any. Personally I think that the bold orange border and icon would make this more eye-catching at Talk:Bill Clinton, not less.
 * To comment again on your most recent proposal, I don't see any value in making the template bigger by breaking up the text. I think the large text is rather "in your face" and unnecessary -- the template itself is enough to emphasise the seriousness of the policy. And if there is to be an icon it should be one that grabs your attention, and I think the default icon does that best. I don't like the one you used for several reasons: first because it duplicates the icon in the banner often transcluded below; second because it implies a false relationship between the policy and the WikiProject; and third because it commands less attention than the default.
 * As to moving forward, I've gone back to your initial proposal and acted on the advice you were given here since this avenue does not yet appear to have been explored. But as the one seeking to make changes, the onus is really on you to convince us doubters. PC78 (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, I'd be delighted to keep talking to find a compromise (it was only after the opposition seemed to be silent that I requested changes), and I'll do my best to be convincing. Like I said, I only proposed the large text because I thought it necessary for the compromise. Likewise, I only switched over to the unique icon because Martin proposed it in compromise (although I do think a unique icon has some particular benefits). If the version at the sandbox represents the compromise (and it's pretty close to the alternate I did indeed propose at sandbox1), so be it, and let's implement that. I understand a guideline is just a guideline, but if it's possible to meet concerns why staying consistent with the guidelines, why shouldn't that be our goal? The community adopted the guideline with the intent that everyone try to follow it; all I'm asking is that we make an effort to try to comply with it. So, to explore this, is there any other way we can make the template distinctive while staying consistent with the guideline? Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Short answer: I don't know, I don't have any better suggestions at the moment. I do think that the current sandbox could be a win-win, though. It makes the template stand out more, gives it a greater sense of urgency, gives you some of the standardisation that you're looking for while keeping the background colour that others are seeing as beneficial. It's probably not constructive for me to say any more at this point, since I would rather let Garion, NW and Martin have their say (assuming they still have an interest in this discussion). PC78 (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick comment about the small parameter since you mentioned it earlier in the discussion. I think this can be removed; transclusion of this template is usually done via WPBiography or WikiProjectBannerShell, neither of which allow for the parameter to be used. PC78 (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, they haven't replied. I'm noticing a pattern of proposal, detraction, request for constructive suggestions, silence...back to the start. What do we do next? --Bsherr (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but that's the Wikipedia way! :-D I've left both Garion and NW a note on their talk pages, so hopefully that will propmt a response here. In the meantime, I thought it might be an idea to convert this template to use multibox, which would allow BLP editintro to be merged here. The text of the two templates should be the same, so it would be good if we didn't have to maintain it in two different places. PC78 (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Said it before, see no benefit in the change and see no need in a change. To make it comply with a guideline is not a reason to alter a highly used template. Garion96 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is just about making the template comply with a guideline. Do you not think that the icon and border draw more attention to the template? PC78 (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I really fail to see how this is an improvement in any way. There are lots of template tags on Wikipedia that have an icon and border. If anything, this makes it stand out less. Count me still opposed.  NW  ( Talk ) 16:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
I'd like to suggest that the final line of the text, with instructions sending subjects to the OTRS page, be seperated from the rest of the text with a blank line, and the entire line be bolded:

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page."

I suggest this in the hope of helping to head off future problems with subjects of BLP articles editing them in a disruptive manner instead of contacting OTRS to air their problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Consolidate with Template:BLP editintro
(Follows on from discussion at User talk:Amalthea.)

Given that this and BLP editintro essentially display the same message, it would be ideal if we consolidated them so that the text need not be maintained in two different places. The best way of doing this would be to convert BLP editintro so that it uses multibox, and this in turn would allow us to transclude BLP editintro here. There are some minor variations in the text of the two existing templates, but otherwise there would be no visible changes. This is currently implemented at BLP editintro/sandbox and BLP/sandbox2. Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume this is for edit notices? Why isn't editnotice used? --Bsherr (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * BLP editintro currently uses editnotice. multibox calls editnotice but offers greater flexibility which is of use to us here. PC78 (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, pardon. I follow now. But shouldn't the templates be reversed? It seems to me that BLP should host and BLP editintro should transclude. --Bsherr (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked Amalthea the same thing, but apparently it's simpler to do it this way round (see discussion linked above). PC78 (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that answers that. I'll watch what you do so I can include it on my BLPplex project too. --Bsherr (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

check talk
check talk says use should use to all the template to be used in sandboxes etc... without having the warning pop out (see Talk_page_layout/Sandbox for a place where this causes a problem). Could we please implement this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ . Amalthea  20:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Addition to this template and Template:BLP editintro
While source reliability requirements are the most highly enforceable portion of the BLP policy, they are not our only concern. Therefore, it may be prudent to add the following text to the templates: "The use of primary sources for contentious or privacy violating material is forbidden. Neutrality in the description of living persons must be maintained, and original research avoided." Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

adding "and this talk page"
Would there be any objection to changing
 * "This article must adhere..."

to
 * "This article and this talk page must adhere..."

since this is the actual correct policy? One cannot say "This guy is a murderer" or whatever without citing a ref on a talk page, per the WP:BLP policy and common sense, and this is not always clear to people. Herostratus (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK then.

Add "and this talk page" between the second word ("article") and third word ("must"), per unobjected proposal above.

Herostratus (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. The repeated "this" seems clumsy and unnecessary to me, so I've left it out for now. Let me know if that's a problem. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks. Herostratus (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please
Yes Drilnoth if you would revert this edit please, edits should not as a rule be made to fully-protected pages unless there's a pretty good reason, which there isn't here. Herostratus (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, discussion of the change. What don't you like about shortening the text? I feel that the template as-is is excessively long, but not much can really be removed. By changing "please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard" to "please report the issue here", the template text is dramatically shortened and it reduces redundancy in wording (the sentence already uses the phrase "biography of a living person", and using a similar phrase again makes the sentence feel unwieldy). IMHO, the template becomes both shorter and easier to understand. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong feeling about it either way. However, first of all, if it's not broke don't fix it. Second, I'd prefer the link to be spelled out in the text. I can't really put in my finger on exactly why, I just think it's better. You're not really shortening it much, and in return you make the target of a link unknown, which adds an unwelcome element of mystery. I liked it the way it was. Herostratus (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On my monitor (~15 inches, don't know the resolution), the change makes the whole template one line shorter, saving a not-insignificant amount of screen space. Plus, at least in any browser I use, the URL for the destination is shown when the link is moused over. Anyways, it doesn't really matter to me either. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On my monitor (~15 inches, don't know the resolution), the change makes the whole template one line shorter, saving a not-insignificant amount of screen space. Plus, at least in any browser I use, the URL for the destination is shown when the link is moused over. Anyways, it doesn't really matter to me either. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

My recent edit
I just made this edit to the page, before I realized it was protected. If someone wants me to self-revert and discuss first, please let me know.

The edit tweaked the writing to clarify that the tag (and BLP) applies to edits to living persons anywhere, not only in biographies. SlimVirgin TALK CONTRIBS 22:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like "and talkpage" replaced or your edit reverted for discussion. - ah, no worries, I see you didn't remove it, just moved it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"Libelous" v. "Libellous"
The current spelling "libellous" is, per Merriam-Webster, a variant of the more correct "libelous" and should be corrected in the template, no? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an American/British English difference, not "more correct" variant. violet/riga [talk] 15:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah...I should have realized that. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2011 (
 * Why is the British spelling used?

I think we should revisit this topic. WP:Libel and WP:BLP both use the American spelling within those pages. It seems rather inconsistent to use the British spelling within the template itself. TimSmit (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Umm...WTF does it matter? Communication is about communicating.  If you -- and everyone else in the English speaking world -- understand the meaning that it is intended to convey, then everything is fine.  Don;t fix it if it ain't broke. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. WP:ENGVAR can't be applied here, and if you include native-level readers in India particularly, the Anglosphere is kind of divided pretty equally between the American and British dialects. So I mean you have to pick one or the other I guess. It's OK to be inconsistent, as long as it doesn't jar or annoy by using two spellings randomly in the same actual document.


 * Either way, I guess you're going to have people thinking it's just an error, I don't think there's any answer to that. There've been proposals to have the reader set a parameter to have the variable-spelling words presented in the spelling of their choice, but that's not likely to ever actually happen. Herostratus (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

BLP edit intro redesign?
Hey all. Started a thread up here about a possible redesign/simplification of the edit intro template. All thoughts welcome :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding BDP
Hi there. I've opened up a discussion regarding the addition of a BDP at WP:BLP/N. Please comment there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Request to add wording advising editors of WP:NEWBLPBAN
On the Shirtstorm article, GamerGate controversy sanctions were briefly applieddiff and subsequently removeddiff noting WP:NEWBLPBANdiff. However, having the notice of sanctions on the talk page seems to have converted a slow-burn edit war into productive talk page discussions, although I may be speaking too soon as the discussions are just beginning. I request that wording advising editors of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions on BLP-related topics be added to this template. To clarify, I'm not asking for this to any way substitute for alerts, but pointing out that simply having had a notice that sanctions apply seems to have encouraged civil behavior where it was previously lacking, seemingly with no actual enforcement required by anyone. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

template change
instead of defamation change libelous to libel article at Libel --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

New version in the sandbox, bypasses wikilink to remove "what links here" entries which are simply caused by this template
See Template:BLP/sandbox. It uses plain link to use urls rather than wikilinks, for the benefit of making the archive indexing work more efficiently.

See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 202 for further discussion of the rationale. If there are no objections, I will deploy it soon. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This link shows how many backlinks to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard there still are.
 * 143,487 as of now. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 132,789 as of now. wbm1058 (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 115,287 as of now. wbm1058 (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 82,079 as of now. wbm1058 (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 69,136 as of now. wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 61,216 as of now. It appears to have stabilized at this level. wbm1058 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 52,413 as of now. Actually it's still dropping. There may be times when the job queue doesn't get worked so much, if there is heavy load on the system... just speculating. wbm1058 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 34,364 as of now. wbm1058 (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 15,631 as of now! AWB What links here (All NS) shows 9525 pages link to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 12,534 as of now. AWB What links here (All NS) shows 6425 pages link to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Other involved templates

 * Great move. It remains to apply the same process to the 46 other templates that are poisoning the well. For example, Wikipedia_community. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&namespace=10&limit=20&from=44024863&back=24489900. Pldx1 (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia community has only 153 backlinks. Template:Wikipedia editor navigation has 9.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC).

This gives the templates that belongs to what_links_here(WP:AN). bcklin was limited to 200. Not gone further. Pldx1 (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Pldx1 (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's going to be practical to address all of these. CB3 was getting all tied up when there were three-quarters of a million backlinks. We can limit those extremes, but it should be able to handle cases of around 60,000 backlinks, or maybe 25,000. Anything more and the solution probably lies with the core Wiki software. Create a special class of what-links-here-via-transclusion, and a separate what-directly-links-here. wbm1058 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This link shows how many backlinks to Administrators' noticeboard there are.
 * 26,159 as of now. wbm1058 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 17 September 2016
An editor, Lourdes, has asked that the text in this template be modified:


 * from this:

 "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons."


 * to this:

 "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it may not be a biography, because it contains material about living persons."


 * The edit request for this proposed change may be found at Template talk:WikiProject Biography. Thank you in advance!   Paine   u/ c  02:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This looks like a potentially major change, perhaps a bit of discussion may be useful? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging Lourdes, the original requestor.  Paine   u/ c  21:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what the point of this request is, i.e., what is the distinction between "is not" and "may not be"? Do we have any articles which leave doubt as to whether they are actually biographies or not? Can we be certain that all articles in Category:Living people are biographies? wbm1058 (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks to all for the guidance. The only reason I put up the request was because "is not" sounds definitive and to some editors editing biographies, may be potentially confusing as the "is not" could imply that the biography the editors may be editing "is not" a biography. Our editors are from various geographies across the world, and the intent in the rewording is to reduce the possible confusion. I believe "may not be" has a better structure to put across the same point of view, where an editor editing a biography understands that the guidance is making a wide statement that applies to both biographies, and also to articles that "may not" be biographies. An alternative rewording could include "may or may not be". I would think an Rfc would be required to first assess whether editors believe that the current wording is potentially confusion. If the Rfc decides otherwise, there's no reason to even suggest alternatives. Lourdes  01:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well but another way to look at the change is that then the notice would apply to articles that are biographies, and to articles that may or may not be biographies (depending on how you define "biography"), but the notice would not apply any longer to articles that are definitely not biographies. It would be a little pedantic to apply that rigorous a logic to the language, but the logic is there, if I'm parsing it correctly. So we want to be careful here. Herostratus (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe something like:

Whether or not this article is a biography, it must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, because it contains material about one or more living persons.
 * This does what it's supposed to, that is, it let's editors know that "whether or not" the article is a biography, it must be in compliance with the BLP policy. And then it explains why.  The application clearly is to both bios and non-bios.   Paine   u/ c  12:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks absolutely perfect (with a suggestion that you could start the sentence with, "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, whether or not..., because...". Lourdes  12:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Lourdes! I did actually try it that way first, but after I wrote it and then read it, the sentence looked and sounded awkward somehow.  It just seems to flow better when it begins with "whether".  I could be wrong.   Paine   u/ c  18:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note that the text causing this confusion was introduced in October 2011; see § My recent edit above. There are some articles whose talk pages are in Category:Biography articles of living people, but the article itself is not in Category:Living people. A possible scenario is a biography that was merged and redirected to the article about the company or product that the subject is known for. I would like to create a category for these, so we have some idea of how many there are. Searching for them in the massive Category:Biography articles of living people is like searching for needles in haystacks. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually we do have an idea of how many there are:
 * Category:Biography articles of living people currently has 810,550 members
 * Category:Living people has 789,188 members
 * So presumably we have about 21,000 articles that have biographical content, but are not biographies. wbm1058 (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * does the last word (i.e. person) need to be plural? — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 05:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think because the last line says "one or more", therefore the plural. Alternatively, it could have been "because it contains material about living people." But I'm okay with anything actually. Lourdes  06:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, and "people" would do just as well.  Paine   u/ c  13:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On second thought, since Lourdes has made the point that there might be confusion among editors who presumably have learned English as a foreign language, it might not be wise to introduce one of the many confusing aspects of English into the template, in this case "persons" = "people". Perhaps it would be better to keep it simpler by using only the word "persons" in this template.   Paine   u/ c  22:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Well honestly I think the existing text is OK. The proposed new text is OK too I suppose. Is there any known instance of someone actually being confused by the existing text? Is this just roiling the text to no gain? But I don't oppose the change. Either way is OK with me. Herostratus (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Gentle enquiry, to check if there is any opposition to Paine's reworded suggestion, or can we go ahead with the change? Thanks. Lourdes  03:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 22 September 2016
Please modify the text in this template:


 * from this:

 This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons.


 * to this:

 Whether or not this article is a biography, it must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, because it contains material about one or more living persons.

The above discussion strongly appears to favor this wording. Thank you in advance!  Paine  u/ c  03:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't exactly say it strongly appears to favor the change, but I can see there is no real opposition. I have reduced protection so you can make the change yourself. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't either. Thinking it over some more, basically, you are burying the lede, substituting

 This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy [yadda yadda] with  [yadda yadda] it must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy [yadda yadda]
 * This is non-excellent technical writing. First-rate technical writing puts the important behavioral point ("do/don't do this") right up front and the subsidiary clauses (details, reasons, effects, etc.) in the following material. Whatever, and I guess I had my chance to object, but expect blowback when this is widely seen. Herostratus (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The alternative is  This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, whether or not this article is a biography, because it contains material about one or more living persons. Lourdes 14:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * So, let's deconstruct the request, so we can assess the consensus for each of the changes.
 * Hyperlink [ [biography]] so that readers can link to a definition. Seems uncontroversial, though some might argue this would be an overlink to an everyday, well-understood word.
 * ...it contains material about one or more living persons. "one or more" seems redundant, so this is less concise than it could be. "Persons" plural adequately implies "one or more".
 * The focus of this request is the change: "even if it is not a biography" → "whether or not this article is a biography"
 * Do we need to redundantly say "this article" a second time, or can we refer to "this article" as "it" without confusing readers?
 * I'm still not understanding the substantive distinction between "even if it is not" and "whether or not it is". Both phrases are five words long. Can a writing expert clear this up for me? wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion
If the article is one of the 780,000+ members of Category:Living people:  This biography must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, because it contains material about living persons. If the article is one of the ~21,000 articles that are not in Category:Living people:  This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, because it contains material about living persons, i.e., biographical content.

— wbm1058 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 October 2019
Hi. The merge discussion has been closed as a no consensus to merge. Please can the TfD template be removed? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Standardisation of colouring
Hi there. I'm not sure if there is an existing consensus either way, but I think it would be beneficial to restore the talk box back to its original colour, rather than overriding the standard colour with the ghostly cream it currently uses. I assume it's this way for emphasis, but I believe that content has enough emphasis (especially considering that more important boxes like American politics AE don't break the standards). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The "even" clause
This issue was discussed back in 2016 with no apparent result (see above9, and I feel like it needs to be adressed more. The wording " " gives a lingual lean towards towards it not being a bio - even though the semantics is technically neutral, the "if" is quite weak in the expression and is easily skipped when sightreading the template. Just like @Lourdes said, the "is not" is too prevalent in the wording and makes one think it is automatically not a bio.

My suggestion would be to replace it with " " or alternatively shorter " ". But I also liked the suggestion from @wbm1058 to make it auto-determine the case and adjust its text, although that might be too much effort.

I'm not sure if people are watching this page, if I don't get any response I might do an. Gaioa (T C L) 20:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Gaioa, I think it's fine as it is. SarahSV (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 July 2022
Please replace  with. It doesn't have any special parameters so the external link without an icon shouldn't be necessary. I'll do this in the sandbox. weeklyd3 (message me &#124; my contributions) 04:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I did this in the sandbox. weeklyd3  (message me &#124; my contributions) 04:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is deliberate, see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 202 * Pppery * it has begun... 14:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Recently deceased
Hello. I suggest that "because it contains material about living persons." is corrected to "because it contains material about living or recently deceased persons." The aim is to increase the scope of the template as the policy also applies for recently deceased people. It may be included via a 'BDP' parameter' if required. --TadejM my talk 15:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)