Template talk:BLP/Archive 3

Living person cautioning
There seems to be something wrong with the living=yes parameter in relation to Talk:Warren Jeffs. The problem is that the usual pale infobox reminder about Wikipedia's BLP policy doesn't show. __meco 20:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like WikiProjectBannerShell needs a parameter of blp=yes. Although I wrote a lot of the WPBio code the integration with WikiProjectBannerShell was written by User:SatyrTN so if there's any further queries it might be best to ask for his input. I only found this out by experimenting in the sandbox! --kingboyk (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling
Is there some way that this template can be modified to reflect the differences between British English and US English. Libellous is the correct English spelling whereas I presume that libelous is the American version. It is quite inappropriate to use American English in articles on British people. If the spelling cannot be adjusted could we perhaps have separate British English and American English templates. Dahliarose (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, separate templates would be far too much trouble. However, it was originally spelt "libellous" and we debated it above; there was no consensus to change it. It would seem that later on, as a janitor and in good faith, I pasted in somebody's new text without noticing a spelling change. I've now reverted myself. --kingboyk (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. That looks much better! Dahliarose (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Change Request
Please add a "section" parameter to Blp/BLPtext so the text can be used in places like Prestonwood Baptist Church or in a future cleanup-tag-style section- or article-template. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons/Help
Would it perhaps be a good idea to link to this page from this template, so that subjects can directly find this page without having to go through then main BLP page, and then another section link? seresin ( ¡? ) 05:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Tmbox
Please replace the page with the following code:

Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I also added a more appropriate image. Happy‑melon 14:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Background
I have to say I think that of all the talkspace messageboxes, this and are the two that ought to be the most visually distinctive, as they carry important legal notices. Happy‑melon 20:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The yellow background you did set on it now makes it look like a category message box, but this box is for talk pages.
 * You seem to think that this message is a "serious warning". Then it should use the standardised orange "content" style which means an orange border and talk page brown background. If something stronger is needed then we have the red "delete" type and even stronger red-pink "speedy delete" type. But I think they would be overkill for this message, and this message is not a deletion message.
 * And the same goes for activepol.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image
Can someone please remove that godawful image from the template? The standard Image:Imbox content.png is much better and far more recognizable. PC78 (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that there just shouldn't be an image at all. --- RockMFR 00:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted image. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Even better, as there was no image prior to tmbox conversion. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new wording
I think this needs a bit more of a explained warning about what is going on here...

Think this would be better? I decided to use wording from the policies in it and actually explains why this is serious. ViperSnake151 15:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Noindex
Given that this is frequently used on pages where there is discussion of controversial material about living persons, I think we should add NOINDEX to this template as a preventative measure.  MBisanz  talk 21:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I'm technically too clueless to do it properly. Kevin (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to that. That basically forces a noindex on countless pages that don't require it, and isn't needed as the Talk: namespace isn't indexed in the first place (the main source of transclusions). Using the NOINDEX tag like this defeats the entire purpose of allowing it to be set on a page to page basis. -- Ned Scott 03:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually already made this change weeks ago. Kevin (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This Google search] shows that the Talk: namespace is indexed. Kevin (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Or at least about 87% of it is... – GurchBot (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It should have been included in the robots.txt file. If that wasn't working then this won't fair much better, but I've never gotten talk pages to show up in my search results, outside of an occasional weird mirrored page. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, it seems it was being excluded on google's side. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This template is pointless
"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous."

There is no article for which this statement is not true. Yet we don't add a template saying "this article must not contain copyright violations" or "this article must have sources" to every discussion page. Gurch (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Request to change title to blp from Blp & add shell documentation?
I would like to request that where ever possible, instructions on this template's use be noted as blp instead of Blp? This is because {{WPBS|blp=yes  seems to prefer a lower case "b". Also, may documentation be added to instruct that {{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes  be added to shell code even if |living=yes ? Is renaming the template to Template:blp something to consider? Prapsnot (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The first letter of a page name is always capitalised, so the move you suggest is impossible. Any usage concerns with {{tl|WikiProjectBannerShell}} would be better posted at that template's talk page. PC78 (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Blp/BLPtext
Is there any need for this text to be transcluded from a subpage? As far as I can tell, Blp/BLPtext is not used anywhere independently of Blp. PC78 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

editprotected
 * Can Blp/BLPtext be substituted into this template? I believe this was once used in WPBiography, but that template has for some time now transcluded Blp directly, so a seperate template for the text is quite unnecessary. I did manage to track down a handfull of uses on archived talk pages and such, but these have now been substituted. PC78 (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Substituted per request. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

editprotected
 * Can someone please unprotect Blp/BLPtext and redirect it here? The subtemplate is now fully deprecated and no longer transcluded anywhere. PC78 (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's history. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Libel
Since this is a widely used template, the links should be correct. libellous should be libellous.


 * I think WP:LIBEL might be a more appropriate link. Actually, I'm starting to think we should move the text back to a subtemplate to keep it in sync with BLP editintro. PC78 (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed to WP:LIBEL, which includes a link to the defamation article. Skomorokh  07:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

OTRS note
This note seems like it is a very useful addition, but I wonder if we should target it more specifically at the article subject? Kevin (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed it for now. If it's going to be included, it needs to be targeted. OTRS has a very small volunteer pool. I've been working on the queue this afternoon, and we currently have 50 letters in the "quality" queue where such communications go. Wikipedia should be able to handle most problems in articles about living persons "in house" without the necessity of e-mailing OTRS. We shouldn't even necessarily the first recourse for the subject, as per Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). While the contact address may need more visibility, I'm afraid that the general notice that was used is likely to backlog the system completely, which will lead to legitimate problems having no or massively delayed response. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems quite reasonable. Perhaps linking to Contact us/Article problem would be a better idea? That actually allows a subject to find OTRS (it is very hard for someone to do that now) but still teaches them the processes to go through before contacting OTRS. Thoughts? NW ( Talk ) 20:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While sympathetic to concerns about the backlog, I think that making the address harder to find will also have the effect of keeping those that have a legitimate need to contact OTRS from finding it. There needs to at least be a link to a page with the OTRS address on it linked to from this template. It is far too buried at the moment. — Jake   Wartenberg  20:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How can we say this in a way that indicates that we are there for certain circumstances if needed, but not for every problem or content issue? I'm currently responding to a letter writer who wants to change the order of a biographical subject's awards. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should definitely not link directly to the address. If there is any link, it should go to one of the "Contact us" subpages so that the person sending the mail can get some advisement on what to say. I would point out that there is a link to "Contact Wikipedia" in the sidebar, the actual address is never more than 3 clicks away. Mr.Z-man 21:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Contact Wikipedia" link is easy for an experienced editor to find, but for a newbie? Good luck for them. It is buried with a myriad of other things in a small corner of the page. NW ( Talk ) 00:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the Contact Wikipedia link would be good to include. It does provide good information on where to approach certain problems, and I'm inclined to agree that newbies don't even notice the boxes at the side. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (e/c)And a newbie would think to check the talk page for a contact address? The perimeter of the page (usually the side like ours or on the bottom with legal stuff, occasionally on the top) is typically where websites put their contact links. Mr.Z-man 00:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm used to looking for the "Contact us" link at the bottom of the homepage. The following sites do this: 4 YouTube, 17 Microsoft, 37 Live Jasmin, UN, NASA, useit, Christian Science Monitor, CNN, Red Cross, Ubuntu, and Mozilla.
 * It's not always called "Contact" tho: 2 Facebook, 3 Yahoo, 5 Bing, 7 Blogger, 9 MSN, 12 MySpace, 14 Twitter, 25 Amazon, and 40 Go only have "Help" links. (Wikipedia also has a Help link on the left.)
 * 23 RapidShare and 24 eBay put it at the top.
 * 1 Google and 36 craigslist make you first click "About".
 * 19 WordPress, 33 Flickr, and 39 AOL hides "Contact" links several clicks from the homepage.
 * Should we recommend that WM pages include the "Contact us" link also at the bottom of pages to the right of the Disclaimers link? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-12t10:17z
 * That makes sense. Is that on a Mediawiki namespace page somewhere?Kevin (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried, but I must be missing something. Does not seem to have worked.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  14:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can try here. Ruslik_ Zero 17:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That worked. Thank you!  —  Jake   Wartenberg  21:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if this seems cynical, but the progress of this discussion looks a little bit like We'll take BLP seriously as long as it doesn't inconvenience us. If the problem really is substantial, shouldn't the solution be to make internal adjustments to handle the greater inflow of requests? Perhaps a two tiered system where group of "OTRS lite" volunteers would sort incoming messages without actually having access to respond to them. If the entry bar for that group were solely based upon confidentiality and trustworthiness, rather than communications skill, then a larger pool could become available. Just a thought... Durova 363 23:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Making people click through links embeded in walls of text seems a lot like subjecting them to a phone tree.  If they feel they are being defamed they may be too angry to find the address buried under all that.  Making things harder for users with illegitimate complaints will also reduce the number of users with legitimate complaints who find their way to OTRS.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  23:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You think we need an e-mail response team to handle requests to reorder ribbons in a box? "regarding problems with this article" is pretty inclusive. Such issues are supposed to be handled within Wikipedia; it's a self-sustaining community, after all. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c} 1) I find it rather difficult to believe that a non-editor would check the talk page before looking on the sidebar or the bottom of the page. 2) The text in the template made it sound like OTRS was a first point of contact for anyone who noticed a BLP issue. OTRS exists to provide a bridge between article subjects and editors, it is not the general BLP police. 3) Sorting the emails is not really an issue here. When people don't read the initial pages, they frequently send an email that's essentially non-actionable. Despite the fact that we specifically say not to do it, we frequently get requests asking us to use an "official bio" or give the subject full control of the article, or they don't specify what the problem is (assuming we're already familiar with it). Besides wasting volunteer time, it adds an additional delay before the issue can be addressed. Mr.Z-man 00:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to add that it didn't even necessarily indicate that we were to be contacted for WP:BLP issues, just "problems with this article." Again, I think it's a good idea to make us easier to get ahold of, but it needs to be more specific. Not only does OTRS lack manpower to fix spelling issues, but as I understand it we have a general hands off approach to article content except with certain issues that require/warrant e-mail request intervention. (Again, this is as I understand it.) In fact, one of our form letters indicates as much. If somebody writes us over a problem with an article because the template suggests they should and we send them a form letter telling them they have to resolve it in the community, they're likely to be a tad bit confused. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Specificity would be good. Durova  363 02:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I could go for a link to Contact us/Article problem from this template. I appreciate that there is a balance to be drawn between helping users to resolve their own problems rather than emailing and ensuring that genuine issues get our attention quickly, but there is a very small number of people (myself included) who deal with emails on the info-en-q address, an even smaller number of whom are active or deal with more than one or two mails a week. Even now, there are 30 emails waiting to be dealt with on that queue, so you'll excuse me if I go off and try to reduce that. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, down to 3 now. Any further objections to adding that link? Stifle (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I don't have any problem with a link to Contact us/Article problem. I think that subpage probably spells out when matters should be handled without the e-mail, but it would probably be good to review it just to be sure. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a link to that page. —  Jake   Wartenberg  22:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As per the contact page, I've clarified it to say "certain problems." They should still feel free to fix most problems themselves. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't really much better. It still makes it sound like OTRS is the first point of contact for anyone and "certain" is so vague to be useless. Mr.Z-man 02:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For me, the problem with "regarding certain problems with this article" is that it implies that there already are problems with the article, and the reader is left wondering what they are. This is particularly confusing if there are no problems mentioned on the talk page or the talk page is empty. I haven't had time to read the whole discussion above, so apologies in advance if this has already been suggested, but perhaps just state:
 * For some problems in articles about living people, you can also contact the volunteer response team.
 * - Voceditenore (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the link be to Biographies of living persons/Help? I suggest this text for the note: Please see this page for help with dealing with issues in this article. – ukexpat (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. I like that even better. :) Very comprehensive. Lets people know what they can do, what they should not do, and what further options are available if (a) they encounter resistance with what they can or (b) they want somebody else to do what they should not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Implemented. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Biographies of living persons/Help is spcifically "for persons who may be affected by a mention of themselves", should we not say as much here rather than making it seem like a general help page? Wording aside, is it necessary to use italics and have this addition seperated from the rest of the text with a line? PC78 (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the line or the italics; I'm good with it either way. :) As for wording, what do you think would work? "If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page"? Seems a bit wordy, but I'm not so good at brevity. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Seems ok to me. Any opinions on this: -- PC78 (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Libellous inconsistency
The word libelous is spelled as the variant libellous in the template. But click on the link libellous that appears wikilinked in the template and the word there is spelled libelous. Someone please consider if libellous should be changed to libelous. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My take on this is that the variant spellings are more relation to English variant usages between the US and British spellings. In that regard, unless the article is particular to one or the other nationalities, neither is right nor wrong, but based on the variant employed when the article was written. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)