Template talk:BLP others

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)

Remove Tfm/dated
Please remove notice sine Templates for discussion/Log/2019 September 18 has closed with no consensus. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Izno (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 November 2019
It may be me being petty, but it sounds like a good idea to change "...does not apply directly..." to "...does not directly apply...". It bears the same meaning, but is also more intuitive since the not is negating the directly and not "apply directly". It can be argued that the BLP policy applies to all articles at least indirectly.  GaɱingFørFuɲ 3 6 5 18:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see your point. In these cases, it may be worth rethinking the text as a whole. I am tempted to remove the word "directly" entirely. Here is the existing text of the box:

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
 * I think it might make sense to reword a bit. This may be too bold for template text that has not changed in many years. My proposed changes, including a direct quote from the BLP policy, are below.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply to the subject of this article,  to friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the article's subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
 * It might be a little too wordy. Thoughts are welcome. If we like this new text, we may want to post a note on the noticeboard. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The word directly still has a purpose in the text, especially when the text you've suggested goes on to outline the indirect way in which the policy still applies. Just my 2¢. Cabayi (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really think that the word "directly" is necessary. The statement is saying that the BLP policy does not apply to the subject of the article, typically a non-living person. The word "directly" implies that the BLP policy does apply indirectly to the subject of the article, which is untrue. The work of negation in the first sentence is done by the word "While", not the word "directly". The basic flow of the statement is: "The BLP policy does not apply to the subject of this article, but it does apply to any living persons mentioned in the article." The word "directly" has no applicability here. The BLP 100% does not apply to the subject person, but it 100% does apply (directly) to other living persons mentioned. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I have disabled the request for now as there doesn't seem to be consensus on the best wording. Even the presence of this one word seems controversial. Please continue discussing and reactivate if consensus emerges. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. What about "Although the main content of this article is not a biography of a living person, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends, family members, or other information that may be related to living persons. Because of this, unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see ." At the end, we merely use this template for non-living topics, while blp is to be used wherever Category:Living people or Biography (living=yes) exists. © Tb hotch ™ (en-3). 22:42, 30 July 2020 (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)

Template-protected edit request on 22 November 2021
Please add __NOINDEX__ to this template, for consistency with BLP. This template is used on talk pages that tend to attract frequent BLP vios (e.g. speculation about the names of criminal suspects), and we don't want those indexed by Google. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)