Template talk:BLP sources

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


 * Pwease. "BLP sources" is the thing that's missing when this template is supposed to be added, which would be like calling the Refimprove template "References". -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-12t13:50z

NOINDEX
What about adding NOINDEX? We should not be indexing BLP articles that may have accuracy and/or sourcing problems. Kevin (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

|section
I expected that adding |section would change the first sentence to something like, "This biographical section needs additional citations for verification." Instead I get nonsense: "This section biographical article needs additional citations for verification." |section would be very useful for articles that aren't about a living person, but have a section that includes info about living people. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 07:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there should be another template that says something like "This article/section contains biographical information that needs additional sources ..." (and also a template that says "This article/section contains biographical information without any references or sources ...")  -shirulashem (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This code has been revised... see below: ~ Paul T +/C 16:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

IMDB and other specific, possibly unreliable sources
Recently BLP IMDB-only refimprove and BLP IMDB refimprove templates were created, to support identification of articles that relied only or largely on IMDB, a source that many regard as unreliable for at least some kinds of information. Basically the templates include all the text of BLP sources / BLP refimprove, and insert another sentence or two commenting on IMDB as a source, calling for addition of other sources. These templates were proposed and developed at wt:URBLP and also discussed at Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 1. The templates' programming could be revised to include useful categories so that all the articles so tagged can be counted and can be addressed. More than 500 articles now carry one of these tags; there will be some thousands soon.

It is suggested that the programming can be consolidated into template:BLP sources. Perhaps this could be done using an IMDB=yes flag and an IMDB-only=yes flag, or an IMDB=yes flag and an ONLY=yes flag. And the current templates could be redirected to apply these. However, this is still an experiment. And, there may be other widely-used sources worth specifically identifying as possibly unreliable in the same way. --doncram (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

IMDB problems
I like the idea of IMDB specific templates, but I'm not sure the current wording "which may not be a reliable source for biographical information." is going to get things improved. It also is close to being an unsourced attack on IMDB. My understanding of the IMDB situation is that their listing information is kosher, but their biographical information is no more verified than Wikipedia editing. If that is correct then we could go for something like "which can be relied on for screen credit information, but the biographical info is user generated like wikipedia, and therefore no more suitable as a reference for an article than another wikipedia article would be." I'm afraid that is a bit long, but it could be made a separate page, or a link to Citing IMDb (which itself needs work to get consensus)  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  16:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please put a link in there to Citing IMDb. I was looking for this info and had to go to Template:BLP IMDB refimprove -> Discussion -> here to find it. Merc64 (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Template deprecated?
Has this template been deprecated? I'm glad it exists. But its default categories Category:BLP articles lacking sources from 2010 and Category:Articles lacking reliable references from 2010 are now redlinks. Example: Ross Perot, Jr.. --Lexein (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're supposed to use month and year, not plain year, in the date parameter. See Category:BLP articles lacking sources from October 2010 and Category:Articles lacking reliable references from October 2010. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That was an unintended consequence, and I didn't see the =DATE autofill subst option. I amended the doc to make that (more) explicit. --Lexein (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2010 (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) 17:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this should be discussed first. Although I see Mattg82's point. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Mattg82's proposed wording brings it in line with BLP unsourced & Unreferenced section, what other options are suggestions for wording are there? I think it's ok to make the change it has been a while and no one has any thing else to say on the subject. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding to Category:All articles lacking sources
The template is adding pages to this category. Isn't Category:All articles lacking sources for articles tagged for having no sources at all ? Mattg82 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, so? Debresser (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well it is artificially inflating the category by some 40,000 articles. The Unreferenced articles project is using the magic word to count how many unreferenced articles there are and it is used also by WP:BACKLOG and The Great Backlog Drive. I think the template needs to be changed so that the number of unreferenced articles can be accurately tracked. Mattg82 (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that the category should be Category:All articles needing additional references, because is a parallel of, not of . -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit protected

Per above, the template is adding articles to Category:All articles lacking sources, it should be Category:All articles needing additional references, thx. Mattg82 (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Before


 * After


 * ✅ - good call :) Skier Dude  ( talk ) 04:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 May 2012
In the section above, the "all articles" section was corrected, but the "by month" section (the first parameter in the DMCA template) was left as "Articles lacking reliable references". This is normally used for articles tagged with unreliable sources or Primary sources. It should also be changed to "Articles needing additional references". However, I think we should actually delete that entire DMCA line from this template. Why do we need to double up the BLP articles into both the Blp refimprove and the non-Blp refimprove articles? We don't double up for the Blp unreferenced template.

The-Pope (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So which categories are you proposing to use, precisely? There are currently no categories of the form Category:BLP articles needing additional references. Are you suggesting that we use the same category system as the non-BLP articles uses? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The main Ambox template already automatically creates the Category:BLP articles lacking sources from May 2012 by filling in the cat= and date= fields in the source code. After that in the current code is   , which IS the same category system as the non-BLP articles.  The last field was "corrected" by the previous request.  This time round, we should at least:
 * change  {{DMCA|Articles lacking reliable references|  to  {{DMCA|Articles needing additional references| 
 * and then discuss if we want to delete the entire  {{DMCA|Articles lacking reliable references|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles needing additional references}}  line, as I don't see any benefit in duplicating the BLP articles in both Category:BLP articles lacking sources from May 2012 and Category:Articles needing additional references from May 2012. Articles tagged with {{tl|BLP unreferenced}} don't end up in the same cats as {{tl|Unreferenced}} articles.
 * Eventually we should tidy up/standardise/align the entire cleanup template and cats system, but this should be done now, as Category:Articles lacking reliable references is showing over 90,000 articles, but in reality 58,880 of them are BLP sources articles, only about 38,000 (some double ups) are actually needing more reliable references (note the size of Category:All articles lacking reliable references‎). Conversely, Category:Articles needing additional references shows 189,000 articles in the "sum by month" infobox, but Category:All articles needing additional references has 233,000 articles, as it has all of the BLP articles in it, thanks to the DMCA code in this template.The-Pope (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood, and I've done your first request. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 June 2012
As no one has seemed to have noticed the change made above, the duplication isn't done on any other BLP specific template, and I've now added the entire Category:BLP_articles_lacking_sources as a member of Category:Articles needing additional references, rather than on a month-by-month basis, I think that we should remove the whole "second categorisation" and change the code

to

Category:All BLP articles lacking sources doesn't exist. It probably should, to match most of the other cleanup cats, so if you think should then by all means add in the "|All = All BLP articles lacking sources" line, but I'm not sure what benefit it adds. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. I don't think the "all" category has any benefit either, so I didn't bother with it. Cheers &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate date bug
There appears to be a bug in this template. It is displaying the date itself, but it calls ambox, which also displays the date. The error can be seen on the Fred Phelps page. I believe the error can be corrected by striking the wikicode shown below.

text = This  biographical needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful.

Matchups 20:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry this was my mistake and thank you for pointing it out. Fixed now as per your suggestion. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wording

 * "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful."

This wording seems flawed to me. "must be removed immediately" is an absolute statement. There is no room then for an "especially" clause which suggests that certain types of contentious material "must be removed immediately" more than others, and so maybe some types needn't be removed immediately after all. 86.176.211.225 (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Both statements correctly state current policy, which is pretty much as you describe. certain types of contentious material "must be removed immediately" while some types needn't be removed immediately after all. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand your reply, or whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me or with the present wording. The text currently says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately" (not "Certain types of contentious material...", as you have it). This does not leave any room for exceptions, and yet it is then implied that there are exceptions. 86.181.201.25 (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you change the wording, to remove "especially" would all the described content suddenly be removed? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again I have no idea what point you are making. This is going nowhere. 86.160.219.5 (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Request
Because that this template is only for Living People, how about when you add this template, it also adds Category:Living People. EBE123 talkContribs 14:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article should already have an explicit, so there's no need to put one into a template like this. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

IMDB again
Template:BLP IMDb refimprove is currently undergoing discussion at WP:TFD. While the majority seem to prefer to keep the template, there have been a couple of suggestions that the template could be merged with this one. In a previous discussion on this page, a suggestion was made that appropriate parameters could be added. I was wondering if the maintainers of this template could investigate that before the TfD discussion has run its course? --AussieLegend (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

small param
Please add in a line below "|class="
 * small=

to allow the ambox presentation usable for section-type templates.

70.24.251.71 (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would we ever want to use a small template for an issue as serious as this? Small support should only be necessary for specific templates, rather than every ambox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The requester is trying to have the section version of the template be consistent with other section templates. Please read his original request at Template_talk:BLP_unsourced_section. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And I second Chris: why do "hide" one of the biggest problems? This problem is just too serious to get small version. I marked the edit request as not done since we need first a consensus here. mabdul 13:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Update from sandbox
Please update the template from the sandbox. All I did was change cat2 to cat. It's not necessary, but it is better to be systematical. Debresser (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅  There were a few other other stylistic tweaks as well, but everything looked good, and it appears to be working on live articles.  --j⚛e deckertalk 23:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The tweaks were so minor, I didn't even mention them. Debresser (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Slightly reword?
Currently, the template says "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification..." However, the template is only intended to be used on BLPs. Since "biographical article" may be interpreted to include biographies of deceased persons, can the template be reworded? Should it say "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification." or should the template stay as it is? It's not like WP:BLP applies to Ninus anyway. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matter much either way. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was just coming to comment on the issue as well, having seen the tag at Ram Avatar Sharma (d. 1929). I suspect this wording has been leading to improper usage and would like to request the rewording above: "This biographical article" changed to "This biography of a living person." It may be wise to add parameters to modify that to "living people" for, say, articles on pairs of people. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Seems like a reasonable change, but the coding looks non-trivial - we need to work out how to deal with the "prefix" and "suffix" parameters, etc. Can someone write the code up in the template sandbox and test it to make sure it works? Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Add reason=
Please add. This would allow a visible specific reason for additional reliable sources. Example:

--Lexein (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we italicize reason parameters in most maintenance templates, do we? Debresser (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not done per Debresser's comment; for example, Cleanup renders it "The specific problem is: problem". Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Followup: ( italics ). My request is for the 'reason=' parameter to be added. (Italics aren't the issue, though they are used in Uw-vandalism) &c. The template text is frequently not quite specific enough, so custom text would be helpful:

Is the countersuggestion to simply use two templates atop the article, BLP sources and Cleanup? --Lexein (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Will adding, without anything else, cause this parameter to appear?  If so, tell me where to put it.  If not, please put the entire code into a sandbox and link to the sandbox, so I can just copy/paste the contents into the active template.  Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh well, so much for reason ;) I see that ambox has no provision for an added note as implemented in the uw templates. Getting anything added to ambox should be easy (smirk). --Lexein (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be possible to add a reason field that could add italicized reason text to one of the existing text fields without requiring a change to ambox. The code would be but where would you want the reason added?  Monty  845  04:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignoring parameters which don't display any text (such as small and image), the text parameters already available in are: issue text fix info and they are displayed in that order; the talk page link (if provided) and date are placed between fix and info. Of these four, only issue and fix are currently used in . When an ambox template (such as ) is wrapped in, only issue and text are displayed. I rather think that info would be best. I've sandboxed it; please check. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I'm sorry for the confusion — I just didn't know what to do and don't want to make a mistake.  Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks great, works great; thanks Nyttend, Monty845 and Redrose64! The "reason" text goes at the end, just as in uw templates - perfect. I'll leave italics up to the individual, since italics are passed through. Discussion point: are any other maintenance templates good candidates for "reason=" while we're thinking about it? Season to taste. --Lexein (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just now I tried to use the template within a multiple template and noticed that the reason parameter isn't displaying. The reason displays as soon as I move the BLP sources template out of the multiple template. — rybec 22:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did state at 15:11, 19 December 2012 that it wouldn't be displayed inside . -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answering. I had read your December post, but didn't understand from what you had written that this was the intended and planned behavior for the reason parameter. It's not mentioned in the documentation for the template, so I thought it a bug.


 * I tried with the text, info and issue parameters you had mentioned, but nothing was displayed even outside a  group. — rybec  22:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * text, info and issue are all possible parameters of Ambox, which is the template used within the source code of BLP sources.  Go to Template:BLP sources and click the "View source" tab to see this.  GoingBatty (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Move reason to issue parameter
Per the comment above, could you please move the reason inside the issue parameter so it will display when BLP sources is within Multiple issues? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, Martin Zwilling intentionally has the BLP sources template outside Multiple issues so that the reason will be displayed. However, it's likely that a bot will come along and move it inside Multiple issues, thereby hiding the reason.  GoingBatty (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: use similar code as in Cleanup's issue parameter:


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I don't object to this change in principle, and I think it would be useful to help people deal with the issues in articles. The problem is it's not just an issue with this one particular template, but it was done on purpose when the current version of multiple issues was implemented, presumably to avoid things looking cluttered. The proper way of changing the code would be to alter the meta-template, which is at Ambox/core, but we probably shouldn't do this without discussion. Perhaps you could raise this issue at Template talk:Ambox and see what people say there? Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 00:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted question at Template_talk:Ambox - thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoingBatty (talk • contribs) 00:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ by User:MSGJ - see Martin Zwilling now for an example. GoingBatty (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 February 2016
Please change the link from the Wikipedia article defamation to Libel as that pertains more to Wikipedia's policies. Thank you!

&#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 April 2016
In the issue parameter, please replace " This biographical " with "This  biography of a living person ". You can see the results at User:Compassionate727/sandbox. Note that I did not indiscriminately remove template syntax, I used the same format as that used by Template:BLP unsourced. -©2016 Compassionate727( Talk )( Contributions ) 17:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This change should only be made after substantial discussion resulting in strong consensus since it removes a parameter.WP:Template editor This change removes the ability to specify that it may only apply to a section. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 18:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I have responded by testing some more in my sandbox, and I have determined that replacing This biographical with: This  biography of a living person is the way to deal with this. BLP sources alone will render the box seen at User:Compassionate727/sandbox2, while including the suffix section will render what's seen at User:Compassionate727/sandbox: "This section of a biography of a living person". Now, the edit adds clarity to the statement in the template without removing any functionality. In light of this, would you consider the edit uncontroversial? -©2016 Compassionate727( Talk )( Contributions ) 14:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If something other than section, say list or table, is used for suffix the wording doesn't make sense. Take a look at Template:BLP sources/testcases. What about This about a living person ..., like you requested for More footnotes? —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 17:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

That would also work. I wrote this source first and the source for the More footnotes afterwards, when your comment here caused me to realize that I had probably broken something there a couple months earlier. I didn't change it for here since the documentation only talks about its use with sections, while More footnotes also includes list and table. I mean, I can put literally anything I want in either way, but I had assumed that section was the only common use of a suffix here. But yes, what I suggested for over there would work here as well. -©2016 Compassionate727( Talk )( Contributions ) 17:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of suffix parameter
Currently, there are two ways to indicate whether one is talking about a section, list or article: and. covers both  and , meaning that  only covers. I've never seen anybody do that, and when I asked about it, he agreed with me. I believe that retaining the simply clutters the template. I believe it would be best to simply remove it. Thoughts? –Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The facility for using suffix as an alias for the first positional parameter was added by with, over six years ago. Before removing it, we need to be absolutely sure that it's not in use. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Any way to check? –Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, add in a tracking category. Something like  should do it, wait for it to go through the job queue, then go to  and fix all instances. Then remove the code again. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That works. Can we go ahead and add this to the end of the fix parameter? –Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Did test that, if anybody asks. See my sandbox. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Didn't see any problems. Created tracking category Category:BLP sources using deprecated parameters. Pushed to live. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 23:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably have to wait several days, but the sync will probably be Special:Diff/723594607/723599138, which deprecates suffix. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 00:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a good reason that I wrote  and not   - it detects cases of suffix being present but blank. If the parameter is used in that way, as in, it will prevent the positional parameter section from being displayed, so you get the default "This biography of a living person needs" instead of the intended "This section about a living person needs". We need to pick up those empty suffix as well as the ones that are filled in like section -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks. Made the minor update (server churn for this is probably okay). — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 00:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Looks like no one was using it. -- NOTE. results are showing up irrelevant to suffix, but for unrecognized params in the current implementation. Updated, and added  to recognized params (was uncaught earlier, used in BLP sources section). Please ping if there are any problems. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 17:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 June 2016
Please add  inside the ambox template. Many of the other maintenance templates contain this and this one should be the same. See Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_131.

 Omni Flames ( talk ) 06:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 06:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"All" tracking subcategory
Please modify this template to additionally populate the subcategory "Category:All BLP articles lacking sources", as with Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability. Note: this is not the same as Category:All unreferenced BLPs, which contains the ~3000 BLPs with no sources; it covers the ~99,000 pages in subcategories of Category:BLP articles lacking sources which simply have insufficient sources. — swpb T 15:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * fixed intended template. I don't believe you meant 3 simulaneous edits to BLP IMDb refimprove — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 21:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I put your suggestion in the template sandbox for now. Several things: as the creator of Category:All BLP articles lacking sources, can you please document the templates that will populate the category in advance, and make it at least a tracking category? I also strongly suggest pinging Wikipedia talk:Categorization or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories to get awareness about your intent for a new tracking category before this edit actually goes live. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 22:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Template tracking category added. The only templates that will populate the new category are BLP sources, and BLP unsourced, per the requests. The specified project talk pages have been duly notified. — swpb T 13:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 16:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose all "all" categories", since they are not needed. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Andy, I have undone the edit, since this was suggested only yesterday, and not enough time was given to express opinions. Please keep in mind that not every edit that works also has consensus. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I undid the two other template changes: Special:Diff/742601118 and Special:Diff/742601187. I satisfied the request given that Swpb suggested a search case. For the record, I'm fairly neutral and recognize the issues wit the "All" templates, but was not inclined to decline given that Swpb already created the two new categories (1, 2) — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 17:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand. However, the fact that he created those categories also without prior discussion should not work in his favor. Debresser (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * First, "all" categories are needed; I intend to use them with Special:RandomInCategory—I use Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability in that manner constantly, and there is no other way to achieve that functionality. Second, no one has demonstrated how these categories harm or interfere in any way with any other activity. I didn't wait for a discussion because this should be utterly uncontroversial; Debresser's complaint sounds like a knee-jerk "I don't like it"., I appreciate that you reverted the changes for now out of an abundance of caution, but I hope such a substance-free complaint will not hold back these changes for very long. — swpb T 18:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All bots that work with categories are able to take their data from dated subcategories as well. What is this important functionality related to Special:RandomInCategory that would justify creating a new category for it? Debresser (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Manual cleanup—and you still haven't offered how the category harms anything. — swpb T 14:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is manual cleanup, then you can peruse through the subcategories, and no need for an "all" category. It is redundant, so per definition having it is harmful. I oppose having it, on those grounds. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You know that makes no sense, right? — swpb T 18:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting, and there I was thinking that you make no sense. Perhaps you care to explain why you think my opinion doesn't make sense? Debresser (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding this edit, the correct parameter for an "All foo articles" category is "all", not "cat2". Anomie⚔ 02:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, which is why I . When all is already in use, as with, you can use all2 etc. . -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Saw the diff before Anomie posted, actually. Thanks, I'll be more mindful to read documentation — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 17:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Renewed request
The above request has had three days without substantive opposition. Please re-implement, and do likewise with the requests at Template_talk:BLP_unsourced and Template_talk:BLP_IMDb_refimprove. — swpb T 17:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "without substantive opposition" your ass! Not to mention that you haven't answered my question above. Debresser (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are not an admin, and you do not have the right to act on this request. — swpb T 19:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * One does not need to be an admin to act on this request, only a template editor, which Debresser is. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As you agreed on my talk page, this closure by an involved editor is completely inappropriate. — swpb T 19:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Re-adding the Edit template-protected template when there is clear opposition, that is improper, and I did the right thing to deny the request on that basis alone. Debresser (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 18:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually get that ping I'm not inclined to enact the request either at this point as I've become involved. Though I am in favor of the change, especially if this "all" category is in line with some editors' workflows, or helps an editor be more productive. It appears that Ambox's "all" param is designed for scenarios like this one. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 18:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * What am I supposed to do? I notified the relevant project pages, but there is not enough attention here to get a full consensus—there is one single editor offering baseless opposition who will never be convinced otherwise. I don't think it is reasonable in any way to hold up these edits for a single complaint totally devoid of substance. Please invite the attention of other admins, if you do not feel ready to enact. — swpb T 18:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as above. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Answer my question. — swpb T 19:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You could try posting to VPR to attract discussion from other editors. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And what keeps Debresser from imposing his "Deny" after others weigh in? — swpb T 19:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Andy M. Wang's support isn't enough for you? We have two editors making a case, and one editor failing to do so; seems like enough of a consensus already. Please allow another admin to weigh in on that question. — swpb T 19:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

New comments
I've alerted every applicable forum I know of to get some more attention here. Because of one editor with no argument, a no-brainer request now requires some undefined level of input before it will be enacted. Editors new to the matter, please comment. Because of the length of comment above, I reiterate the request here (parallel requests are pending here and here):


 * Please modify this template to additionally populate the subcategory "Category:All BLP articles lacking sources", as with Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability. Note: this is not the same as Category:All unreferenced BLPs, which contains the ~3000 BLPs with no sources; it covers the ~99,000 pages in subcategories of Category:BLP articles lacking sources which simply have insufficient sources.

— swpb T 19:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Is your productivity hurt if you were not able to select a random BLP in your intended scope? If suggested an efficient or equivalent workaround (I'm unaware), perhaps you don't need the category.  might be indirectly suggesting Swpb pick a subcategory at random and then RandomInCategory on that. But if Swpb needs to pick with more uniform probablility among all BLPs in this intended scope, then the "all" category is probably the best way to go.  do you have any thoughts on this? I don't see a consensus against populating the category. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 19:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My preferred editing process for other tracked issues relies on "all" categories, as do those of many other editors. Having to apply "RandomInCategory" twice every time is an unjustifiable burden. If enabling editors to work in the way that works for them isn't a reason, I don't know what is. To date, no one has presented an equivalent solution, or any conceivable harm that this solution could cause. — swpb T 19:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes a difference one way or the other. I would have enacted the original request as uncontroversial as Andy did; however, since it was challenged by revert, I am not willing to do so until a consensus emerges. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC) 19:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope further input comes from the alerts I've posted, but if it doesn't, I'll make the request again, on the basis that a sufficient consensus already exists, and with the eminently reasonable expectation that it will be addressed by someone not involved in this discussion. — swpb T 19:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement of the request
OK, let's get this straight and clarified. And there is some opposition to the proposal. So let's discuss and vote. Herostratus (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Modified 22:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) There is a template, BLP sources, which says "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification...". If is for BLPs which have some sources but not enough. Placing the template puts the article in (some dated subcategory of) Category:BLP articles lacking sources
 * 2) There is a template BLP unsourced, which says "This biography of a living person does not include any references or sources...". It is for BLPs which have no sources. Placing the template puts the article in (some dated subcategory of) Category:Unreferenced BLPs (and also in All unreferenced BLPs).
 * 3) The proposal is to populate a new category, Category:All BLP articles lacking sources which would contain the members of both Category:BLP articles lacking sources and Category:Unreferenced BLPs (actually, to be technical, the members of the dated subcategories found under those two categories, and also divided into dated subcategories in the new category). This is alleged to facilitate some tasks (but that allegation is also denied).

Survey

 * Tending to support. An editor has said "I need this tool" and another editor has said "no you don't". I'm constitutionally disinclined to support editors denying other editors tools that they believe would be useful to them absent a compelling reason which I've not seen -- just "redundant" which is not argument enough IMO. Herostratus (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reason stated above and below, that if an editor wants to do cleanup work, he can take article from the existing categories, and there is no reason to create an "all" category. Debresser (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
There is discussion in sections above explaining the matter in more detail. The opposition is mainly from User:Debresser who has said above "I oppose all 'all' categories", since they are not needed... All bots that work with categories are able to take their data from dated subcategories as well. What is this important functionality related to Special:RandomInCategory that would justify creating a new category for it?... If it is manual cleanup, then you can peruse through the subcategories, and no need for an 'all' category. It is redundant, so per definition having it is harmful. I oppose having it, on those grounds." Herostratus (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To point (1), contains only subcategories, no articles. To point (2), you say "its recommended that the article be WP:PRODded instead" - not true, in fact the action to take in such cases is WP:BLPPROD which is a different process, and moreover, cannot be used on articles created prior to 18 March 2010. To point (3), as with point (1),  also contains only subcategories, but in this cases the pages placed in those subcats are also placed in . -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK thank you. I corrected the text. My understanding from the OP's reference to Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability that the new category will also have subcategories divided by month (which makes sense). Herostratus (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Judging by the various edits made recently to the two live templates ( and ) (that were subsequently reverted), and to their respective sandboxes, there will not be any new dated subcategories - just a single category into which will be placed all pages bearing one or both of these templates. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is correct. There will be no new dated categories. — swpb T 13:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Herostratus, for quoting my reason to oppose this proposal. I stand by that opinion still: "all" categories are not needed, nor is this one needed. The convenience of an editor who claims he will use it to perform cleanup is not enough reason to create a category, IMHO. In addition, we have no guarantee that said editor will not get tired of his cleanup in the near future, and then we'll be left with a completely unnecessary category. Debresser (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

To be addressed ONLY by a closer uninvolved in the preceding conversation (obviously): Another day has passed, with additional notices posted. Only one new editor has appeared, and they voiced support. After four days, there are now three editors supporting with justification (myself, Andy W., and Herostratus) and still only one opposed (with a "justification" that has convinced no one). With no hint of any more editors showing up, any reasonable standard of consensus has been met. Please enact the requested edits to all three templates. — swpb T 18:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that "all.. " categories are un-needed for clean-up categories. They double the number of clean-up categories that articles are in.   With the increase in hidden categories this is more of a problem than it used to be.
 * I have not read the entire discussion above, but will endeavour to do so over the next 24 hours, and comment as appropriate.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC).


 * "They double the number of clean-up categories that articles are in" It has yet to be explained by anyone what the problem with that is. Unless that's explained, I can't imagine how a closer can give any weight at all to that position. — swpb T 21:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

After this discussion is closed by an uninvolved editor and if the conclusion will be that there is consensus for this category, only then re-add the request. With 3:2, I see no chance of that happening though. Debresser (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Auto-populated cleanup categories are "cheap", and not relevant to arguments that redundant reader-facing categories are "harmful" (they are, in a sense, because they confuse or at least complicate reader navigation). Cleanup categories have nothing at all to do with navigation, only editors getting work done efficiently). The proposed category isn't "redundant" anyway, it's a superset that would have the existing categories as subcats, and this is an entire routine situation.  If a) someone actively wants to use this one, and b) it will thus result in actual cleanup work, that trumps c) "it seems redundant to me, who will not be doing this cleanup work anyway".  Basic common sense. If "All ..." cleanup categories were useless we would not have any of them, but in fact we do have a large number of them.  I.e., there is pre-existing consensus that they serve a purpose and can be created when people want them. The only reason this discussion even exists is because the affected template has TE protection on it, and template protection exists to prevent disruptive abuse of templates, not to create pressure points to leverage. Such categories exist because quite a number of editors care about policy/guideline compliance and article quality without particularly caring about the exact nit-pick reasons that such a problem has been flagged.  Some editors may way to work on these problems by length of time that the issue has been flagged (for which the existing categories and their subcats are good); someone else might want to see a big list of all such articles in a broad category (e.g. BLPs) and scan for ones to work on by picking the most obviously famous (notable, high-traffic) cases first, for example, while someone else might want to do something similar by focusing on articles with no disambiguator (more likely to be primary topics); someone else might simply want to work on them alphabetically. It's not WP's job to force particular work habits on volunteers by denying them organizational options.  Those opposed to "All ..." categories should do an RfC at WP:VPPOL or a mass WP:CFD to delete all such categories, not snipe from the sidelines at particular random instances.  Given that our probably #1 most serious policy, WP:BLP, is at issue here then any maintenance infrastructure that helps enforce compliance with it should not be blockaded without a very clear and serious reason, not an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument and a mistaken analogy between superset nesting cleanup categories and "harmful", genuinely redundant reader navigation categories.  TemplateEditors or admins reviewing this also need to keep in mind WP:FILIBUSTER and WP:STONEWALL; unanimity is not required by WP:CONSENSUS, and a single, unclear objection to a routine (i.e., already consensus-supported) request is not a basis on which to reject the request, especially when the objector was using their own TemplateEditor status to reject the request (WP:INVOLVED applies to TE and other admin tools that have been experimentally de-coupled from adminship).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish Your voice of support is duly noted, and makes the count 4:2, but I think I am right on the procedure: an editor should not re-add a request template for an edit he knows is controversial till such time as there is consensus. That is disruptive behavior, especially in this case where the editor was informed of the correct procedure. Debresser (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Per SMcCandlish, consensus clearly exists. No more abuse of process by Debresser will be tolerated, particularly addressing the edit request on a matter in which he is intimately involved. Learn how to lose, pal, before your hole gets any deeper. — swpb T 00:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Based on the discussion above, I see no compelling reasons not to add the category to this template. The simple act of adding a cat to a template that is directly related to it is perfectly sensible, but the existence of a cat is a matter for WP:CFD. The main opposition to the addition of the code to this template is with regard to the existence of said cat, so I suggest nominating it for deletion if they are still interested. I also think, due largely to the opposition above, that the presence of the code in this template should not be admissible as "evidence" for keeping the cat (if taken to CFD). Primefac (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . please be careful about what you say, man. To all, I've also updated BLP unsourced and BLP IMDb refimprove accordingly. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 04:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm very comfortable with everything I've said here. Template editing is a privilege that can be lost when it's abused. — swpb T 15:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You appear to have overlooked the part of the discussion above beginning at 02:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC), and didn't copy from the template's sandbox. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that part. Looks like Andy already fixed it, but I'll keep it in mind if I see something similar in the future. Primefac (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Is a band considered a living person?
I noticed the BLP sources hatnote on The Icarus Line. Is that the right hatnote to use in this case? If so, should the template usage guidelines make this clear?Timtempleton (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 September 2017
Template is not correct and need to be removed. This person is not alive now. 96.48.26.252 (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Template Image
Hi, could the exclamation mark image on the template be replaced with the open book image as I think the exclamation mark should be reserved for BLPs with no sources. This is for aesthetic reasons as it is on 90,000+ articles and would improve the appearance of the template.It is also not having much impact with 90,000 not addressed and some articles have thirty + refs and just need one or two more so an exclamation mark seems inappropriate whereas the BLP Unsourced template is more worthy of the exclamation mark, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 March, 2018
Hi, can the image be changed to an open book as suggested above, as the proposal has not been objected to in over a month, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Redirect
Hi, can the Template:BLP+ be added to the list of redirects, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? There are too many already. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Because its the shortest version Atlantic306 (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You should be able to edit the documentation yourself. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 21:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 September 2018
Please change

This

to

This

I have seen some people incorrectly remove or replace this template from articles about people who have recently died. This should clarify that BLP applies to living and recently deceased people. Danski454 (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure about this one - it would make the template text more unwieldy, and editors who remove this template from articles about people who recently died should just be pointed to WP:BDP. I'll leave this for another editor. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 January 2019
Please change the code in BLP sources where it now says: Making it instead say: This will add

which is appropriate for a maintenance tag suggesting the inclusion of additional references. The change is reflected at Template:BLP sources/sandbox and has been tested using Special:ExpandTemplates with no adverse occurrences indicated. Thank you. --John Cline (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 March 2019
I added support (in the sandbox) for a |deceased=yes parameter to replace "living" with "recently deceased" to make the template make sense for people who aren't actually living anymore, but are still covered by BLP. If it looks alright, please copy it over to the actual template. Gaelan 💬✏️ 03:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- / Alex /21  12:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Wording is weird; is there an unlisted parameter to fix it?
See here. "Usage" says this template is for "articles about living persons", but the specific wording used in the template as it appears on that and other articles is far narrower. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

No-one lives forever
Maybe there should be a note on the page stating that after the subject of a BLP dies, the template should be changed to More citations needed. (See the heading.  I can't see a way to link to that section here!) Maybe there should also be a bot that goes around BLP's, checking whether the subjects are still alive. —DIV (1.129.108.136 (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC))

Add flag for non-biography article or list with BLP issues
The WP:BLP policy, despite its name, applies to all articles, lists, and non-article pages, not just biographies, or as the policy says all "information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." So with templates like this one, as well as Template:BLP self-published, Template:BLP primary sources, and Template:BLP one source, it would help to add a flag  to change the wordking from This biography of a living person needs [...] to This article or list containing information about a living person needs [...]. Just to avoid having to rehash the question if someone says "but this isn't a biography..." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

deceased parameter undocumented
I see there's a deceased=yes option for recently deceased people. It's currently undocumented. I only found out about it from seeing the talk page section above. Could someone add it to the template documentation? (It seems the documentation subpage is technically not protected, unlike the template itself, but I'd be very hesitant to edit it myself given my lack of template expertise.) Adumbrativus (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TfD nomination
Template:BLP sources has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 21:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not done, for some of the reasons at Template talk:Unreferenced. If the proposal is shown to be feasible, and after a day or so it looks like it's receiving traction, then it will be appropriate to tag it. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

use in conjunction with citation needed
If most unsourced statements are tagged with citation needed should a general BLP sources also be placed on the article? If not, could we make that clarification in the documentation? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 20 August 2022
Description of suggested change:

Diff: FactEternal (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe everything is from a verified source ie respected newspapers, online specialist magazines and sailing organisations, specific URL's are added and references amended. Please consider removing this tag FactEternal (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned.. See also User talk:FactEternal* Pppery * it has begun... 12:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 March 2024
This template should be removed. The page has correct and verified references and citations now. Jennifer Barnaby (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)