((WikiProject banner shell))
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Biography Template‑class | |||||||
|
Can we move this to Template:BLP refimprove to be similar to the non BLP version? -- Jeandré, 2008-11-22t20:55z
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)
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)
This code has been revised... see below:
~ PaulT+/C 16:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 1#Template:BLP IMDB-only refimprove and Template:BLP IMDB refimprove. 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)
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 Wikipedia:Citing IMDb (which itself needs work to get consensus) ϢereSpielChequers 16:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
|date=
parameter. See Category:BLP articles lacking sources from October 2010 and Category:Articles lacking reliable references from October 2010. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
((BLP sources))
is a parallel of ((refimprove))
, not of ((unreferenced))
. --Redrose64 (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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the #Adding to Category:All articles lacking sources 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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
| cat = Articles needing additional references
| all = All articles needing additional references
| cat2 = BLP articles lacking sources
to
| cat = BLP articles lacking sources
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)
((editprotected))
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 '''[[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|(({prefix|))} biographical ((#if:(({suffix|(({1|))))))|(({suffix|(({1))))))|article))]] needs additional [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citations]] for [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verification]]'''. Please help by adding [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]]. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced '''must be removed immediately''', especially if potentially [[defamation|libelous]] or harmful. <small>((#if:(({date|))}|''((({date|))})''))</small>
Matchups 20:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
((editprotected))
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)
Template:BLP IMDb refimprove is currently undergoing discussion at WP:TFD#Template:BLP IMDb refimprove. 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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add
|small=(({small|))}
in a line below "|class="
to allow the ambox presentation usable for section-type templates.
70.24.251.71 (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add |reason=
. This would allow a visible specific reason for additional reliable sources. Example:
italicized text
--Lexein (talk) 21:21, 11 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:
((BLP sources|section|date=May 2012|reason=Blogs/wikis are not reliable sources))
Is the countersuggestion to simply use two templates atop the article, ((BLP sources)) and ((Cleanup))? --Lexein (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
|reason=
, 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)
|small=
and |image=
), the text parameters already available in ((ambox))
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 ((BLP sources))
. When an ambox template (such as ((BLP sources))
) is wrapped in ((multiple issues))
, only |issue=
and |text=
are displayed. I rather think that |info=
would be best. I've sandboxed it; please check. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
((multiple issues))
. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
|issue=
parameter:((#if:(({2|(({reason|)))))) |The specific problem is: '''(({2|(({reason))))))'''. ))
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the link from the Wikipedia article defamation to Wikipedia:Libel as that pertains more to Wikipedia's policies. Thank you! <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the issue parameter, please replace "This [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|(({prefix|))} biographical ((#if:(({suffix|(({1|))))))|(({suffix|(({1))))))|article))]]" with "This (({prefix|))} [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|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)
((edit template-protected))
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)@JJMC89: Thanks for catching that. I have responded by testing some more in my sandbox, and I have determined that replacing
This [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|(({prefix|))} biographical ((#if:(({suffix|(({1|))))))|(({suffix|(({1))))))|article))]]
with:
This ((#if:(({suffix|(({1|))))))|(({suffix|(({1)))))) of a)) (({prefix|))} [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|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)
|suffix=
the wording doesn't make sense. Take a look at Template:BLP sources/testcases. What about This (({suffix))}
about a living person ..., like you requested for ((More footnotes))? — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)@JJMC89: 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 (({suffix))}
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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently, there are two ways to indicate whether one is talking about a section, list or article: (({1|))}
and (({suffix|))}
. (({1|))}
covers both ((BLP sources|section))
and ((BLP sources|1=section))
, meaning that (({suffix|))}
only covers ((BLP sources|suffix=section))
. I've never seen anybody do that, and when I asked JJMC89 about it, he agreed with me. I believe that retaining the (({suffix|))}
simply clutters the template. I believe it would be best to simply remove it. Thoughts? –Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
|suffix=
as an alias for the first positional parameter was added by MSGJ (talk · contribs) with this edit, over six years ago. Before removing it, we need to be absolutely sure that it's not in use. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
((#ifeq:(({suffix|π))}|π||[[Category:BLP sources using deprecated parameter]]))
((#if:(({suffix|))}|[[Category:BLP sources using deprecated parameters]]))
–Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
|suffix=
. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
((#ifeq:(({suffix|π))}|π||[[Category:
and not ((#if:(({suffix|))}|[[Category:
- it detects cases of |suffix=
being present but blank. If the parameter is used in that way, as in ((BLP sources|section|suffix=))
, 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 |suffix=section
--Redrose64 (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
|suffix=
, but for unrecognized params in the current implementation. Updated, and added subst
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)This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add |removalnotice = yes
inside the ((ambox)) template. Many of the other maintenance templates contain this and this one should be the same. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_131#Implementing_Help:Maintenance_template_removal.
Omni Flames (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It is requested that an edit be made to the template-protected template at Template:BLP sources. (edit · history · last · links · sandbox · edit sandbox · sandbox history · sandbox last edit · sandbox diff · test cases · transclusion count · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.
Edit requests to template-protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. Consider making changes first to the template's sandbox and test them thoroughly here before submitting an edit request. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |
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. —swpbT 15:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)