Biography Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

This code has been revised... see below:

 ~ Paul^T+/_C 16:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Yes, please put a link in there to Wikipedia: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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I think this should be discussed first. Although I see Mattg82's point. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Yes, so? Debresser (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well it is artificially inflating the category by some 40,000 articles. The Unreferenced articles project is using the ((PAGESINCATEGORY)) 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)Reply[reply]

I think the point is that the category should be Category:All articles needing additional references, because ((BLP sources)) is a parallel of ((refimprove)), not of ((unreferenced)). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((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)Reply[reply]

• Before

((DMCA|Articles lacking reliable references|from|(({date|))}|All articles lacking sources))

• After

((DMCA|Articles lacking reliable references|from|(({date|))}|All articles needing additional references))

 Done - good call :) Skier Dude (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request on 31 May 2012

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)Reply[reply]

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? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 ((DMCA|Articles lacking reliable references|from|(({date|))}|All articles needing additional references)), 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 ((BLP unreferenced)) don't end up in the same cats as ((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)Reply[reply]

Understood, and I've done your first request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request on 10 June 2012

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)Reply[reply]

 Done. I don't think the "all" category has any benefit either, so I didn't bother with it. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((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>

Ma^t_chups 20:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry this was my mistake and thank you for pointing it out. Fixed now as per your suggestion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

((editprotected)) Because that this template is only for Living People, how about when you add this template, it also adds Category:Living People. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 14:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article should already have an explicit Category:Living people, so there's no need to put one into a template like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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#Small. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✗ Not done 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

 Done 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 decker^talk 23:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. The tweaks were so minor, I didn't even mention them. Debresser (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I don't think it matter much either way. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

((BLP refimprove|reason=Gossip websites are low reliability. Please use dated, bylined, news, magazine, and book sources.|date=December 2012))

--Lexein (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we italicize reason parameters in most maintenance templates, do we? Debresser (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done per Debresser's comment; for example, ((Cleanup)) renders it "The specific problem is: problem". Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Will adding |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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 ((#IF: (({reason|))}|''(({reason|))}''|)) but where would you want the reason added? Monty₈₄₅ 04:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ignoring parameters which don't display any text (such as |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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I did state at 15:11, 19 December 2012 that it wouldn't be displayed inside ((multiple issues)). --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 ((BLP sources)) with the text, info and issue parameters you had mentioned, but nothing was displayed even outside a ((multiple)) group. —rybec 22:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Suggestion: use similar code as in ((Cleanup))'s |issue= parameter:

   ((#if:(({2|(({reason|))))))
    |The specific problem is: '''(({2|(({reason))))))'''.
   ))

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)Reply[reply]

Posted question at Template_talk:Ambox#Having_all_maintenance_template_reasons_display_within_multiple_issues - thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoingBatty (talk • contribs) 00:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done by User:MSGJ - see Martin Zwilling now for an example. GoingBatty (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

@Compassionate727: 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 (({suffix))} about a living person ..., like you requested for ((More footnotes))? — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

The facility for using |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)Reply[reply]

@Redrose64: Any way to check? –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, add in a tracking category. Something like

((#ifeq:(({suffix|π))}|π||[[Category:BLP sources using deprecated parameter]]))

should do it, wait for it to go through the job queue, then go to Category:BLP sources using deprecated parameter and fix all instances. Then remove the code again. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That works. Can we go ahead and add this to the end of the fix parameter?
((#if:(({suffix|))}|[[Category:BLP sources using deprecated parameters]])) –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did test that, if anybody asks. See my sandbox. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@Compassionate727 and Andy M. Wang: There was a good reason that I wrote ((#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)Reply[reply]

@Redrose64: Oops, thanks. Made the minor update (server churn for this is probably okay). — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

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)Reply[reply]