Template talk:BLP unreferenced

Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in this template

Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in templates that are placed outside the "External links" section of an article?

In April this year a search tool link was added to this template after very little discussion on the talk page (See above Search tool link).

There is a an RFC at talk:Refimprove, on whether this should be done for another template, and by implication also a retrospective on the inclusion of the link here. Given that the editors who maintain this template have experience of this type of linking, it would be helpful if those editors could comment in the RFC. --PBS (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we add the findsources template to this template?

Can we add the {{findsources3}} template to this template? Okip 02:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Links to search engines were removed quite recently as a result of a discussion at Template_talk:Refimprove#RFC:_Should_a_link_to_a_commercial_search_engine_be_included_in_the_template_Refimprove. However, many people opposed the outcome after the discussion was closed, so I recommend you start another RfC on the issue, limited to this template only. This is a case where the urgency of fixing these articles should probably be prioritized over concerns that the best research resources to link to happen to be "commercial sites".

What the template used to look like with the search links included is like so, and I've created a sandboxed version with {{findsources3}} incorporated, for comparison: [1]. The formatting for either can be tweaked, natch.--Father Goose (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether to take a new gauge of consensus or whether to rely on previous discussions is probably down to

• how relevant the discussion was to this issue;
• how long ago the discussion took place.

In this case the discussion was completely relevant and took place just over two months ago. So I suggest that holding a new discussion in the hope of getting your desired response is not justified in this case. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There's also the question of where it was held, and who participated. I see no evidence that the discussion regarding changes to this template was advertised on this template page. Oops. Well, let me put it this way: one posting can easily be overlooked. Ongoing discussion on the relevant page attracts the right participants via their watchlists. So I think it's appropriate to re-test the consensus on this page regarding changes to this specific template.--Father Goose (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I was about to propose the exact same thing. Let's get it added here asap. We need to encourage adding sources to these. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Add an RfA RfC here so we can see what the community's response is.--Father Goose (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is Template:findsources3 addition to this tag warranted in light of the ongoing backlog of unsourced BLPs for which this tag is used?

Recently {{find}} and variations were removed from several clean-up tags. As noted above there was opposition to the removal after the RFC had closed. As there is ongoing efforts to understand and strengthen what are the best ways to approach BLP issues no one disputes that unsourced BLPs can cause problems and adding sources, ideally high-quality reliable ones, would be a good thing. In light of the thousands of BLPs that the tag is used on (approximately 41,000 as of mid-March 2010) and in light that {{find}} can be a helpful tool to assist even newby editors to find sources, can we re-add this search feature here? -- Banjeboi 14:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I am not taking sides in this debate, but this does seem to be forum shopping, as a previous RfC about this issue was held very recently (December 2009) at Talk:Refimprove and the result was conclusive. It does seem somewhat disingenuous that the statement above fails to even mention this previous RfC and its result. It is also rather one-sided and not neutral as it should be. Please correct this immediately. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  I've taken a stab at the first issue, do you dispute "{{find}} is one of the best tools to assist even newby editors"? Or could you clarify what still needs to be reworked? I was really disappointed with that RfC so let's see if we can be more neutral with this one. -- Banjeboi 17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  It's a subjective/biased sentence because it states your view. It certainly is possible that some editors would dispute such a sentence. About the previous RfC, what was the problem actually? I suspect you mean that you were disappointed with the result. Looking at it again, the opening statement seems completely neutral, it was advertised well, and its result pretty much unequivocal. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  Yes I see what you mean that I re-read it. I've tweaked again, better? The previous RfC seemed POV to me in that it focussed just on that we were somehow supporting a commercial search engine. My take is that we use the best tools available and add them to find. If there was an open source search that did a better job than Google then we would use that. If Google was found to be greatly deficient then we would find some better way to fix that. The issues, in short, seemed to be focussed on problems within the find templates rather than the concept of having a tool on the template that helped address the problem the template itself was placed to addressed. The end goal is improving articles and much fuss is made over unsourced BLPs. As such I find it disappointing how the RfC proceeded and the result. -- Banjeboi 20:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  The prior RfC failed to reflect the renewed urgency regarding the need to source BLPs. A new discussion of this template in light of that sweeping change in the community's handling of BLPs is warranted.--Father Goose (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• I support adding some form of "find sources" template to this one. (Two examples of how it could be implemented: smaller larger.) Given how the recent BLP RfC transpired, the community's goal -- perhaps even its mandate, given the ArbCom's stance on the issue -- is to make sure the {{BLP unsourced}} template is eventually not used on any articles, and the only way to achieve that is to source the BLPs worth keeping and delete those that are not. Given that certain commercial search resources are the best resources available to us to source these articles, and given that we have to source them in the near future, or watch them get deleted, I find it entirely conscionable to include links to those resources. In the space of a year, with any luck, {{BLP unsourced}} will be almost completely unused, and if adding links to search resources helps to bring that about, then that's exactly what we should do.--Father Goose (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No further objection, support, comments?--Father Goose (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Great idea, but unfortunately every time someone does it it gets reverted. ϢereSpielChequers 14:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Change

• I suggest changing the wording from "biography of a living person" to "biographical article" (not unlike the wording in {{BLPsources}}). Bands, for example, are living people too, aren't they? Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Section parameter

Per Template talk:BLP unsourced/Archive 1#Update first sentence to include section parameter, seems that there was consensus for adding a section parameter, as long as the article was categorized as if it had a {{BLP sources}} tag. I have changed the sandbox to add that parameter, and also have identical categorization to an article tagged with {{BLP sources}}. Anyone opposed?  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 18:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I actively support this (two years later). The automated conversion of tags to [sic] tags continues to this day, pusing the articles incorrectly into the "All unreferenced BLPs" category. Making this change is, in my view, the most effective way to cure this ill for good. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

TfD of Template:Userspace BLP

{{edit protected}} I think Plastikspork's edit only partially implemented the consensus of the TfD of Template:Userspace BLP. Please replace the code with:

Code moved to Template:BLP unsourced/sandbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This prevents this template, an ambox template, for articles only, from appearing on and categorizing user pages. --Bsherr (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've read the entirety of the TfD and I see that although this is the compromise you reached with PC78, it is not altogether clear that this was the conclusion of the discussion as closed by Plastikspork. I would suggest clarifying this with Plastik, but for now I will at least change ambox to mbox to that the styling is namespace-consistent. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw you put a talkback on Plastikspork's talk page. I'll wait for Plastikspork's comments. --Bsherr (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this seems fine with me. We suppress the notice if it is on a user's talk page, and include the NOINDEX as well. Please let me know and/or revert if this is controversial. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Determination of usage needed for the BLP unsourced template

Based on recent comments on my talk page and some things I have observed I started a policy clarification discussion regarding the use of the BLP unsourced template at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Determination of usage needed for the BLP unsourced template. --Kumioko (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Change "cite" to "include"

I have spent innumerable hours doing cleanup on mistagged BLPs. I suspect part of the issue is that articles that have a source, but do not use an inline citation to it are getting this tag applied to them, even though the community does not consider them completely unsourced BLPs. We should change "cite" to "include" so that this tag is only applied to truly unsourced BLPs. Gigs (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The misapplication of "unsourced" tags to articles that are poorly sourced or lack inline citations is rampant and artificially inflates the unreferenced BLP backlog. I would support a rewording of the template to clarify its intended application. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The important thing is not the backlog, it is to identify BLP that are problematic in sourcing and require checking. Maybe we need a {{BLP badsource}} to flag up "badly sourced" BLPs. Badly sourced are often worse than unsourced because there's no telling if the source at the bottom of the article relates to a bunch of material added later that didn't originate from the source. I'm happy to see this template made more specific, providing we don't end up removing it from thousands of problematic article just to make life easier. Sweeping dirt under the carpet isn't a shortcut for cleaning the house. What we need is a template for "poor sourcing" and to agree that the poor soucing backlog is no less urgent than the unreferenced one.--Scott Mac 21:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The other templates to use are called Template:BLP sources and Template:Refimprove. It's quite clear that those should be the ones being used for these sorts of articles, rather than an unsourced tag. I support this change in wording for the template. Hopefully this lessens the number of mistakes that take up time for the rest of us. Silverseren^C 21:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that anyone is proposing mass-removing {{BLP unsourced}}; that would be silly and counterintuitive. What I have been doing, among with many other editors, is replacing incorrect BLP unsourced tags (they have at least one source, but it's insufficient/inadequate/unreliable/whatever) with {{BLP refimprove}} which should signal to all that there's still a sourcing issue, but at least one source (even though quite possibly primary/unreliable) is present. I expect that after we've gotten through the vast majority of the unreferenced BLPs, the poorly sourced ones will be the next focus of attention. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. I do not support any kind of automatic mass removal of BLP unsourced. Unfortunately it has to be manually reviewed on a case by case basis, which I and others have devoted many hours to doing. That's why it's important that editors do not put the tag on articles that merely need better sourcing, and why I have proposed this change to make it clearer that they need to be using {{BLP sources}} on poorly sourced articles. Gigs (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Change "cite" to "include" retaining the same link that the word links to. Gigs (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Dabomb87 (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2011 (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) 14:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's trying to reuse (and modify the wording of) the wrong base template, so it's not a 10 second fix. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Grossly inappropriate template revision without genuine consensus

{{editprotected}} I am quite disappointed to see that a controversial change like the recent modification of the BLPunsourced template was allowed to squeak through after very limited discussion by a small number of users over a holiday period when it was unlikely to be noticed, and without any general notification or notification to users who had participated in prior discussions on the issues involved. The template in que4stion was placed on tens of thousands of articles by thousands of editors until, in the recent past, its use was disputed by a few members of a Wikiproject; those disputes, several of which I participated in, produced no consensus for change, but a great deal of heat.
The template text was tied to the principles of WP:BLP, which call for much stronger verifiability standards for BLPs. It is vital that the essential components of biographies of living persons be demonstrably verifiable, and that requires actual citations on essential points. Removing the "unsourced" label from thousands, probably tens of thousands, of BLPx because in lieu of actual citations they include external links to generic sourcex (typically IMDB) without any ties to the article texts is not an improvement to Wikipedia; but that's the major effect, and probably the impulse behind this proposal.. It's little more than sweeping a major problem under the rug, damages Wikipedia's credibility, and impedes efforts to genuinely address the BLP problem.
A tag/template that was employed as extensively as this one was, by as many editors as this one was should not be eviscerated without a genuine consensus that revision is required, and that requires full and well-publicized discussion. The process here fails that standard completely. It's clear that the change received little if any notice and the brief discussion was clearly inadequate. It should be reversed expeditiously. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but unsourced is unsourced, inadequately sourced is inadequately sourced. If you don't like the fact that inadequately sourced articles are not called "unsourced", then the problem is semantics. I agree that undersourced is not particularly better than unsourced, but the real crime is to twist the definition of "unsourced". If you want to propose that BLP refimprove be treated just like BLP unsourced articles, I'd be much more supportive of that than torturing the definitions of unsourced and undersourced just because undersourced BLPs are just as bad as unsourced. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jclemens - 'unsourced' means "zero sources present", not "sources present but not presented in the preferred style". If there is any link in the article that verifies any of the content (whether it be presented inline, as an embedded link, or as an external link, or simply listed under the reference or note section) then the article is not unsourced. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not the way the template was interpreted for years, and its use should not have been changed after a brief, unpublicized discussion that involved fewer editors than were involved in several of the prior discussions on the topic. "Unsourced" was just a shorthand label in the template title; the essential element was the does not cite phrasing in the template text. If that trivial dissonance bothered folks, the better course would have been to changed the template shorthand title to something like "BLP uncited" rather than making a major, substantive change. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

All the more reason that the semantics should have been more clear from the beginning. Contra your assertion, I've never undertstood {{BLP unsourced}} any different than {{unsourced}}--the difference wasn't in the level of sourcing, but in the nature of the content, as far as I was and am concerned. For those of us who engaged in the discussion, there was no expectation that anything was being changed--we clarified the template to cut down on what I believed to be inappropriate overuse of the template. The net effect of the change is probably less than you're stating as well: I've changed hundreds of articles from BLP unsourced to refimprove... so they now appear in a different cleanup list. I'm not seeing a big problem with that. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo has asked me to revert my change from nearly two months ago. As several editors have expressed the opinion that this change is beneficial, I'm not inclined to revert myself based on the complaint of (so far) one editor. However, I have placed an {{editprotected}} tag at the top of this section to allow another uninvolved admin to review the situation; if he or she feels that the word change should be reverted until further discussion has taken place, that's more than fine by me. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Consensus currently seems to be in favor of retaining the change. decltype (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Add new category

{{editprotect}} Because that it is only for living people articles, how about that when you add this to an article it automatically adds "Category:Living People" to the page? ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A category tag should only be transcluded from a template when it is dependent on that template. The Living people category is dependent on the subject's date of death, not whether the article is sourced. — Bility (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Request

{{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 14:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: As mentioned above, please establish consensus for this change. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Contentious material about living people

Can we have the Contentious material about living people part of this template link to the policy WP:BLPREMOVE. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What kind of article can have this template?

Should this template only be used on articles where the main topic is the biography of a living person, or should it be used on any unsourced article that contains information on a living person? The template was intended to be used in the former case, but the language of WP:BLP gives the impression that the latter is acceptable as well, which would expand the scope of the template seriously (e.g. every unsourced article on a school that mentions the principal could be tagged, just like every unsourced band article, book article by a living writer, ...). Where do we draw the line? Fram (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it's for people only. For unsourced BLP content in another article, removing it per BURDEN is the way to go. Of course, if that eviscerates the article, then PRODing the article normally may be a reasonable step. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP is clear on this point "This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages." I suggest if your really interested in changing the policy then discussion on WT:BLP is advised. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The BLP policy applies everywhere; BLP PRODs are only applicable to articles that are solely BLPs, because a mixed article, by definition, contains non-BLP material. Thus, you can't nuke a mixed page with a BLP-specific process, because at least some part of the page is not covered by the BLP policy. Hence, deleting it and requiring a source for readding per BURDEN is the policy-based way to handle BLP material in a non-BLP article. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"a mixed article, by definition, contains non-BLP material" not true because an article can contain only BLP information from multiple people. That aside it's irrelevant as WP:BLP makes it clear to include 'material about living persons on other pages' and also {{BLP Sources}} is explicitly included in that so no grey areas here. It seems most likely the confusion is maybe thinking of WP:BLPPROD which is an exception. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk)

SunCreator, the question is not if we want to change the policy, the question is on what kind of articles this template belongs. You can easily create a template "this unsourced article contains info on BLPs" if you want to have an indication of which unsourced articles also contain BLP info: this template however is intended solely for those articles where the subject is a single LP (which is also the category where BLPProd applies). Using this template in a more strict sense than the application of the policy doesn't mean that the policy has been changed. Fram (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Fram this template is for living people, BLP policy applies to all articles with information on living people, but the template is just for individuals with a pulse. J04n(talk page) 12:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"the question is on what kind of articles this template belongs", according to BLP policy this template belongs on any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages. If either of you wish to change the BLP policy then please create a discussion on WT:BLP, I don't have this page watchlisted and am unlikely to reply here again. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We have millions of articles on locations, pop groups, battles, companies, schools and sports teams. The BLP policy applies to information in all of them and anywhere else on the project if that information is about a living person. However this particular template is for unsourced biographies of living people and diluting it by extending it in such a way is not required by the BLP policy. Nor in my view would it be helpful. ϢereSpielChequers 14:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

BLPprod

It has been suggested on the talkpage of BLPprod that we get two versions of this template, the current version and one for articles that for some reason are not eligible for BLPprod. They don't need to appear that different - a hidden category is probably all we need. ϢereSpielChequers 14:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No concerns with this idea. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

From the Help Desk:--GoP_T^C_{N 09:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)}

In your guidelines on citations, you write:

Controversial, poorly-sourced claims in biographies of living people should be deleted immediately.

I suggest you make it clear whether the first comma means 'and' (ie Controversial and poorly-sourced claims...) or 'or'.

Morten Berg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.101.42 (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding this template

See here. --J04n(talk page) 14:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Please make active the following parameter

@Dabomb87:, @Joe Decker:, @Joshua Scott:, @MSGJ:, @Plastikspork:, the "section" parameter, toggled on via "|section" or "|section=yes" does not appear to be active for this article tag. Failing to have this active means that the tag {{unreferenced section}} (without the BLP links and content)—which is therefore less accurate and less likely to elicit attention—must instead be used, or an article tag placed when only a section is at issue. Having a non-BLP section tag on a BLP article section populates to-be-edited lists frequented mostly by non-BLP interested editors, and so adds unnecessarily to those lists, with limited positive editorial impact.

I would formally request that this template be modified for explicit use in WP:VERIFY-offending sections in BLP articles.

I would note that this matter was apparently already discussed and a consensus reached, see Template_talk:BLP_unsourced#Section_parameter above, but action seems to have fallen by the wayside.

Thank you in advance for your effort. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Question: We have {{BLP unsourced section}}. Is that not suitable? fredgandt 03:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

This has been sitting here a couple days and 1) there is an apparent alternative and 2) the request for change is not clear. Izno (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 June 2016

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) 06:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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

BLP PROD

I suggest adding a warning in the template text that BLPs without any sources are eligible for PROD. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

But not all are. If they are too old for BLPprod and have also been prodded in the past they are not eligible for prod. ϢereSpielChequers 22:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Right, I forgot that, thanks. I still think that the PROD-eligible BLPs should be noted in the tag somehow. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:24, 10 July 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. —swpb^T 15:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You mean Category:All unreferenced BLPs? Fram (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

To editor Fram: No: that category contains the ~3000 BLPs with no references. The intended category will contain all ~99,000 BLPs in subcategories of Category:BLP articles lacking sources, which simply have insufficient sources. This category is necessary to be able to select a random page from those 99,000. —swpb^T 15:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason this template you refer to is not labeled as a tracking category or hidden category (if appropriate)? How does this category relate to Category:BLP articles lacking sources? Pinged Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)