Template talk:Prod blp

Template:Prod blp is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

Suggestion

Thank you very much for making this template. I have one question though. When {{subst:prod blp|reason}} is added to an article, can the "additional comments" part not display unless additional comments actually are given? NW (Talk) 16:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date

Just for the record, the "18 March" in the documentation wasn't decided by consensus. It was essentially a placeholder. The effective date ended up being about 28 March, just because that's when people started using it. Maurreen (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to parse

Something is failing with this temaplte. See:Wikipedia:PRODSUM#Failed_to_parse. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reviewer tools

what are they supposed to be doing? The only one I can get to work is "incubate" DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably don't have automod.js installed. There are a couple of versions around. This lets a page get opened and edited and saved in one click. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to template

If you look at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Does scope need to be clarified? there has been a bit of confusion by at least two editors as to what this actually covers. I am suggesting that the actual template, not the documentation, contain a warning. Thus when an editor tags an article they are notified that the PROD is only for biographies and not for lists and other article types that may contain biographical material. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 18:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me. Maurreen (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category date issue error

It's being added to the category when it's created, [[Category:Proposed deletion as of {{{day|}}} {{{month|unknown date}}} {{{year|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}}]], but the correct thing is to add it to the category when it's due for deletion i.e 10 days later. See also comment here Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the offending line which is:

[[Category:Proposed deletion as of {{{day|}}} {{{month|unknown date}}} {{{year|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}}]]

The PRODs are added to the date when they are nominated, and this is doing the same thing. Since they have different instructions and lengths, though, it doesn't make sense to lump them together. I would suggest that someone create or modify a bot to make daily categories for the PROD BLP so they can be organized that way. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 04:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tools

I have slipped in the tools. These are for finding sources or adding bits to the page such as references section, or a WPBiography on the talk page. You need to have automod.js installed somewhere for the editing bits to work, but many will find they already have it. There are two commented out bits: the userfy move and the capitalize move. I am not sure if this can be done. (without adding more specialised javascript). The userfy move needs to know who created the original page, and this may not be possible in template language. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

links on template

User:LiberalFascist has brought up a point that WP:ELNO (external links) is not honoured in the template by putting this template on an article. My purpose here is to make it as easy as possible to find references. I have taken the example from speedy delete templates but carried it a bit further. This component is only transient in the article, and if someone can actually find good links to replace it with, the template can come off! My argument is that the template and the links are not really part of the article, but a tool to help get the article compliant with the policies. By ignoring the WP:ELNO guideline to some extent, it can help to build the article. We can probably prune off some of the links though. Opinion is welcome. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, making finding sources easier is much more important than satisfying EL#9, which is not really aimed at transient templates. Kevin (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with both of you, I was just concerned that there may have been some overriding (legal/ArbCom/WikiMedia) reason that EL #9 was in place. I agree that having the links is nice, and I would not mind seeing them in the {{BLP unsourced}} template, but EL #9 has kept me from suggesting that change. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 12:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ELNO #9 was more about article content, not templates. Links to search results page have little place in article content because they are ephemeral. In a template that is itself ephemeral, doesn't matter. Gigs (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very appropriate use of IAR. Making it easier to find sources improves the encyclopedia in a very tangible and unambiguous way, so damn the rules. The Wordsmith^Communicate 13:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so on more of a technical note, it looks like the links are hardcoded into this template, so we are relying on all the search providers keeping the same URL format. I would be more in favor of using another template directly (like {{findsources3}}) because it would be kept up separately. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 20:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and changed it to {{findsources3}}. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 21:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a simplifying move, but a few of the competitors to Google disappeared like bing and cuil. How fixed is that findsources3, can we add in more to that? I originally tries it and got an error (from findsources though which wanted to be on a talk page so I subbed it in instead of transcuding.) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that set in stone, but I'm not sure if it's worth adding bing/cuil. Not that I dislike them specifically, but {{findsources3}} seems to focus more on specific engines that are likely to return a RS (ie, it doesn't include a general google query, only books/scholar/news). I think Bing might have corresponding searches that we could add, but I don't know about Cuil. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 19:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Error in template - checking

I tried to testing out the "checking" link in the template, but it doesn't appear to work. See this edit. Anyone have any ideas on how to fix it? -- Bfigura ^(talk) 16:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have hopefully fixed this I had %24 instead of %26, so ti was putting a $ instead of &. &0 means substitute the matching text, which was the beginning of the dated prod blp template. We also need to have a text show up if checking is used. Coming soon. The idea is that |checking=username will announce that "username is looking into this article". clicking checked will take out the checking and say checked by username. What do people think?

There is also a user=creator parameter to say who the creator was, presumably twinkle could fill this in. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

far too many words

The template is bloated with fat too many words. Can't we link it to one simple "how to fix a BLP proded artical" page and get rid of all the suggestions and sourcing. And really, what's the point of "If you find a reference source after the article has been deleted, you may request the article be restored." - it is more words and by definition only becomes pertinent AFTER it has been deleted - at which point it can't be seen.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, judging on the number of malformed requests caused by prod-blp (requests of articles not yet deleted), this particular line is only confusing new editors even more. Linking to WP:UND in the deletion rationale (or "how to fix a blp proded article") may be more helpful to new users. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording

Seems to me that "This article has been tagged for deletion." as a complete opening paragraph is somewhat harsh. It's like telling the newbie "Your article will be deleted, full stop". Ideally we would have language to encourage the creator to add the references. Maybe something as simple as joining the first two paragraphs:

Current Version

This article has been tagged for deletion.

All biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010 must have references; this is to help prevent incorrect material from being added. Currently, this article appears to have no sources. A ten-day period will be given to allow the article to be sourced. If it is not referenced after ten days of being tagged, it may then be deleted.

Proposed version

This article has been tagged for deletion because all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010 must have references; this is to help prevent incorrect material from being added. Currently, this article appears to have no sources. A ten-day period will be given to allow the article to be sourced, after which it will be deleted if no sources are added.

Thoughts? –Joshua Scott ^[who?] 01:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Perhaps also change it to "This article ~~has been~~is currently tagged..."? Seems to have less of an air of finality. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But then it also sounds like it could be detagged to save it, rather then referenced to save it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, there is indeed a fine line here. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not be upfront - the tagging is irrelevant. "This article is about a living person and has no references. If no references are found and added by <date> it will be deleted. This is because..."

Rich Farmbrough, 18:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Question-Observation

It seems that right now, there are 95 articles tagged with this template that do not also have {{BLP unsourced}}. Should they? Tim 1357 ^talk 00:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related observation: {{BLP unsourced}} categorizes tagged pages into Category:Unreferenced BLPs; this template doesn't. Perhaps it should? --Cybercobra (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

change text slightly

Right now this prod says "no sources" and I'd like it to change to "no reliable sources" as a lot of the pages are simply now being created with 1 clearly unreliable source.陣内 _Jinnai 15:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove the newly created restriction

According to [1] (spreadsheet provided by The Wordsmith (talk · contribs), progress in eliminating unsourced BLPs has slowed.

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Huge backlog of tagged unsourced biographies of living persons (perm), it doesn't make sense to be restricting this to newly created articles. It's been over half-a-year since this template went into operation and it's now time to open it up to all unsourced BLPs. Thoughts? –xeno^talk 14:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that means I can use AWB tomorrow to tag all the 20,000 articles - no. If we can come up with some way to do it in a more orderly, less chaotic manner - sure. T. Canens (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could use some kind of sliding scale, open it up to articles created in 2009 or later, in three months, 2008, and so forth. –xeno^talk 14:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are 30k unreferenced BLPs. Set a deadline to eliminate the backlog (10, 15, 30 weeks?). Set a bot to tag a number each week (starting with the oldest) 30k/weeks of deadline. That means we eliminate them all on a deadline, while allowing people to fix as many as possible. Other than the bot, no one needs tag any old BLPs. Each expired prod shall be manually checked before deletion to prevent the deletion of any BLP that is actually referenced.--Scott Mac 14:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters, but it's about 23,500 last I looked, not 30K. I like your suggestion, I'd prefer to do a set number each week. The backlog-by-age is somewhat lumpy (at least in terms of by tagging date, I assume that's also true of by creation date) Those of us who are working to source those articles that can be sourced will, I suspect, be better able to manage the triage process with a set number per clump. I also think a week sounds like a good length of time for a clump. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about...

All new unreferenced BLPs, per the status quo.
The 20 oldest unreferenced BLPs per day, via bot.

That may not seem like much, but one of the things not captured in the chart is that the BLPPROD process is already effectively removing dozens of newly created unreferenced BLPs per day. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the assumption is that that is good. Would it be better if they were either referenced or speedied as NN? Rich Farmbrough, 16:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I don't necessarily think it's "good", but given the community consensus, nonsensical though it may be, that "unreferenced" BLPs pose some nebulously greater risk of harm than referenced BLPs, I would prefer that any such forced deadline be handled at a rate that existing editors can handle with appropriate levels of investigation and preservation of useful content. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should expand the BLP prod process to all uBLPs, but we shouldn't be blindly tagging every article with a uBLP tag already. We need to manually go through, prod the hopeless ones, and either have an incubation-type process for the ones that could be sourced easily. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just looked through the "A"s - and they were 2 speedies and the rest I found a ref for. Mean time 10 minutes per article, which is a loooong time - slower than the rate of addition it seems. Rich Farmbrough, 18:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  - OK I have officially (?) "adopted" the letter "A", planning to keep it almost empty by reffing and (where appropriate) speedying/AfDing/. Adopt-a-letter today Rich Farmbrough, 18:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Confused, as always

Here I find no uses of this template. What am I missing? Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It's a subst'ed wrapper for the nested template. –xeno^talk 17:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<facepalm> TY. Rich Farmbrough, 18:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

New category

Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion by days left

Rich Farmbrough, 14:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Link

I changed the deletion summary so as to link toWP:BLPPROD and distinguish these deletions from regular WP:PROD deletions, because the latter can be restored on request, whereas these can't be restored without reliable sources, leading to some confusion. I was bold, so revert me if I've just replaced one problem with another. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this is working? I just deleted an expired BLP PROD, which is not something I do routinely, and I got no default deletion summary. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precision

Could someone more comfortable with editing this template than me please look into the possibility of reducing the "days left" precision to two digits or so? Having precision to thirteen digits is kind of ridiculous. Of course, another possibility to consider is to convert the number of days into the number of days/hours/minutes. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 4, 2011; 21:42 (UTC)

Seconded. When I stumbled on a BLPPROD usage I got a chuckle at seeing a mess of decimal places for how long there was left on the prod. Hasteur (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done –xeno^talk 22:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Math is hard

There's a bug in calculating the days-left display:

Sam Gerard: This template was added 2011-02-07 17:14; This article may be deleted on or after 2011-02-17 17:14 (2.8 days left.).
Krister Classon: This template was added 2011-02-14 20:22; This article may be deleted on or after 2011-02-24 20:22 (101 days left.).

DMacks (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting a second instance of this bug

Banks Karter "This template was added 2011-02-28 16:44; This article may be deleted on or after 2011-03-10 16:44 (101 days left.)."

Is there an underlying problem? Hasteur (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitar Rachkov "This template was added 2011-03-26 07:15; This article may be deleted on or after 2011-04-05 07:15 (101 days left.)." Its still a problem Monty₈₄₅ 07:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"place reason here"

The template for notifying article creators of a prodBLP nomination has "place reason here" as the default message.... but it's a prodBLP, not a generic prod, the reason for the nomination is already clear. The notification should probably have the same wording that appears in the tag, ie "all biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references". Should be an easy fix, no? Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Jclemens (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been two months now, does someone want to handle this, or are further proposals needed elsewhere? Hairhorn (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making the change sounds very reasonable to me. I doubt I'm the best person to do it--the template is widely transcluded, and I'm moderately green with template syntax. While I'm sure I could figure it out, I might yank around hundreds to thousands of articles in the process if I typo'd, anyone else want to bell the cat? --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look and action. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now changed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's great. Hairhorn (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No references vs. no good references...

In order to agree with the actual policy and text elsewhere in the tag, the first sentence:

This article is about a living person and appears to have no references.

...should probably read:

This article is about a living person and appears to have no references to reliable sources.

(emph. added)

Case in point 360 (rapper), which has references, but those references are all to nonreliable and/or self published sources.

I'm loath to make this change without suggesting it first, but thoughts? -danjel (talk to me) 18:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noting: Template_talk:Prod_blp#change_text_slightly, suggesting that others have highlighted the issue also, but will leave this up for a few days to see if there's any worthwhile discussion... -danjel (talk to me) 18:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit nuanced, the policy, as far as anyone has nailed it down, precludes the proper placement of a BLPPROD on an article even if it only has unreliable sources, but precludes the removal of the BLPPROD once it's placed based on the addition of a reliable source. (See WP:BLPPROD.) As the text here is likely to be read in the context of "what to do now the tag is placed", I support the change in wording, but there is going to be some level of understandable confusion either way this is worded. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extending it to any article which doesn't have a Reliable source has been proposed several times, but lacks consensus, mainly because this is a deletion method that was supposedly to give extra protection to BLPs and prevent harm to living people. Articles that start out referenced to self published sources need improvement, but they are unlikely to be derogatory to the subject, so there is no need to make it easier to delete them than any other poorly sourced article. Ϣere SpielChequers 06:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of WP:BLPPROD says "the process requires that the article contain no reliable sources in any form", this has gone unchallenged for over a month now. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. It's been reverted now. Jclemens (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error in calculation of days left - 101 days left

Per here. The article may be deleted if not referenced within ten days. This template was added 2011-07-17 11:36; This article may be deleted on or after 2011-07-27 11:36 (101 days left.). Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see on Taylor 7 Blayne [2]. This template was added 2011-07-28 22:22; This article may be deleted on or after 2011-08-07 22:22 (101 days left.). Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bug in calculation of days left?

I'm not sure where to comment on this, but it appears to be a bug. The article Fariz Huseynov is an expired prod but is listed at Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion by days left as having 9 days left. The number of days left has not changed since the prod began. The article correctly has the Category:Expired proposed deletions of unsourced BLPs, but if you go to that category the article is not in it. The time stamp is correct. Very strange. GcSwRhIc GcSwRhIc (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both issues are likely caching issues. I've often done null edits (inserting a space or a newline) into an article to get a BLPPROD'd article to show in the expired category, even a simple cache purge doesn't seem to entirely manage that trick. When I process expired BLPPRODs I just work from WP:PRODSUM, which has its issues but keeps things in order so it's easy to find the expired ones. The null edits I reserve for those I've tagged myself. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One further thought--you could bring it up on Village pump (technical), I suppose. I've always assumed it'd be a pain to find a workaround for the caching stuff, but that might be pessimistic of me. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks. GcSwRhIc (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Default concern vs concern=

It seems to me that the custom concern is no longer displayed now but the default line stays in place without any additions when I add a concern parameter. De728631 (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change the behavior of maintanence categories for this template

I've started a discussion about fixing the broken maintenance categories for this template, which is located here:

Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people#Maintenance_catgory_updating_proposal

Your input is requested. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrasing

The opening lines of user notifications seem to bite newcomers. Especially with the exclamation mark picture n all. Might be pretty scary to newcomers. Thoughts?? Roshan220195 (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So put forward a concrete proposal--what do you believe will accomplish the same message with less biteyness? Jclemens (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The message could use a welcome message and start like say, "Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately one of the articles you created....". Mainly, I am worried about the exclamation picture. It is very strong and may cause panic in newcomers. It may be replaced with a milder one like say, File:Information.svg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshan220195 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, whatever I said would be applicable only to newcomers. So should we have a separate template or what? Damn, I'm confused. Roshan220195 (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then it sounds like an appropriate response would be a customized welcome message, or maybe an adjunct to one, briefly and jargonlessly explaining the problem and how to correct or avoid it. Better instructions for new users are never a bad idea--we want to keep people contributing AND keep the sourcing level of our BLPs adequate or better. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes

I'm proposing that "created after March 2010" be dropped. March 2010 was over 6 years ago and the date in which the policy became is no longer important. — Music1201 ^talk 04:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support reasonable and sensible. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before doing that we should check how many of those pre-2010 unreferenced BLPs there are. If anyone goes round tagging all those early articles for deletion it would be disruptive, and it would be much more preferable for such a person to add some references instead. So I propose that we block people that only tag BLPs with a prodblp that don't also lift a finger to help reference them. (with appropriate warning too) Otherwise we will have a lot of work for admins to delete without benefit to Wikipedia. However I do note that category:Unreferenced BLPs from November 2007‎ is empty. THere are no other similar categories, so perhaps this old unreferenced BLPs are no longer an issue, in which case the clause can be dropped. Where it could strike back is when old articles are undeleted, or old drafts go live. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Old unreferenced BLPs are still an issue - I just found many of them looking through Category:Unreferenced BLPs from July 2016! One such example is Riyad Naasan Agha Pppery (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying you don't want those now subject to the BLP Prod process? It's been a Wikipedia expectation for half a decade, I'd say the time for grandfathering old, non-compliant BLPs is probably over... Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jclemens: No, I have no opinion on whether these seven-year-old BLPs should be grandfathered in or not. However, that does not appear to be the issue being discussed here. Music1201 suggests that the text created after March 2010 should be dropped as unnecessary, not that the policy itself should be modified. If that is his desire, the proper place for this discussion would be WT:BLPPROD. Pppery (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization scheme needs to be updated

The Prod blp template needs to be updated to be compatible with the new category sorting implementation. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#BLP-PROD sorting. Kaldari (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It seems practical to be able to see the prod age in a category. There are relatively few pages in Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion by days left so I don't think we should split it by age. I suggest to continue with the old system but use letters instead of digits. A to G could mean 1 to 7 days left to expiry when rounded up. '-' (sorts before letters) means expired like before. {{Prod blp/dated}} could do it with this as sort key for the category:

{{#switch:{{#expr:7-trunc(({{#time: U|{{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTTIME}} }}-{{#time: U|{{{day|}}} {{{month|}}} {{{year|}}} {{{time|}}} }})/86400)}}|1=A|2=B|3=C|4=D|5=E|6=F|7=G|8=H|9=I|#default=-}}

. The category page would need to explain the system. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: It should probably actually be A through H for 0 to 7 days left to expiry - providing an area for those that have already expired. --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The code rounds up. A means 0.001 to 1.000 days left. Expired will be listed under '-' as before. We could pick another character. I chose '-' to get the same result as before where an age calculation gave a negative number so '-' came automatically. 0.000 days left only happens for one minute after exactly 7 days. The old code says not expired while the new code says expired during that minute. I think we can live with that. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented the suggested system. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 29 July 2018

This edit request to Template:Prod blp/dated has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Link "reliable source" in "once the article has at least one reliable source," to go to WP:Identifying reliable sources. The template doesn't currently have a link to the page, and it seems like the link could be very helpful for users to view what sources are considered to be reliable. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 16:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done — xaosflux ^Talk 16:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

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

Add the TfD tag, as this template is template-protected. –User 45 65 41 19:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong template, it is not this template which is being discussed but Template:BLP unsourced. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 15 December 2021

This edit request to Template:Prod blp/dated has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change:

{{fullurl:index.php|title=Special:Log&page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}}
{{fullurl:index.php|title=Special:MovePage/{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&wpNewTitle=Draft:{{SUBPAGENAMEE}}&wpReason=Move+article+to+draft+space+to+allow+improvement}}
{{fullurl:index.php|title=Special:MovePage/{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&wpNewTitle={{urlencode:User:{{{user}}}/{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}}&wpReason=userfied}}

to:

{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}}
{{fullurl:Special:MovePage/{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}|wpNewTitle=Draft:{{SUBPAGENAMEE}}&wpReason={{urlencode:Move article to draft space to allow improvement}}}}
{{fullurl:Special:MovePage/{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}|wpNewTitle={{urlencode:User:{{{user}}}/{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}}&wpReason=Userfied}}

That "index.php" looks hideous and unnecessary. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 07:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 11:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request to Template:Prod blp/dated has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Proposal

WP:BLPPROD is very clear that it only applies to biographies of living persons without any sources (reliable or unreliable) or links to support the claims made in the article. It doesn't matter if the references are reliable or not. C F A 💬 13:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: WP:BLPPROD is also very clear that the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. We don't want to lead inexperienced article writers astray, especially for biography articles, do we? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Date

Failed to parse

reviewer tools

Change to template

Category date issue error

Tools

Categories

links on template

Error in template - checking

far too many words

Rewording

Question-Observation

change text slightly

Proposal to remove the newly created restriction

Confused, as always

Determination of usage needed for the BLP unsourced template

New category

Link

Precision

Math is hard

"place reason here"

No references vs. no good references...

Error in calculation of days left - 101 days left

Bug in calculation of days left?

Default concern vs concern=

Proposal to change the behavior of maintanence categories for this template

Rephrasing

Proposed changes

Categorization scheme needs to be updated

Template-protected edit request on 29 July 2018

Edit request

Template-protected edit request on 15 December 2021

Edit request