Template talk:BLP

message: I have initiated a conversation about a suggested change to the way we display the BLP banner on article talk pages at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Suggestion regarding the Biography of Living persons statement on article talk pages. Please take some time and leave a comment about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion regarding the Biography of Living persons statement on article talk pages 

message: I'd like to suggest that the final line of the text, with instructions sending subjects to the OTRS page, be seperated from the rest of the text with a blank line, and the entire line be bolded:
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons.  Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous.  If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard.If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page.
I suggest this in the hope of helping to head off future problems with subjects of BLP articles editing them in a disruptive manner instead of contacting OTRS to air their problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: (Follows on from discussion at User talk:Amalthea#Template:Multibox.)
Given that this and  essentially display the same message, it would be ideal if we consolidated them so that the text need not be maintained in two different places. The best way of doing this would be to convert  so that it uses , and this in turn would allow us to transclude  here. There are some minor variations in the text of the two existing templates, but otherwise there would be no visible changes. This is currently implemented at  and . Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume this is for edit notices? Why isn't  used? --Bsherr (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  currently uses .  calls  but offers greater flexibility which is of use to us here. PC78 (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, pardon. I follow now. But shouldn't the templates be reversed? It seems to me that BLP should host and BLP editintro should transclude. --Bsherr (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked Amalthea the same thing, but apparently it's simpler to do it this way round (see discussion linked above). PC78 (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that answers that. I'll watch what you do so I can include it on my BLPplex project too. --Bsherr (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidate with [[Template:BLP editintro]] 

message: says use should use  to all the template to be used in sandboxes etc... without having the warning pop out (see Wikipedia:Talk_page_layout/Sandbox for a place where this causes a problem). Could we please implement this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: . Amalthea 20:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  check talk 

message: While source reliability requirements are the most highly enforceable portion of the BLP policy, they are not our only concern. Therefore, it may be prudent to add the following text to the templates: "The use of primary sources for contentious or privacy violating material is forbidden. Neutrality in the description of living persons must be maintained, and original research avoided." Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to this template and [[Template:BLP editintro]] 

message: Would there be any objection to changing
:"This article must adhere..."
to
:"This article and this talk page must adhere..."
since this is the actual correct policy? One cannot say "This guy is a murderer" or whatever without citing a ref on a talk page, per the WP:BLP policy and common sense, and this is not always clear to people. Herostratus (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then. 
Add "and this talk page" between the second word ("article") and third word ("must"), per unobjected proposal above.
Herostratus (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

text: . The repeated "this" seems clumsy and unnecessary to me, so I've left it out for now. Let me know if that's a problem. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's fine, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks. Herostratus (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding "and this talk page" 

message: I just made this edit to the page, before I realized it was protected. If someone wants me to self-revert and discuss first, please let me know.
The edit tweaked the writing to clarify that the tag (and BLP) applies to edits to living persons anywhere, not only in biographies. SlimVirgin TALKCONTRIBS 22:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like "and talkpage" replaced or your edit reverted for discussion. - ah, no worries, I see you didn't remove it, just moved it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: My recent edit

message: Hey all. Started a thread up here about a possible redesign/simplification of the edit intro template. All thoughts welcome :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP edit intro redesign? 

message: Hi there. I've opened up a discussion regarding the addition of a BDP at WP:BLP/N#BDP in BLP template. Please comment there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion regarding BDP 

message: On the Shirtstorm article, GamerGate controversy sanctions were briefly applieddiff and subsequently removeddiff noting WP:NEWBLPBANdiff.  However, having the notice of sanctions on the talk page seems to have converted a slow-burn edit war into productive talk page discussions, although I may be speaking too soon as the discussions are just beginning.  I request that wording advising editors of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions on BLP-related topics be added to this template.
To clarify, I'm not asking for this to any way substitute for alerts, but pointing out that simply having had a notice that sanctions apply seems to have encouraged civil behavior where it was previously lacking, seemingly with no actual enforcement required by anyone.  70.133.154.32 (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to add wording advising editors of [[WP:NEWBLPBAN]] 

message: instead of defamation change libelous to libel article at Libel
--Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  template change 

message: If the article is one of the 780,000+ members of :Category:Living people:
This biography must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, because it contains material about living persons.
If the article is one of the ~21,000 articles that are not in :Category:Living people:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, because it contains material about living persons, i.e., biographical content.
— wbm1058 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate suggestion 

message: Hi. The merge discussion has been closed as a no consensus to merge. Please can the TfD template be removed? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 5 October 2019 

message: Hi there. I'm not sure if there is an existing consensus either way, but I think it would be beneficial to restore the talk box back to its original colour, rather than overriding the standard colour with the ghostly cream it currently uses. I assume it's this way for emphasis, but I believe that  has enough emphasis (especially considering that more important boxes like  don't break the standards). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardisation of colouring 

message: This issue was discussed back in 2016 with no apparent result (see above9, and I feel like it needs to be adressed more. The wording "even if it is not a biography" gives a lingual lean towards towards it not being a bio - even though the semantics is technically neutral, the "if" is quite weak in the expression and is easily skipped when sightreading the template. Just like @Lourdes said, the "is not" is too prevalent in the wording and makes one think it is automatically not a bio.
My suggestion would be to replace it with "regardless of whether or not it is not a biography" or alternatively shorter "whether or not it is not a biography". But I also liked the suggestion from @wbm1058 to make it auto-determine the case and adjust its text, although that might be too much effort.
I'm not sure if people are watching this page, if I don't get any response I might do an . Gaioa (T C L) 20:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Gaioa, I think it's fine as it is. SarahSV (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "even" clause 

message: Please replace  with this noticeboard. It doesn't have any special parameters so the external link without an icon shouldn't be necessary. I'll do this in the sandbox. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 04:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I did this in the sandbox. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 04:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   This is deliberate, see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 202#Conspiracy Unveiled * Pppery * it has begun... 14:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 14 July 2022 

message: Hello. I suggest that "because it contains material about living persons." is corrected to "because it contains material about living or recently deceased persons." The aim is to increase the scope of the template as the policy also applies for recently deceased people. It may be included via a 'BDP' parameter' if required. --TadejM my talk 15:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Recently deceased