[edit] Living parameter - List articles?
How should the living parameter be set for list articles (and what articles should be marked with this template if they're list articles)? If everyone on the list is deceased, I would presume "no", but what about other cases? I'm guessing "yes" if any member of the list is still living? Or "no" but mark "blpo=yes" if any member of the list is still living? In some cases, it will be somewhat impractical to go through the list regularly and check to see if all are living - perhaps something could eventually be done like putting a notation of the latest birthdate and automatically assuming "no" if that's more than 125 years ago? Or a bot to regularly check the entries for each person in the list? Thanks! Allens (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Incidentally, if it would be better to ask this on the Wikiproject Biography Talk page or someplace else, I apologize, and please let me know where to take this question; thanks! Allens (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Disambiguation pages have a similar issue. If class=Disambig, then I'd expect the effects of living= to be overidden. Yet, it looks like Yobot (talk · contribs) has been using class=Disambig to sepecifically set living=no even if the dab contains living people [1]. I'm not sure this is harmful, but it does seem inelegant. Noca2plus (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Red flag/similar to show in template if no "living=yes/no" parameter?
As well as placement in the Category:Biography articles without living parameter, could something be done to cause a message and a graphical "red flag"/similar to show up in the template itself, to encourage people to go ahead and correct this? (That category is currently backlogged badly - I'm working on it when I have time.) The message should perhaps include some sub-portion of the BLP template text, to try to ward off libel/slander suits vs Wikipedia. (This is particularly acute regarding US law for relatively obscure people who are likely considered not "public figures" - these are also the ones most likely not to have been properly labeled as "living=yes", might not be in the "living people" category, etc...) Thanks! Allens (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Living = parameter for twins, duos etc.
As an example the article Viet and Duc Nguyen is about a pair of conjoined twins. Viet is now dead but Duc still lives. Should we put living=yes, living=no or do we need another parameter ? Racklever (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- The parameter is not a method of classifying articles but to flag that an article contains information about a living person, therefore yes. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
|
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about edits related to a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page. |
[edit] Reduce number of parameters?
I'm wondering if it would simplify things if we had just the one parameter for each workgroup, instead of the current two. For example, instead of sports-work-group=yes|sports-priority=Mid we could have (for example) sports-priority=Mid (alternatively, sports-work-group=Mid). Whichever parameter was chosen, the other could be phased out. Any non-blank value for the parameter chosen could automatically add the article into the relevant work group, and if it were a valid priority value it would also add it into the relevant priority category. I've seen something similar done for other templates, for example Template:WikiProject Football, where an article can be categorised into a task force and given an importance value for that task force, all using a single parameter. --Jameboy (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
