Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
There are 1,546 articles in Category:All unreferenced BLPs.

As of 28 September 2011: 141, all of which are in a deletion process. In other words, 0.
As of 23 August 2011: 997
As of 6 August 2011: 1,780
As of 2 July 2011: 3,623
As of 30 May 2011: 4,905
As of 17 April 2011: 7,328
As of 6 April 2011: 8,300
As of 3 March 2011: 9,999
As of 29 December 2010: 15,505
As of 24 May 2010: 29,995.
As of 22 April 2010: 36,879.
As of 3 April 2010: 38,742.
As of 22 March 2010: 39,802.
As of 5 March 2010: 40,942.
As of 22 February 2010: 42,231.
As of 25 January 2010, total was 49,096.
As of 4 January 2010, total was 52,760

There was movement at the station..[edit]

FYI. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Huge_backlog_of_tagged_unsourced_biographies_of_living_persons and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FBadlydrawnjeff.

Purpose of this board[edit]

Question: does the scope of this project include only those articles which are completely unreferenced, or does it also include those with minimal sourcing that doesn't cover all of the information included? I'm looking for some help on an article that's in the latter camp, but if this isn't the place, just let me know. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If an article has references that support some of the content then it isn't unreferenced. (You might find that someone here is prepared to help you anyway.) Hut 8.5 14:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, makes sense. Just in case there is, the article is David Marchick, I've explained the article's problems in a note on the Talk page, and have prepared a new replacement draft currently in user space. I want to avoid making direct edits, because it's on behalf of Mr. Marchick's employer. I've had trouble getting a reply, even after adding a {{request edit}} template, so I hope someone here is interested. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Just following up here to say the request has been answered. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

BLP unsourced tag[edit]

I come seeking clarification.

Is the {{BLP unsourced}} maintenance tag for:

  • A) BLP articles with no references, sources or external links of any kind.


  • B) BLP article with one or more sources or external links, but no inline citations.

I know it is for A) but I have read different things about whether it applies to B). Ever since I replaced the tag with {{BLP sources}} on an article with only a single external link, and someone reverted it and told me I was wrong, I have beileved that both A) and B) are correct. But just now when I was looking for something else, I found a number of discussions on the tag's talk page saying that infact the tag only applies to A) and it shouldn't be applied to B) - and the tag category is backlogged because the majority of article are incorrectly tagged.

What I want to know is, which is correct. And I also want the answer put in big letters on template documentation so that everyone knows what the answer is one way or another. -- Patchy1 07:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Never option B) unless the external links are generic links not confirming anything about the article subject - ie, an external link to a faculty/club/stats site that is specifically about the person IS a reference and should have the BLP sources tag; whereas an external link to just the university/club website home page is not a reference and the BLP unreferenced is acceptable. If there are no inline citations then {{No footnotes}} is the best tag to use. The cat blows out to a few hundred normally after a bot run that converts unreferenced to BLP unreferenced, without checking if the unreferenced tag is correctly applied or not. In terms of wikipedia backlogs, it is very small either way.The-Pope (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. (I will admit, although not proudly, to using (B) occasionally when the "sources" have been horribly unreliable.) --j⚛e deckertalk 20:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
To give an example, I probably wouldn't have made this change. While not explicitly listed as a source or reference, a link to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences to a paper someone has published is a fairly reliable source that the person is a, say, a scientist. It's not a reference that tells you much, but it certainly says something. Like, "has been published in the PNAS.", and PNAS is certainly reliable. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok sure. So what you are both saying is it doesn't apply to B) unless the link is generic or rubbish, is that right? So by that the majority of articles tagged with {{BLP unsourced}} are incorrectly tagged, and the tag should be replaced with {{BLP sources}} and/or {{no footnotes}}? Is this your opinions on what it should be used for or is there some relevant policy as to what is considered sourced and unsourced, if there isn't, should there be, because it sounds pretty ambiguous, inconsistent and confusing from what I have read. -- Patchy1 00:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
(I'm not saying I think what either of you have said is ambiguous, inconsistent and confusing - just to clarify -- Patchy1 00:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC))
To me it ask comes back to common English. Unreferenced means without references, not without proper citations, not without inline citations, not even without reliable references, but that last point is still questionable. Last night I switched a bunch of NFL players that were tagged with {{BLP unsourced}} and replaced it with {{BLP sources}} and {{no footnotes}} if there was a valid link to that players stats on or similar. We really need to just apply the most relevant tags, not the highest profile ones. But until we get acceptance of a clear set of tags for no references, unreliable references, more references, we will be stuck with this grey area for some articles, like that academic (which is why I like to stick to sports people). The-Pope (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I think we need a definitive hierarchy of tags, with clear guidelines on what goes where. For the purpose of this example 'sources' means anything backing up the articles content from books to websites, regardless of where it is in the article. I was thinking, in this order:
I think more specific maintenance tags with their own categories makes the job of fixing the problems and clearing the categories much easier as the milestones are smaller - if that makes sense. Oh well thats my idea and it looks good to me, I would be interested to know what others think. -- Patchy1 11:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I have included all of the existing BLP tags, let me know if there are others I have missed. -- Patchy1 11:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
{{BLP sources}} now includes a |reason= parameter, to add a bit of explanatory text, for example Blogs are low quality sources, please use WP:RS. This may address the need for some of the above explicit templates. --Lexein (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmm I see, that won't categorize different problem though, which is a big driver for me. -- Patchy1 11:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • My 2p - the 'BLP unsourced' tag is for just that i.e. unsourced articles. If an article has a source, whether that is inline or as an external link, then the tag should not be used. GiantSnowman 20:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    There's an argument both ways, but I worry that this muddles editor's already muddled understanding of the difference between an external link (e.g., IMDB, official home page link) and what we would normally consider a source. Perhaps that battle has already been lost. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    I do not consider somebody's official website as a source. IMDB / similar database (dependent on profession) would be OK, and {{BLP sources}} should be used instead. GiantSnowman 16:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    Or {{BLP IMDB refimprove}}, yeah. Fair enough. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Citations on Wikipedia and discussion at meta:WebCite[edit]

There is a discussion at meta:WebCite regarding citations on Wikipedia that may be of interest to the members of WP:URBLP and others that reference our BLP articles. For those who don't know, is used to archive newspaper articles and other reliable sources that disappear from the original websites. Wikipedia currently has 182,368 links to this archive site. Regards. (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


Just seeking a wider range of input from informed persons at Template_talk:Height#rfc_97AACED.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)