Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 1

< Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Cenarium in topic How to source an article
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Reminder

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If you are all interested in staying around this page (and i hope you are) and continuing to make your valuable suggestions, maybe you would like to consider adding your names to the Task force members list above.--Kudpung (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead sort of excludes me! Perhaps we need another section for other kinds of people. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of whether the workshop should proceed

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This page should not be continued until two things are done.

  1. Some evidence, somewhere, that unsourced BLP's have significantly more errors than sourced BLPs.
  2. A consensus, based on that evidence, to proceed with sticky BLPs at all.

If this continues without those preconditions, I will consider dispute resolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather than be prescriptive, the above are suggestions by the page creator. I suggest the developmental work on this tpl can continue here, that's why I made the original proposal for workshop pages, and Maurreen followed up and created this one. If the template developers wish to preempt a consensus, it's their loss and waste of time if the consensus closes in opposition of its use. At least it gets the tpl work off the main discussion page and its talk page, and thus keeps policy and technical stuff in clearly defined separate places. It will also help to avoid some of the major contributors to this issue from bailing out again in exasperation of the general confusion. It's probably a good idea not turn this page into just another thread of policy discussion - it was designed to avoid just that.--Kudpung (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
To archive

Because this section has had no activity for a few days, and other reasons, I plan to archive it. Maurreen (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

TW

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Good idea and good work. Will this be included in Twinkle? It should be. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, and the process should be entirely incorporated into the existing Prod process rather than being a separate process. Fences&Windows 16:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Excellent ideas, but see below: --Kudpung (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Intro

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I'm proposing a fresh start to discuss handling new unreferenced WP:BLPs, in accordance with the result of User:Balloonman's Proposal, Part 1, because the current pages have become so messy.

Whether to go forward here is to be decided at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people#Fresh start?. Maurreen (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Done, decision made. Maurreen (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggested guidelines

Please suggest as you see fit. Maurreen (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  1. Keep the discussion in one place, the talk page. Don't use the project page until there is consensus to do so.
  2. The workshop is for people working to implement the above-referenced proposal. People who dispute the workshop are encouraged to seek dispute resolution. Let's all please try to keep the issues separate.
  3. Frequent summaries can be useful.
  4. Archiving can be useful.
  5. Make separate sections for different tasks and issues.
  6. Don't be in a hurry to !vote.
  7. Refactoring is done to try to keep things on track, not to advance either side. But if you don't agree with the refactoring, please feel free to undo it, or to do it in a way that is more satisfactory to you.

To-do ideas

These are in no particular order. Please add possible tasks and issues as you see fit. Maurreen (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  1. Whether we need to simply ensure that all new unsourced BLPs get considered for Prod, or whether we also need to change the prod procedure itself. (added by DGG) ee: WT:STICKY POLICY
  2. Whether there will be a requirement to use WP:BEFORE prior to using Prod. (added by DGG) (modified by Maurreen) See: WT:STICKY POLICY
  3. Prod template Under development
  4. Any required notifications
  5. Any automation for notifications
  6. Wording to change relevant guidelines and policies. See: WT:STICKY POLICY
  7. Effective date -- discussion suspended until we are closer to implementation. See: WT:STICKY POLICY
  8. Make sure it's not bitey See Wording.
  9. Undeletion See: WT:STICKY POLICY
  10. Any inclusion in Twinkle, etc.
  11. Review of details by community before implementation
  12. Whether to use it as a plain use template or to subst
  13. Differentiating between sticky prods and standard prods   Done
  14. Clarify bots to be used only for notification, not for tagging or deletion? Under discussion
  15. Different name? See: WT:STICKY POLICY
  16. Template to the writer to indicate that article has been deleted: Under discussion
  17. Consider whether there should be a grace period, such as discouraging prodding within the first hour after creation: Under discussion
I added two, at the top, because they come logically first. For the first point, the only real problem I see is ensuring that new BLP articles don't slip by without some consideration. There is no agreement that once we do consider them, there is anything wrong with the way we do it now.
For my second point, I am finding that of new BLP prods listed as unsourced that for ones that lie within my competence, over half can be sourced, most fairly easily. This does not necessarily mean they should be kept, because the prod may be reasonable even after sources found, or AfD might be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I've added links to a new page where these policy issues can be discussed. And copied the relevant parts of the above list to it.--Kudpung (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Items ion the above list updated. See comments in bold or link to where this is taking place.--Kudpung (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


Aspects that seem to be settled

  1. What will be the help page sent to? -- "For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners (and maybe also Wikipedia:Editor assistance)."

Task force members

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

If you are knowledgeable in the code and development of Wikipedia templates and wish to be a key developer of a BLP Sticky PROD template, or otherwise want to help immplement the consensus, please simply add your name here by entering four tildes:

  • Kudpung (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC) (Not template savvy, but watching the page closely).
  • Mlpearc MESSAGE 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC). I am very willing to help any way I can, also not program or guideline savvy either, but there is work to be done and we need to iron the pile of clothes to get the closet organized, but just one more time for me or I'm heading to the beach with wrinkled shorts

* Maurreen (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I want to go to the beach, too.


Comments

::Of course Maurreen, and Kudpung, are "Headliners" and of this status are no longer need mention as to involvement! Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. Maurreen (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand either. Generally, Maurreen and I seem to be doing a lot of talk page housekeeping to keep an overview and maintain the flow, although we do chime in with our ideas.--Kudpung (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
For various reasons, I am taking an indefinite break from sticky prods. Maurreen (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

WORKSHOP

Latest comment: 14 years ago38 comments11 people in discussion

Template-specific discussion

We have {{Prod blp}} and {{Dated prod blp}}, as substituted (and modified from discussion) below. Any wording changes? -kslays (talk • contribs) 16:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a couple small changes. We probably should indicate that the template may be removed from old unreferenced BLPs, because it's likely that it will be used by users not aware of the current consensus against its use on these articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
This template is only for NEW BLPs (created after March 1, 2010?), and should have nothing to do with the old backlog. So yes, the template wording should make that clear. -kslays (talk • contribs) 16:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
? I think it is really important to have a personable, polite tag for something that's going to go on a lot of new articles created by new users, and some short justification or explanation of our strict policy is in order here. The bot tagging problem should be addressed elsewhere, this section is just intended to work on designing the template, not for discussing its implementation. -kslays (talk • contribs) 17:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
What about this version? --Bfigura (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
<!-- START OF DATED PROD BLP TEMPLATE -->
<!-- do not use this template directly; use {{subst:prod blp|reason}} instead -->
{{mbox|type=delete|image=none|text=
{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|<span class="error" style="font-size:200%">Please use DATED PROD only on articles.</span>}}
It is Wikipedia policy that all '''[[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]]''' (created after March 1, 2010) must have references. If this article is not referenced within one week of tagging, this article may be '''[[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|deleted]]''' because it is about a living person and is entirely '''[[WP:V|unsourced]]'''. {{#if: {{{concern|{{{WikiProject Objectivism|{{{1|}}}}}}}}}|Additional reason: {{{concern|{{{WikiProject Objectivism|{{{1|}}}}}}}}}|}}

Wikipedia policy is that biographies of living persons must be written with great care and strict adherence to our content policies. Unsourced articles do not meet this standard. If you can address this problem by providing [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], please do so and remove this tag. '''Please do not remove this tag unless the article is sourced.''' 

{{#if: {{{day|{{{month|{{{Year needed|date=October 2010}}}}}}}}}}}}
|{{#ifexpr: {{#time:U}} > {{#time:U|{{{day}}} {{{month}}} {{{Year needed|date=October 2010}}} {{{time}}} +7 days}}
|<span style="color:red">'''The article may be deleted without further notice since this message has remained in place for seven days.'''</span><includeonly></includeonly><span id="delete-reason" style="display:none;">{{urlencode:Expired [[WP:PROD|PROD]], concern was: {{{concern|{{{WikiProject Objectivism|{{{1|}}}}}}}}} }}</span>
|The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days.<span id="delete-reason" style="display:none;">{{urlencode:Expired [[WP:PROD|PROD]], concern was: {{{concern|{{{WikiProject Objectivism|{{{1|}}}}}}}}} }}</span>
}}
This template was added '''{{#time: Y-m-d H:i|{{{day}}} {{{month}}} {{{Year needed|date=October 2010}}} {{{time}}}}}'''; seven days from then is '''{{#time: Y-m-d H:i|{{{day}}} {{{month}}} {{{Year needed|date=October 2010}}} {{{time}}} +7 days}}'''.
|The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days. Please check the history to see when this template was added.<span id="delete-reason" style="display:none;">{{urlencode:Expired [[WP:PROD|PROD]], unsourced [[WP:BLP|BLP]] }}</span>
}}{{#if: {{{day|{{{month|{{{Year needed|date=October 2010}}}}}}}}}
|{{#ifexpr: {{#time:U}} > {{#time:U|{{{day}}} {{{month}}} {{{Year needed|date=October 2010}}} {{{time}}} +7 days}}
|:<small><code><span id="raw-delete-reason">Expired [[WP:PROD|prod]], concern was: unsourced BLP</span></code> <span class="plainlinks">([{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|wpReason={{urlencode:Expired [[WP:PROD|PROD]], concern was: unsourced BLP}}&action=delete}} delete])</span></small>
}}}}
<!-- BLP pages proposed for deletion are listed on [[:Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion]]. -->

<small>If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion policy]]. If you cannot provide sources within one week, you may request the article be moved to the [[Wikipedia:Article Incubator|Article Incubator]].</small>

<hr /><small><span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=history}} Author(s)]</span> notification template: <code>{{subst:prodwarning|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|concern = {{#tag:nowiki|Unsourced BLP}}}}
 ~~~~</code></small>
<includeonly>


</includeonly>
}}<!--- END OF DATED PROD BLP TEMPLATE --><noinclude>

Template draft #2

I think we do have consensus to go ahead with this, but would suggest that we assume this starts in a few days rather than a few days ago. How about the following wording:

I've also taken out the challenged legal bit. ϢereSpielChequers 17:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I like your wording better than mine, in addition to the date change -- Bfigura (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I like it, but it doesn't explain WHY BLPs are special. Some sort of helpful explanation for people who find their new article tagged would be great. -kslays (talk • contribs) 17:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Well it does say "Biographies of living persons must be written carefully, neutrally and citing reliable sources." I doubt that many people will need an explanation of that, and those that will won't be happy with a mere "Wikipedia has decided that" answer. ϢereSpielChequers 17:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we collaborate on the actual template page? It seems silly to be doing this here instead of just working with the live version. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The reason for doing it here is that this page is actually on several people's watchlist; of course, I suppose some might think this the reason for not doing it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a template for notifying editors generated by this, I would hope that if anyone was using this tag and not notifying good faith authors they would at least get trouted. If this is only for newly created articles then the process should be self limiting, though if someone used a bot to create 3,000 new unreferenced BLPs I suspect someone else would create a bot to tag them. As for seven days, I predict that most of these tags would be placed by the New Page patrollers within hours of the article being created. Thats why it is essential that if we do this we change the new page creation process to make it clear that we require sources on new BLPs. ϢereSpielChequers 18:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
We can add a sentence, as at WP:AN3, where the nominator supplies a diff of his notification. That should also slow down the WP:IDONTLIKETHIS nominations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Added, and a claim of WP:BEFORE, which the nominator should be complying with in any case; it is, after all, policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Should the notification diff be an argument to {{prod blp}}. I'm not sure how to do this myself; but it ought to be a simple argument pass. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think a diff is necessary - I'm sure we can have a bot automate notifications to ensure that people are aware of what's going on. Also, I think more discussion is needed about whether this tag is seen as an exception to WP:BEFORE or not. I get the sense that's how people view it, though you obviously disagree. I don't think the tag page should be used as the place to hash out these policy issues at this time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
That would do for me with the reserve that possibly concerned wikiprojects will have less than 7 days to fix those articles because those articles are very likely to be BLP-PRODed first before any wikiproject can put their project banner on them. --KrebMarkt 08:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
That would be fixed by the {{BLPhangon}} tag I suggest below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. The wording of the template is satisfactory to me.
  2. I see no need for "hangon" template, especially if we leave the tag on for a month. Maurreen (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Tools in the template

Back to the topic of the template, I would like to see some extra buttons and links, and some indication of the checks done.

  • We could have a link to perform the deletion, to make life easy for admins.
  • There could be a button that would remove the template from the top of the article.
  • A set of links to find sources in google/bing/google news archive
  • A button to press to say that you looked for sources in google/news and could not find any at all
  • A button to press to say that you looked for sources in google/news and none were reliable
  • A button to press if the subject is not living (can remove the template too)
  • An extra text that shows if the source search was done or not
Comment by Graeme Bartlett 21:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
You want to put all that in the *template*? I believe in keeping things simple. Maurreen (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The template can be complicated inside, but it can be put on with a short easy to remember text. The extra pieces can be parameters eg gs=no reliable=no; it would also mean the template would not be substed. The Article creation template is an example. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I expect that the tag would mostly go on articles by new editors. Especially for new editors, things should be as streamlined as possible. Maurreen (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple template or one chocked with tools?

We haven't had much talk about the template lately. Are people OK with the one above, want tools in the template as Graeme Bartlett suggests in the "Tools" section, or something else?

I'm satisfied with the template above. Maurreen (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

How about a single word somewhere on the bottom of the template, "tools" that the user can click on that opens the tools Graeme Bartlett suggests? If it's too hard to code, I'd be happy either way. -kslays (talk • contribs) 19:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Maurreen (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I would be happy with that, then we can have it expand with the useful links present - like find sources and delete.
"Unsourced biography articles do not meet this standard." This sentence adds nothing and should be removed.©Geni 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that's not in the current version of the template (which I'm trancluding below):

{{dated blp prod}}

Need to reverse the opening para somewhat. Start by saying will be deleted if sources are not provided then explain why.©Geni 23:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Is anyone interested in making a template with such tools? Maurreen (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
If there is a template to add to, I will give it a go, based on the speedy delete templates, and the afc template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Graeme, pLease add your name to the taskforce members' list to avoid duplication of effort. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Maurreen's wording

What do you think of this wording?

"This article will be deleted if a source is not added by (date).
"If you can, please add a source. Then you may remove this template, and the article will be removed from the deletion category."
"If you need help, please see Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.
"Please do not remove this template unless a source has been added."

This version gets straight to the point, and it's more concise. Maurreen (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Yes, it does, and it has the right tone and is not biting.. As an example and comparison, no one aspect of Wikipedia is more closely and more strictly controlled than images, for which many of the warnings are blunt and to the point. Not only that, but any dialog entered by the image patrollers is also blunt to the point of being impolite. Talking about encouragement/discouragement (see section below), I for one, because of this near incivility and complex rules, have given up uploading any images I have not created myself. However, let's not be too scary, and frighten off the BLP newbies like I, seasoned editor, have been dissuaded from providing images.--Kudpung (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
On further thought, I'd like to add WP:EA to the options for help pages. So the wording would be:
"This article will be deleted if a source is not added by (date).
"If you can, please add a source. Then you may remove this template, and the article will be removed from the deletion category."
"If you need help, please see Wikipedia:Editor assistance, Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.
"Please do not remove this template unless a source has been added."
Maurreen (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Kudpung's wording

Unsourced BLP. date: dd/month/yyyy To protect living people from possible false information being written about them, new biographies that are not sourced may be deleted after 30 days. If you can, please add sources to the article by dd/month/yyyy., but do not remove this tag until the article is sourced. For help, see WP:BEGINNER.

Research into communication psychology has shown that people tend to ignore instructions that are over polite, too informal, or two wordy. It's worthwhile considering that we're dealing here with a major Wikipedia issue that could eventually be adopted across the board. I therefore see this as a possible opportunity to break with the traditions of large, ugly, imploring and verbose templates on the top of articles. The template software can insert the dates. Let's not forget that automations will place more detailed info on the creators'/major contributors' talk pages, PROD lists, and project pages. The use of English should also appeal to an international audience and while retaining a strong instructive urge, there is no need for it to look as if we are pleading on our knees. All people re used to seeing instructions: at school, at work, on the street, in the airport, in the library, on forms, --Kudpung (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC) PS: This also takes into account Maurreen's suggestion that thngs should be ...as streamlined as possible. --Kudpung (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wording summary so far

I believe the wording drafts have evolved from:

  1. The template almost immediately under the header for #Template-specific discussion
  2. #Template draft #2
  3. #Maurreen's wording
  4. #Kudpung's wording

Comments, please? Maurreen (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

My wording added, and to the list.--Kudpung (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments on wording so far

  • We're all agreed that we need to be gentle (encourage) and not scare of the newbies.
  • We're all agreed that it needs to firm enough that action is taken.
  • We're missing the point, although we know it, that the cat BLP attracts more junk articles than any other topic. "Boohoo, I don't like this forum. Why did you rotten moderators delete the article I wrote about Julie? She's in grade 6 and I like her even if she's older than me."
  • We're missing the point, although we know it, that many, perhaps the majority of BLP authors are one-time Wikipedia contributors, who might not even know what the acronym BLP stands for, let alone the 2,372 rules, policy, essay, and admin pages.
  • We're missing the point, although we know it, that many, perhaps the majority of the one-time Wikipedia contributors very probably won't come back to see their work embellished by bright lights and banners. "Eh? What's a talk page then, and how do I find it?" (written directly on the article page after finding a hidden note in the page code).
  • We're assuming that many, perhaps the majority of the one-time Wikipedia contributors will stick around on the Wikipedia for an hour after posting their new BLP to article space.
so
  1. The template is both information and a warning. It needs to be concise. A lot of Wiki readers are not 100% native English speakers.
  2. If it's overly polite in the usual crawling, imploring Wikipedia way, people will probably not regard it as a firm requirement to reference BLPs.
  3. It doesn't need instructions for its posting to be on it. Patrollers and regular editors know already or they wouldn't be using it.
  4. The "If you created..." apology does not need to be on the template - it would be in the notification to creators'/major contributors' talk pages - placed by an automated process. (This automation reduces the risk that the creator(s) might not be aware of the tagging.
  5. The emphasis should be on the links it provides to info, policy, and help pages (see below #How to source an article)
  6. All warning/request tags on articles are ugly. They make the Wikipedia look like a junior high school project. Perhaps a smaller, less "in-your-face" banner can still have the desired effect. Smaller box, smaller font, less red bold schrift.)

Please add your comments.--Kudpung (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Silly articles on sixth graders can be speedy-deleted. Serious contributers, even one-timers, need to abide by rules. WP:BITE needs to be expanded to include the living people who are the subject of the article; a newbie can't sue for a mean tag, but a real person can sue for defamation. It's time to implement the tag and work out the problems later. Abductive (reasoning) 05:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues, etc., to be decided

Latest comment: 14 years ago53 comments16 people in discussion

Notifications, including possible automation

Should any notifications be required? If so, to whom? Should templates be set up for that? Maurreen (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably the most important feature of all of the tpl is that it will send an automatic notification to the article creator's talk page, and or those of the major contributors. I would imagine It's content woud probably be based on the manually applied {{sources-warn}} template. --Kudpung (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Mandatory to article creator and when possible article major contributors & related projects so no one will say that article will not have a fair chance to be sourced. --KrebMarkt 15:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely ! there should be a template ,the Creator and Major contributors should be notified, on the other hand any experienced editor should be watching thier pages. In consideration of all instances, I would notify them because people do have lives outside of Wiki. Thoughts and memories can escape from the strongest "Steel Trap" Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Mandating the prodder is always going to have the problem of "what do we do when they forget?". If we have a bot automaticly notifying creator, and any wikiprojects mentioned on the talk page, then we don't need to compel any volunteers who prod things and, at the same time, we get 100% notification. That's a win/win without any instruction creep.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible bot for notifications

Agree, a bot would be the perfect way to handle this and not worry about this issue, I futher suggest asking User talk:Josh Parris if he would help Mlpearc MESSAGE 18:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll contact him then, as well as Kingpin13, who operates SDPatrolBot. NW (Talk) 19:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
If the only pages being tagged are new-ish ones, presumably the only major contributor will be the creator. Notifying relevant projects might be a good idea, but I'm not sure how soon after creation projects usually tag articles, so it might be difficult for a bot (or a person) to determine which ones to notify. Mr.Z-man 19:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
We could require that the prodder add appropriate wikiproject tags with X time of prodding (before the bot makes its notifications, if possible), so that interested parties are notified as well. Alternately, this could just be done manually by people patrolling the BLP-Prod category. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
That would be about as bad as just requiring the taggers to do the notifications themselves. Mr.Z-man 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ihaven't had much of a chance to understand what this is, but if I understand correctly, this is a feasible idea for a bot, similar to User:SDPatrolBot II. As to how to notify WikiProjects, if the bot remembers the categories of pages that have been tagged, it can quickly output all the tagged pages in a list of categories, so WikiProjects could get a list of pages in certain categories upon request. A lot of projects already have a list of categories they consider inside their scope, so it would be easy for them to provide the categories. Alternatively, the bot could check the talk pages of the categories for WikiProject tags (e.g. if a page in Category:War is tagged, notify the projects listed at Category talk:War). - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The only feasible way to notify wikiprojects would be with a bot. Problem will be that this notice may be added before there are any categories. It'll need a rather sophisticated bot to do it right. As for notifying the creator with a bot, experience is that they tend to work very erratically. safest way is to tell the person to notify, and use a plot & hope that one fthem does it right. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Kingpin, I think you understand. Ideally, I think what we have in mind is that after an article is tagged, a bot would notify the creator, any other significant contributors, and any relevant Wikiprojects. What would you need from us? Just the relevant templates? Maurreen (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points, some of which I may have not quite understood, and suggestions:
  • Bots cannot single-handedly recognise a new BLP if it has no categories.
  • Newbies may not understand what categories are all about (it took me 2 years to understand).
  • A new BLP would also need to have a mandatory category on its creation.
  • On 'save', there should be a red alert for all new creations: You have not added any categories to this creation.
  • Some projects that are likely to have BLPs in their cats have a lot of active members. Some small projects, (like mine) that have as few as two active members who are mainly authors and not maintenance members, don't even look at the bot created lists of newly categorized articles for days (weeks?) on end.
  • A new BLP would also need to have a mandatory category on its creation.
  • The people to advise of the use of the new sticky PROD would surely be the New Page patrollers.

--Kudpung (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to assist Kingpin13 with development as needed and feel he'd make a better lead on this project than I. We've identified a number of gray areas that need clarification. Josh Parris 11:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Kudpung, a number of these points won't apply to the bot. As I understand, it will be notifying users, not tagging the article in the first place, so it wouldn't need to identify BLPs (just get a list of pages tagged with the template). It doesn't really matter if the project looks at the list or not, so long as it's there. Now, as Josh mentions, I need a bit more of a fine definition of what it's doing and how. Primarily how do you want it to identify significant contributors? And do you just want it notifying people? Or organising categories (e.g. previously tagged, currently tagged, etc.), replacing removed sticky prods and what not? - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
For the projects, it might be best if the bot only runs once a day and just provides a single list, otherwise we risk flooding project talk pages if someone creates a lot of articles at once. Mr.Z-man 07:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking a subpage with a list of pages, which the bot can append to, and then just one note on the WikiProject talk page with a link to the subpage. - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Different projects have different forums to discuss issues, so we probably need a table or redirect set up so that the bot can find where to put its daily findings. If it justs adds to a moster list of articles with issues with a project mostly it will be ignored. One example to follow is Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Unreferenced BLPs but this is heavily maintained manually. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Kingpin, I like your idea of "subpage with a list of pages, (but did you mean that the other way around?) which the bot can append to, and then just one note on the WikiProject talk page with a link to the subpage."
About identifying major contributors -- Maybe that would mean anyone who either adds anything to the talk page or who adds x amount to the article. Is there a feasible way to differentiate between additions of article text and such things as cleanup tags? Maurreen (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I can make the bot ignore templates/categories/interwikis etc. This way might work, but it would mean users who do a large amount of work on re-factoring the articlebut not expanding would not get notified. Dunno if this would be a problem, - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm open to other suggestions. Would it work for the determining factor to be x amount of change? I guess the threshold for amount of change could be the rough equivalent of sentence to a paragraph.
Thanks to you and Josh for agreeing to help us with this.
As a side note to everyone, I think we'll all agree, but for the sake of clarity -- any bot work is just for notification (communicating and organizing the info). Bots are not to be used for either the tagging or the deletion. Maurreen (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A good point has been raised about how/where to notify the projects. There is no official rule for the design of a set of project pages and many projects (including mine) mess around with reating all sorts of sub pages annd associated talk pages. perhaps the notification could take the form of a template, such as a talkback template, for example, placed at the top of a project's main age and/or the talk page of the main page. The template would have a link to the bot created list of new, unsourced BLPs. However, there needs also to be provision for ensuring that the project get notified anew for every new addition to the list. --Kudpung (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the list could be transcluded. Josh Parris 06:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Works for me. Maurreen (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well, as is I'll look into coding a bot which will run daily, and do the following:

  • Get a list of new BLP-PRODs (new from last run).
  • Get the creator and warn them, only if they have not already been notified.
  • Get the categories the article is in, and foreach category:
  • Get the WikiProject tags on the talk page, and foreach tag:
  • Attempt to find the WikiProject associated with the tag, and if successful:
  • List the page on a sub-page of the WikiProject page.
  • Notify the project of the sub-page.

Sound okay? Any user or WikiProject will be able to opt-out of the notifications. I've left out the finding significant contributors, since this would be a bit of a pain to code. If someone else comes up with some code for it I'll be happy to add it to the bot. @Maurreen If you'd be willing to create the templates for warning the creator and WikiProject, that would be most helpful. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds OK and thanks for agreeing to do this KIngpin. I know nothing about programming bots or functions in templates, but in essence, what you have suggested doing seems to be what is needed. Perhaps you could educate me (in a nutshell) on my talk page about the difference in functions released by templates and bots, and then I'll try to come up with a flow chart so you can decide what functions are triggered by the template, and which are triggered by bots, and when, and to whom. In the meantime, we'll try to get some decision on:
  • How long after publishing the article, the page should be tagged/author informed (suggestions range from immediately to one hour)
  • How long to ait before issuing a reminder (2 weeks has been suggested)
  • How long in total bfore, if all fails, the article will be deleted (one month/30 days has been suggested.)
  • Deadline for launching the new system. (I believe, but I may be wrong, that Arbcom or Scott Mac have made some suggestions)
--Kudpung (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible bot to enforce 'stickiness'

As another matter, given this is the Sticky Prod workshop, does that mean the prod notice is meant to be sticky? How? Josh Parris 16:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
It means the prod cannot be removed until the problem is fixed. It is like the {{di-no source}} attached to files when there is a problem with sourcing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I think what Josh means is how are you going to make sure that the template isn't removed behind your backs? An edit filter might work, but it may still need users to check through it manually. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see this as a priority. Do we have similar mechanisms for anything else? Maurreen (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
There are bots that replace CSD tags. Josh Parris 02:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a bot as being able to determine whether a source has been added. If any person wants to police this, go ahead, but I don't see the need. Maurreen (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
That would be harder than telling if a source hasn't been added (removing the BLP-PROD without changing the article), but even then it's going to be vaguely do-able. It's the kind of thing that could be improved over time, as needed. Josh Parris 12:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Josh, are you suggesting that such a bot would replace the tag only if taking the tag off was the only change to the article after the tag was put on? That seems OK. Maurreen (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a starting point. If the bot was unsure if removing the tag was appropriate, it could message the editor who placed the tag and/or a central noticeboard - then humans could decide if the tag needed to go back on. Josh Parris 12:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I am wary of a bot doing any enforcement other than replacing the tag only if taking the tag off was the only change to the article after the tag was put on. Maurreen (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to go along with Maurreens suggestion that (if I have understood correctly) a bot can detect if the very next edit was the removal of the tag. It may also be possible for the software to create a 'recently removed sticky prod tags' list for review by patrollers. It may however be far more complicated for a bot to detect the addition of a {{reflist}} or <references/> section with content. --Kudpung (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification wording

First draft for creator (and maybe other major contributors)
Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia at the (name of article) article.
We're working to improve our standards, and we now require biographies of living people to include a source for the information. Please add a source to the article by (date). If the article is not sourced by then, it is our policy to delete it. Once you add a source, you may remove the (sticky prod).
If you need any help, please (see some help page).
First draft for Wikiprojects
A new WP:BLP on (name of article) is in the purview of (name of project). It needs a source added by (date), or it can be deleted. You may remove the deletion tag after a source is added. Especially if the article creator is new, you are encouraged to help the editor learn about sourcing and our WP:BLP policy. Maurreen (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Length of time before deletion

Section moved to WT:STICKY POLICY

Undeletion

Section moved to WT:STICKY POLICY

Policy and guideline wording changes

What pages will need changing?

Maurreen (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
General draft
Effective on (date), Wikipedia is requiring all new WP:BLPs to indicate s source. New unsourced WP:BLPs are to get a sticky prod. Maurreen (talk) (I added this earlier, but forgot to sign.)
Comments? Is this wording OK? Maurreen (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


Differentiating between sticky prods and standard prods

Help page?

The notification tag should send article creators to a place they can get help. Ideally, this page would be designed with newbies in mind. It would combine standing instruction with opportunity to ask questions and get help. Maurreen (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


One thing that has become clear in my work on this template is that wikipedia lacks a short page for beginners about referencing. The current one is only an explanation of the <ref> system, which is overly complicated. I'd like a page explaining the importance of referencing, and methods of referencing in order of increasing difficulty, from bare urls, to urls in brackets, to maybe a bit of the ref system. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC) (moved from template talk page)

A useful idea; although [[WP:V}} and WP:RS do cover much of the ground; it does little good to have sources and not say what they are. One difficulty will be the number of experienced editors who strongly disapprove of mere URLs, bracketted or not; so any advice to use them will have to prepare the user for a potential storm. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Any experienced user who complains about new users not using the proper ref system should beaten with a trout until unconscious. A new user who is adding content with sources should be welcomed with open arms, not chided for failing to follow the MoS. We shouldn't need to tell users to prepare to be treated in a manner that's against Wikipedia guidelines, we should just enforce the guideline. Mr.Z-man 23:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the proposition. Wki policy pages, guidelines, and essays are mostly a huge collecgtion of highly confusing works by editors who like to sit back and see what they have wrtitten. I've been around here a while and I'm still confused. I will admit that when I started editing the Wikipedia years ago, I didn't know all the rules and made some minor editing and MoS errors, but I did experiment in my sandbox first to see what things would look like before saving them to article space. If I had been required to wade through all the instructions first, I would have given up the idea of editing the encyclopedia. What I missed was a short, clear, introductory set of instructions without waiting for some kind person to place a Welcome template on my talk page because I had done something wrong.
A new, very short page explaining the importance of referencing, and methods of referencing, could be an abstract of existing instructions, but written in a way that can be clearly understood by anyone, including children, non native English speakers, cranks, drunks, and Martians. However, writing that kind of text is a speciality area.--Kudpung (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
excellent a real Manual of Style, how can we reward those who welcome newcomers? has there ever been a sanction for biting a newcomer? Pohick2 (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

There is The Missing Manual.

Also, I have my own collection of bits and pieces - I have a simple guide to referencing, user:chzz/help/ref - sometimes I point to it, sometimes I subst it and modify it to suit the case. There are various other docs I've found handy, see user:chzz/help. Feel free to steal anything, of course.  Chzz  ►  04:37, 8 March 2010

Indeed, a trout would be perfect, can we call the policy WP:BITEBACK? A truly experienced Wikipedia editor (and I'm not one, but even I can see this) would know that cleaning up a reference that some identifying information like a bare URL is usually far easier than trying to create a reference for an existing unreferenced comment from scratch. --Joe Decker (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
So, where should the templates send people for help? A specific current page, or does anyone want to volunteer to work on a new page? Maurreen (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
There's also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners without using templates and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners with citation templates, which seem rather good. -- Bfigura (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather than have a specific help page, we could also include a sentence that points to the how-to pages both on the deletion tag and the corresponding talk page notification. Perhaps something like:

References help make Wikipedia verifiable. Instructions are available on how to add references manually or with citation templates.

-- Bfigura (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the current formulation of the template already includes "For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk." which seems to pretty good. I think as it stands it's reasonably accessible to new users. -- Bfigura (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying the purpose of this page?

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

A gentle reminder that this page is reserved for the technical software development of the template - once policy has been established elsewhere.--Kudpung (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that this has a little momentum, and the RFC has been officially closed with a declared consensus, let's decide ...

Do we want this page to be:

  1. Exclusively for work on the template, with related issues to be decided elsewhere
  2. To work out the details and implementation of User:Balloonman's Part 1 Proposal
  3. Some other variation?

My choice is for No. 2 -- to work out what needs to be worked out to advance the consensus about new unsourced BLPs. A) A number of points involved with the template are not strictly mechanical. B) Splitting the discussion about carrying out the consensus is likely to be redundant or draining at best. C) The declared consensus, and the numbers involved in that consensus, and possibly other factors, make derailment of the discussion by outliers unwilling to cooperate less likely. Maurreen (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Moved to policy discussion page:

--Kudpung (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In order to compromise ...

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It's not a question of anyone leaving the page - it's a question of no complicating the page with issues that are not intended for discussion on this page which is intended to be a workshop for the develoment of the look and function of a template. Your suggestions a re peefctly valid, but would probably recceive more in depth exploration in a more appropriate environment. I'm going to create a page for it--Kudpung (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)   Done--Kudpung (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Warnings?

Latest comment: 14 years ago28 comments9 people in discussion

I think the talk about warnings, regardless of whom would be warning whom about what, is getting us off track. Maurreen (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I made mine precisely to illustrate that that particular thread area was off topic for this page, and moot. Ironically, in spite of the eloquence and cynicism of some of the replies it stimulated, no one recognised the point.--Kudpung (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone object to at least suspending any discussion of any possible warnings? Maurreen (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't object to anything that will move this work forward. Warnings can of course be shelved for a while, however, I'll take this opportunity to expose this little gem, placed on an editor's talk page by one self-styled tagger (you'll probably need to read it twice).
"The information you are posting is incorrect and uncited. It will not remain on the page unless it is referenced with sources found online, not on paper."
Is this how we should be ediucating our new contributors? Is this according to WP:BITE? Does it conform with WP:CITE?
--Kudpung (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely we need to agree the recommended templates used for people who breach this, and how quickly they escalate to warnings or even blocks. Users are already being blocked for adding unsourced BLPs, as per the discussion in April last year at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy/Archive_15#Unsourced material in BLP's that resulted in the current blocking policy "persistently posting unreferenced or potentially defamatory information about living persons". (my emphasis) So regardless of what happens here, good faith creators of unreferenced BLPs are liable to be blocked even if their unsourced content appears to be totally uncontentious. I have no problem with experienced editors writing tailored warnings, but if the templated warnings aren't clear then I fear that "It will not remain on the page unless it is referenced with sources found online, not on paper" Is not the worst we will see. To start the debate off I would like to suggest that newbies who remove the stickyprod after a good faith attempt to comply get a good faith response. So if someone adds a reference to a primary source and removes the sticky prod, tag the article with {{primarysources}}, and {{refimproveBLP}}. ϢereSpielChequers 13:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I believe a lot of possible damage that the advocates for a restrictive BLP policy fear would otherwise be caused might be prevented if warnings were properly used. Specifically, if editors who created biographical articles on living people were warned that if they posted derogatory or unsourced information on these people it would be she/he & not Wikipedia/the Wikimedia Foundation who would be liable for damages. In other words, if an editor wants to make an edit that slanders someone, that editor will be legally responsible for any harm or damages -- not Wikipedia, the Foundation, or anyone else involved. (And I expect that those parties will exert themselves to actively help identify & hold the editor responsible.) The Wikipedia community makes the best possible effort to prevent or address this harm, but the bottom line is that any approach short of drastically restricting who can edit Wikipedia means harmful content will appear. As I've written elsewhere, given enough cunning & malice anyone can get derogatory content into Wikipedia; a warning about legal responsibility might prevent the majority of this unwanted content. -- llywrch (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
We're getting sidetracked here, but see Template talk:BLP editintro#Proposed small expansion. NW (Talk) 22:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we are. But I'll just throw in for good measure that due to the guaranteed anonymity of even registered users, it is technically impossible to ascertain the true identity and address of a Wikipedia user, and take him/her to court for libel or slander.--Kudpung (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The foundation has in the past supplied IP information in responce the court orders.©Geni 00:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Still useless, the IP could be an Internet Café, a wifi hotspot, or even a Business Class seat in a plane.

;Subpage Regardless of whatever value templated warnings might or might not have, they are not needed to put sticky prods into place. So I'd like to move discussions of warning to a subpage. Maurreen (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I hadn't realized that some people see this as essential. So, nevermind that comment. Maurreen (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Housekeeping

In another section, Ϣere suggested having different sections for different types of warnings. So please proceed in the subsections below, and add any that you think are needed. Maurreen (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Warnings for people who remove the tag without sourcing?

Housekeeping

I moved this section from much above, to put all "warnings" discussion closer together. If that doesn't work for you, please change as you see fit. Maurreen (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

  Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a BLP prod tag from without adding any sources. If you believe the subject's notability can be established, please help us by adding relevant sources, but please do not remove the BLP Prod before you have done so. Thank you.

  Please do not remove the BLP prod tag from without adding any sources. Thank you

  Please do not remove the BLP prod tag from without adding any sources. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

  This is the final warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove the BLP prod tag from without adding any sources, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

"BLP prod tag" won't be clear to newbies. I suggest "deletion template." When we are ready, it would be good for the warning templates to link to info about sticky prods.
In No. 1, I suggest deleting "If you believe the subject's notability can be established ..."
In No. 3, I'd rather have " ... you can (or might) be blocked ..." instead of "you will". Maurreen (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Maureen, I do not think there was no agreement whatsoever to add another reason for blocking. the only recourse against improper removal of a tag would be to bring the article to AfD. there are many things one can do wrongly at Wikipedia that do not lead to blocking as a penalty, and this would be among them. The point of it being sticky means there would be some track to make sure the articles did not avoid AfD altogether, as can unfortunately happen in such cases at present. This should meet the requirements of the BLP deletionists, which is to get everything unsourced deleted, to the extent the community agrees with the individual instances. If the community would not agree with the instances when brought to AfD , then the basic proposal has no actual community support. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Huh? I never said anything about anything remotely resembling "agreement whatsoever to add another reason for blocking." Maurreen (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that was addressed to me. In reply: The bottom-line is that this new tag will be useless, and I will take every unsourced BLP directly to AfD. (why go through tag-untag-tag?) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Seb az86556, I think the whole BLP RfC process and this ensuing workshop is designed to discourage users from doing exactly that. In a worst case scenario, once this new sticky prod system is up and running, anyone who systematically takes every new unsourced BLP to AfD could possibly be leaving themselves open to eventual accusations of counter productive editing, and result in being blocked themselves!--Kudpung (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
For the sake of simplicity, why don't we decide not to decide what is to be done if the sticky prod is removed prematurely? Maurreen (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Kudpung - I know the remark was pointy, but I'm really and honestly trying to find out what the difference is between this PROD and the existing PROD. If anyone can remove it w/o repercussions, then we won't need it since that's already true for the current PROD. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Warnings for creating multiple unsourced BLPs?

Warnings for people who apply sticky prods to articles that are inadequately sourced?

Suggest a straightforward "Hi, I've replaced your prod on example with {{refimproveBLP}} because the article was sourced, albeit inadequately." Of course things will get more contentious when people remove poor sources and then add a sticky prod. I'm currently spending much of my wiki time recategorising BLPs that have had their categories removed by IP editors who presumably have worked out that is an easy way to hide an article and ultimately get it deleted. ϢereSpielChequers 08:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Level of sourcing needed to remove sticky prod

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In another section, User:WereSpielChequers raised the question of "how much one has to source an article to remove the sticky". Any sourcing is enough to remove the sticky.

In contrast to quality and quantity of sourcing, whether an article includes a source or not is generally a bright line. It's an objective measure open to little interpretation.

This workshop is based on a !vote and other activity about unsourced BLPs. The !vote did not address how many sources were in the article, the way in which they were indicated in the article, or the quality of the sources. Maurreen (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, if the consensus of this workshop turns out to be go against what I've said immediately above, that would expand the to-do list:

  1. The related policy and guideline changes to a greater degree than had been planned.
  2. Further scrutiny by the community would be called for before implementation. Maurreen (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that partial sourcing, including sourcing or removal of all contentious statements, is enough to remove the tag, but we should make it clear that that is the bare minimum, and is considered acceptable, yet still inadequate. Mr.Z-man 01:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Name

Section moved to WT:STICKY POLICY

Housekeeping update

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
  1. We have new sections for different potential warnings.
  2. We have a new section for #Level of sourcing needed to remove sticky prod.
  3. The discussion on the prod wording has petered out and is in need of comments, one way or another. Please voice your input at #Wording summary so far. Maurreen (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  4. Please see #Notification wording. There are a couple of drafts, but not input yet on either of them. Maurreen (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  5. Please see #Undeletion -- where?. That's something we might be able to settle easily. Maurreen (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that for reasons of clarity, quicker scrolling, and faster access to sections that are not required to be addressed in chronological order, some very long threads that really concern policy rather than the actual development of the PROD template, its automations, notifications, and associated warnings, have been moved to:

Task force items update

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've consolidated a couple of useful bulleted lists from several contributors. Some have been addressed, some haven't yet, some are still under discussion either here or on the new 'policy' page. Do please everyone take a moment to look back over this page now that it has been split, and see where you can still help with more input on the items on the list. The items are numbered for easy reference, not for any priority.

  1. We could have a link to perform the deletion, to make life easy for admins.
  2. There could be a button that would remove the template from the top of the article.
  3. A set of links to find sources in google/bing/google news archive
  4. A button to press to say that you looked for sources in google/news and could not find any at all
  5. A button to press to say that you looked for sources in google/news and none were reliable
  6. A button to press if the subject is not living (can remove the template too)
  7. An extra text that shows if the source search was done or not.
  8. Bots cannot single-handedly recognise a new BLP if it has no categories.
  9. Newbies may not understand what categories are all about (it took me 2 years to understand).
  10. A new BLP would also need to have a mandatory category on its creation.   Done
  11. On 'save', there should be a red alert for all new creations: You have not added any categories to this creation. {done}}
  12. Some projects that are likely to have BLPs in their cats have a lot of active members. Some small projects, (like mine) that have as few as two active members who are mainly authors and not maintenance members, don't even look at the bot created lists of newly categorized articles for days (weeks?) on end.
  13. The people to advise of the use of the new sticky PROD would surely be the New Page patrollers.

--Kudpung (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for new articles to have to have categories. New Page Patrollers can, and already do, add the appropriate categories when they find BLPs in Special:NewPages. NW (Talk) 16:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks NW. LIst addressed accordingly.--Kudpung (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Can someone give a summary of what has been agreed regarding these sticky prods? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. The above talk page is somewhat rambling and there is no clear summary yet. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 21:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not a talk page, it is a task force workshop with a clear objective (see the introduction). Discussion in each section of tis page is on-going, but the ToDo list is up to date. Please feel free to contribute your ideas to the actual development of the template and its associated bots, in the relevant sections. You may even create the summary yourself; however, it may be a little early to summarise as the work was only started a few days ago. Discussion on any policy regarding the implementation is here: WT:STICKY POLICY.--Kudpung (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect: it is a talk page - Wikipedia talk:Sticky Prod workshop... The main page happens to redirect here. Anyway, thanks for the pointers: it looks like you have quite some way to go and I will certainly contribute my 2 cents every now and then now I have a clearer idea of wher we are at --Jubilee♫clipman 23:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
We look forward to all positive input, and let's prefereably not split hairs on what the Wikipedia software calls each kind of page that is being uses for one task or another - it doesn't breed GF. and too many good contributors to this project have left already for lack of it.--Kudpung (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It's the policy implications I'm concerned about here, so Kudpung could you say what you mean by "discussion on any policy regarding the implementation"? I have to say that there seems to be an awful lot of talk with no output, and it's pretty hard to follow, which means that a lot of people who might otherwise be interested won't be taking part. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 06:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Most people found things hard to follow, and those who persevered a re still here. No one is forcing you to take part, but it's probably a bit late now to start a new discussion on policy implications that have been debated and decided on Phases 1 & 2 of an RfC over a period of six weeks with a total of over 400 participants. What is needed here now are people who can comment productively on the development object under discussion on this page. If you are concerned with policy, I would suggest you look for the answers on the relevant page(s), and see the latest replies to your new questions on the RfC page WP:BLPRFC. where one user has already given you a 6-point summary. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for splitting hairs above! One question, though: could you tell me where to look on WP:BLPRFC for that 6-point summary about policy? The collapsed "BLP issues summary" doesn't seem to address SlimVirgin's concerns as it simply lists present policy. Furthermore, the Closing comments by The Wordsmith merely summarise the RfC while asking that the BLP-Prod be worked on "with all deliberate speed" and pointing out that policy needs to be changed "to include language to indicate that new unsourced BLPs are unacceptable and may be deleted [unless]..." I am sure that SlimVirgin's concerns are wider than those addressed in those summaries. The page is archived now so I cannot ask over there (and I don't see SlimVirgin's name there meaning that I cannot focus on any specific reply). Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 01:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The page has now been unarchived for you. However, I rather feel that any attempts to reopen the discussion will fall on deaf ears. Just as its Arbcom did.--Kudpung (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean for you to unarchive the page just to explain where the summary is! God! no wonder people are leaving in "drones" if you treat everyone like this. I'm gone... bye --Jubilee♫clipman 08:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
PS, the page is very much still archived after Father Goose reclosed the discussion. Maybe you linked to the wrong place? --Jubilee♫clipman 08:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, with comments such as that, if that is the way you generally express yourself, I am personally pleased with your departure. What made you assume anyway that I had unarchived it? And yes, I was looking at the wrong page - nobody, not even I, is perfect ;)--Kudpung (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people: I see the summary now thanks! Sorry about the above. I, too, have off days... --Jubilee♫clipman 14:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Have your Wikiproject's articles screened for Unreferenced BLPs

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hey there guys. I made a bot to update lists of unreferenced BLPs for Wikiprojects. See the details here. Tim1357 (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tim. I've been considering writing a bot to update in a similar way for the pages tagged with BLP-ProD (see up above), if you'd be willing to, you could probably easily add that to this bot (e.g. just have a comment next to each one saying if it's tagged). If not, I'm fine doing it, and I'll probably go ahead with the user notifications. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Tim & Kinpin, in order to avoid any duplication of effort, please be sure to get your names on the Workshop participants' list.--Kudpung (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

How to source an article

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

There's no central concise help page describing how to source an article, from finding sources, identifying reliable ones, to adding them; the documentation on sourcing is fragmented. Maybe we should create a help page like Help/Wikipedia:How to source an article and link it from the sticky prod template (and other templates on sources). Cenarium (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good idea, I would support this fully. An explanation of where to find sources, as well as how to actually put them into the article, will help drastically. A link to it should be on BLP PROD templates, BLPUnreferenced, BLPrefimproved, etc. If we're going to tell newbies that we can't have BLPs without sources, we should show them how to add sources. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. This is the one thing I found it hardest to get to grips with when I first joined WP. A centralised page containing the basics would be extremely useful. It would summarise all of the following (at least):
All of that under one roof would be brilliant --Jubilee♫clipman 17:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Update - I have made a start on this: User:Jubileeclipman/How to source an article (though I had it in mainspace by mistake when I started: now CSD6ed...) I only have the basic links there so far and no actual text but I'll crack on and see what I come up with. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 18:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I've read your essay Jube, and I've made the comments you requested on your talk page. I've also taken the liberty of doing a couple of very minor typo edits. I think the essay is an excellent approach to Cenarium's and Wordsmith's brilliant ideas, and it addresses something we've been needing here for a long time, nicely, concisely, and in plain language.--Kudpung (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It needs far more input before it can be promoted to "help" though: it may not catch all the nuances and it may be rather one-sided. Hence, "essay"... Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 23:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I think there is every possibility of it becoming the help reference link for the BLP prod. Like all Wiki pages however, you may find that some other editors might wish to tweak it. The main thing, I think, is to prevent it from becoming just another of those tongue twisting Wikipedia policy pages that look as if they've been written by a wannabe journalist working in the civil service, and having a passion for Charles Dickens.--Kudpung (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Tweak, yes! Barnaby Rudge: no! Hopefully Cenarium and The Wordsmith have some thoughts for it, also, and we can all watchlist it so it doesn't end up like this Scary Mary or this tl;dr... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
If we are going to bite and alienate newbies by deleting their articles, at the very minimum folks, add something showing:
<ref> </ref>
....explaining how the sources have to be within those two brackets, <ref> </ref>. Okip 03:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It might need to be clearer but the info is there: the "Hello, my name is Jimbo!" example in User:Jubileeclipman/How to source an article explains. Perhaps we need to make it clear that inline citations and not just "further reading" links are expected? Cheers (and hello again Okip!) --Jubilee♫clipman 03:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners is linked in the template. Cenarium (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

defamation issue

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"must have references, due to concerns that may be related to liability or defamation." (or similar phrasing)

I am afraid this reason misses the point by a wide margin: per WP:BLP any unreferenced negative info must be deleted on sight, rather than to sit smiling in your face for a week. The real problem is the flood of fake or zero-notable bios, and this must be explained in sticky-prod: "don't write articles about your girlfriend, it will be deleted soon"-message.

Another point I would like to add is that when you write an instruction it is good to to mention when evaluating a bio, you must first strip it of references to blogs and other bad sites, and only then see whether it must be prodded. You would not want to a let a bio which has lots of refs, but only to hate sites. - Altenmann >t 04:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"don't write articles about your girlfriend, it will be deleted soon" shouldn't often be relevant to stickyprod. Such articles either assert notability and merit note about COI editing, or more frequently are clear {{db-bio}} subjects for speedy deletion. As for the zero-notables and blatant hoaxes, they should continue to be speedy deletion subjects, sticky prod should be for articles that don't qualify for speedy deletion but are unsourced BLPs, but I agree that negative info sourced from a non reliable source should be removed on sight and that could then leave an article within the scope of a stickyprod - though {{G10}} is more likely unless one can revert an attack page to an unsourced version by a different editor than the one who added the attacks. ϢereSpielChequers 09:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Motion

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

FYI, there have been some out-of-process deletions, and a threat of more, since the mass deletions that started this kertuffle.

I've proposed a motion to ArbCom. It is intended to get the most acceptance by the most people.

ArbCom member Carcharoth has asked me to "ask those involved in these discussions (apparently the sticky prod) to comment on whether they think a motion such as you have proposed is needed."

Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

    • Waste of time, and misrepresents the reality. There is no currently justification for irregular deletions. Sure, but there have been none. There may be a justification very soon, if this process doesn't get up and running. My patience is certainly running out with the time delay and the silly arguments over details. I've been so worn down by the filibustering that I've withdrawn from this page.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Frankly, i thought that we would be still arguing over WP:BEFORE. I'm rather a pessimist on the capability of the community to break its recurrent pattern of indecisiveness over important issues. I will be impressed if we manage to put BLP-PROD online before April. --KrebMarkt 09:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
        • We have a community consensus for stickyprods. The problem is that the community has moved on, and the small group here isn't particularly reflective. WP:BEFORE was an attempt to defeat stickyprod by moving the ground from deleting unsourced BLPs to unverifiable BLPs - and we already delete BLPs shown to be unverifiable. I've no idea what the delay is now. A few people seem to want to spin this out, and they've certainly worn me out. The starting point here was to say "prods may not be removed from new BLPS unless there's a source present" - sure, that can be improved upon, but the perfect is the enemy of the good. And it is the continued delay that is more likely to cause a resumption of hostilities. The motion is pointless, the solution is to implement the agreement we have immediately.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Better rolling out a BLP-PROD v1.00 as soon as implementable and from its use return from experience amends it to BLP-PROD v1.20 if necessary. --KrebMarkt 11:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
            • proceed already, i note that i referenced 2 out of process BLP Prods, that i found without looking. (a macarthur winner getting Proded, [1];president of vassar geting Proded [2]) Pohick2 (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
              • Perhaps the delay is the general recognition by the community that there is no reason to proceed--that there is no problem at all. I consistently find in sample between 5 and 10 unsourced new BLP articles a day that do not fall into conventional speedy categories. This could be seen as implying one of two courses: that almost any procedure would work, and the simpler the better, or 2/ that no procedure is actually needed: that the existing procedure meets the needs of the situation. But since it was voted (however much in ignorance of the actual very small dimension of the problem) that some stick prod procedure is needed, I would suggest that the most essential element is a way of spotting all the incoming BLPs, and making sure that they are properly dealt with one way or another--that what we want to avoid is that they slip past. an automatic procedure to label them by date, and to verify that they have been labelled unsourced, and then to follow up any which remain with the tag for more than 2 weeks, and that the stickyness be achieved by sending any removed from POD while still unsourced to AfD. ` DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion

What exactly needs to be done before this can be taken live? The discussion been spun off so many times that I am afraid I have lost track of ongoing discussions. NW (Talk) 23:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

How do we fix the timing issue? I was going to change the times to 14 days, but the category the article ends up in lists by start date, so after 7 days it will show with PRODs ready to delete. Easiest fix is to go with 7 days, in line with existing deletion processes, but that does not suit everybody at WT:STICKY POLICY. Kevin (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Article creators need to be notified of any prods. Is a bot ready to handle that, or is it going to be done manually? Maurreen (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be easiest if this were incorporated into Twinkle, but I am not sure who to ask to update it. NW (Talk) 15:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
User:Amalthea would be a likely victimcandidate. Let's get this going already. Rd232 talk 18:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I got lost when workshop was split into two. Looking at {{dated prod blp}} now, I notice the language is not reflecting my sense of consensus that taggers should be "encouraged", at most, to try to find sources. The current language shows "Editors should only tag an article for deletion by this process if they have looked for suitable sources and not found them; it is preferable to improve Wikipedia.". I think that should be changed to "Editors are encouraged to tag an article for deletion by this process only if they have looked for suitable sources and not found them; it is preferable to improve Wikipedia.". But maybe there was more discussion and consensus went a different way, i dunno. --doncram (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Done.--M4gnum0n (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)The timing discussion has also been closed now (at 10 days). What else needs to be done?--Milowent (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume some template/bot magic and/or category reworking needs to take place. I would volunteer, but that's far beyond my technical expertise. The WordsmithCommunicate 13:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see this is what needs doing. Kevin (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Sort out the additional reason parameter for {{dated prod blp}} - if left out you get {{{1}}}
  • Decide on a category naming scheme
  • Get User:DumbBOT to create the dated categories
  • Have the new template added to Twinkle
Okay, do we have any volunteers who are good with these sorts of things and wish to help out, in the interest of getting this to go live now? The WordsmithCommunicate 21:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

ProdwarningBLP

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Okay, the current text displayed by Template:ProdwarningBLP is (approximately):

The article _____ has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010 must have references.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided reliable sources, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide sources within 7 days, you may request the article be undeleted when you have sources.

What's wrong with that? P.S. i like the link to "referencing for beginners". --doncram (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We need a link for where they can go for undeletion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad for cutting and pasting poorly. There is subst code etc that displays poorly here so i edited it. The actual template does have a link for undeletion (and/or it may be changing now). Please see {{ProdwarningBLP}}. --doncram (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Instead of "ProdwarningBLP," I would suggest changing the name to "Prod BLP Notice" or somesuch to be less negative. Also, I would have the template link to Wikipedia:Editor Assistance. "Referencing for beginners" seems to be focused on footnotes. The form of the sourcing is not important at this point. Maurreen (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Apologies if this sounds daft, but does this all take into account everything that was discussed/is being discussed in this long section above?, And this?--Kudpung (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope it does take that all into account well enough. Is there some specific point within those long discussions that you wish to be addressed differently here? What specific point would you want changed? Or, I guess i hope we can avoid re-hashing the whole discussion again. --doncram (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Anyone following those threads will see that I have no particular wishes, and no knowledge of how to programme automatic template actions. I'm just the janitor helping to ensure that those who are doing the assembling haven't any vital nuts and bolts out of the machine. The only comment I have made was that the whole template, in my own personal opinion FWIW, is too big, too ugly, and too wordy. If the Britannica had things like that at the top of articles, readers would think the encyclopedia was written as an elementary school project. It's some relief that this banner is only going to be on an article for ten days. I think somewhere, I may have suggested that all the tips, and the harsh warnings would be best placed in the automatic message that will be placed on the creators' talk pages. After all, theoretically, the banner is going to be placed by patrollers, sysops, and otherwise experienced users, who don't need reminding of the newbie stuff. See the next thread: New users? below. --Kudpung (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

New users?

BTW: Maurreen expressed a perfectly logical opinion that most unsourced BLPs are created by new and/or inexperienced contributors. However, this creation of over 1,000 unsourced BLPs- thought to be an argument for becoming a sysop - would seem to prove to be an exception to the rule.--Kudpung (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Somebody said most of those are from 2006, when that editor was fair new and WP standards were lower. Maurreen (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it probably does add a category, because i seem to remember someone saying in an earlier thread on this page that they had created a bot that would list the PRODs in that category and notify them to the Wikipedia Projects.
Perhaps the bot, PROD template, and warning template programmers could work closely together on this to come up with a collaborative solution avoid any duplication of effort. A taskforce list was started at the top of the page, but it appears that mainly only the housekeepers and janitors added their names.--Kudpung (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments9 people in discussion

These should be in a different category from the general prods, so that people who want to focus on this clean-up can do so. Currently the template would dump them with all the other prods. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the regular category? Actually i don't see how the template code puts it into any category at all. How about add Category:BLP new articles lacking sources to the "BLP prodwarning" template? I am just now making up that category name. Would that suffice? Could someone add that, or a variation, to the template draft? --doncram (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest something less wordy such as Category:recent unsourced BLPs. The adjective recent will aways be actual, because after the agreed period, the BLPs in question will either have been sourced, or deleted. However, we should check in the preceding threads that this topic has not already been addressed, particularly by those whop are currently programming the template's functions--Kudpung (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Category:New unsourced BLPs seems like the most logical and efficiently-worded option. The WordsmithCommunicate 13:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I prefer "recent" over "new" but either works fine.--Milowent (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I prefer new as these stickyprods are only supposed to be applied to new articles, but wouldn't Category:Candidates for deletion as new unsourced Biographies of Living people be more self explanatory? ϢereSpielChequers 16:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree that something leaving little room for ambiguity is preferable. --KrebMarkt 16:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I would tweak the capitalization, such as with Category:Candidates for deletion as new unsourced Biographies of Living People. Maurreen (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, i just edited the BLP-prod-or-whatever template to include Category:Candidates for deletion as new unsourced Biographies of Living People into articles that have been tagged. When that is used, the category itself can be created, and be included within larger PROD categories as appropriate. The name of the category can be addressed and renamed later by a wp:CFD discussion. For now, I think it will work fine. --doncram (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
We've got three people suggesting that Category: New unsourced BLPs or Category: Recent unsourced BLPs would be acceptable - why do we have to revert to the traditional Wikipedia wordiness with Category:Candidates for deletion as new unsourced Biographies of Living People ? Maybe I've missed something. Kudpung (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I personally don't care what it says. It needs to say something though. What it says can be changed later by a wp:CFD category name change proposal and discussion. It is most important to get this into operation, and refine that wording later. Please let this just start, and make a CFD proposal in a few days. --doncram (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) HELP! The templates are now being used. There are a couple articles now in Category:Candidates for deletion as new unsourced Biographies of Living People. Unfortunately it is putting user Talk pages into the category, for the users who are receiving a notice that their new article is deficient. It should be in the new articles instead. What happened is, I put the category into the wrong template, into {{ProdwarningBLP}} when it should have gone into {{Prod blp}} instead. The latter uses more complicated code than I understand, and is applied by SUBSTing. I have only programmed simpler templates. Could someone more expert please apply the Category:Candidates for deletion as new unsourced Biographies of Living People in the Prod blp template? I will revise the category in the ProdwarningBLP template to describe the user pages, as Category:Users with new unsourced Biographies of Living People under review for now. That name also could be changed, if necessary. --doncram (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Followup: User:Kevin tersely reverted my edits to the two templates, so they are no longer messed up in any way by me. I asked for Kevin to comment here and/or help install the intended category but he has not responded. Maybe adding the intended category is not so necessary, so they can be used now already. And/or perhaps there are appropriate categories in the existing template, which is hard to follow because it includes in passages from elsewhere. I am going to apply "Prod blp" to a test page, to Wikipedia talk:Sticky Prod workshop/testpage, to see what categories turn out to apply. --doncram (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
In all honesty, we should have just gone with standard PROD, which already works perfectly, with just a note to say that PRODs from unsourced BLPs should not be removed. As others have noted, there are not so many new articles created that it would overwhelm the existing process, and adding a single sentence at WP:PROD seems a whole lot easier than all of this. Kevin (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please add a category to the sticky prod, so that we can see what articles get tagged by it? I tried twice and failed, being reverted once by Kevin. Kevin, notwithstanding your objection to the general point of this here, could you please add a category to the prod so we can see? Or, could someone else please? Or, if there is a category attached now or any way to see which get the sticky prod, could someone please explain. What articles have the tag currently? --doncram (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

They already have categories - Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion and in this case a dated category Category:Proposed deletion as of 31 March 2010. Unfortunately as it has been decided that deletion is after 10 days the dated category is not appropriate, being designed for 7 day PRODs. A new set of categories needs to be designed for this process, or we need to go back to 7 days and use the categories already in use. Kevin (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the category is Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion. Maurreen (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Anything more, or start using now?

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

With addition of a category into the drafted BLP-prod-whatever template, I think, knock on wood, that there's nothing further that has to be resolved. Is there? Or can we now just start using this, and begin put a crimp on the style of those adding new unsourced BLPs. I vote we just say we are done, and start using it! --doncram (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to apply {{ProdwarningBLP}} to any article in Category:Unreferenced BLPs from March 2010, but i can't find a single one to apply it to! Have gone through a dozen or more. They all either have sources as external links or are otherwise inappropriately included in the category, or the article was created before March 18, the starting date in the ProdwarningBLP tag. Can anyone else find a single article to which the Sticky Prod applies? Maybe there are none! --doncram (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
If there are none, then the overall objective is being accomplished. :) Maurreen (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
See the previous thread on naming the cat. We don't need the words 'since March 2010' beacause we already have 'new' or 'recent' - and that means that it will always be recent because an article or its sticky banner will only survive for a maximum of 10 days. After which either the article will be sourced and the banner removed, or the article will be deleted.--Kudpung (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It has started. Specific first users/BLP articles that the Sticky Prod process applies to include: User talk:Linusiuppsala regarding new unsourced BLP article Mats Åkerlund; and to a User talk:Lionel levenson regarding Daniel Askill. --doncram (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Unreferenced BLPs from March 2010 is the wrong place to look, as many of those are articles created some time ago. When we are ready to start applying this the place to look for candidates is special:NewPages - I was about to tag one when I saw the note above that it wasn't yet working. ϢereSpielChequers 12:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
However, the Mats Akerlund article had an external link that serves as a reference from the beginning, so seems inappropriately tagged. And, the Daniel Askill article was blanked by the creator, presumably in response to getting some negative tags, and the creator is now being chided for blanking the page by someone who restored the article! This is bizarre. Who is going to monitor the NPPers use of these tags, if anyone. --doncram (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Sadly this is normal at NPP, its a bit of a shooting gallery there. Hence my suggestion earlier in this process that this tag not be applied to articles that are less than an hour old. However with the current flow of new articles running at over two thousand a day, and New Page patrol struggling to keep abreast of things, one has to be aware that any attempt to rein in the new page patrollers will be seen by some as disruptive. ϢereSpielChequers 12:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
template:prod blp will now work however I still think it should be renamed to something less jargonish such as ref-deadline.©Geni 23:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The talkpage warning template doesn't appear to add the warning editor's signature or the date to the post. Is this intentional? (E.g., the warning here is unsigned and undated.) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I expect that much detail is not intentional. I think people got tired of working on the whole thing. Maurreen (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
OK... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Status?

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

Is the sticky prod idea going ahead, or has it died? If it's going ahead, I'd like to add something about it to the BLP policy. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's going ahead; only technical details still have to be worked out. I would appreciate it greatly if you could add it to the policy. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that I don't know how to describe it. Is there a description of it somewhere that has reasonable consensus? SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I've updated the template documentation to reflect current consensus and practice. See Template:Prod blp/doc Gigs (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I've made some adjustments to Template:Prod blp/doc. Maurreen (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Maurreen, I've undone your changes. I think your changes might actually have the opposite effect from what you intended. Under the old wording, it allows for the removal of the BLP Prod if the article was mistagged and already has sourcing. We don't want to force people to arbitrarily add a source to an already well sourced article just to get rid of the tag, i.e. we don't want someone to cry "You didn't add a source!" when the article was already well-sourced, which your wording could be misconstrued to require. If you want to clarify that it's for totally unsourced articles only, then I'd do it by adding another statement rather than changing those statements. Gigs (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I've made a couple edits along those same lines. Gigs (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It is going ahead, i've started using it. One major problem is that bots list newly-discovered unreffed BLPs in the March 2010 category, not necessarily just newly-created ones. When I see one, though, i'm using it. The WordsmithCommunicate 01:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Can't a bot be created to find newly-created BLPs only? --Jubilee♫clipman 02:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
User:LaraBot already does this, and creates a list at Wikipedia:Database_reports/Recently_created_biographies_of_living_people. Kevin (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for showing us that Kevin, it'll certainly help. Now, we really need to get this into Huggle/Twinkle/scripts so that other people can use it besides me. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Twinkle should enforce the article creation date restriction if at all possible. Gigs (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/RFA#BLP_Prod I boldly removed the "additional reason" field. The reason is always the same, it's a new unsourced BLP. Gigs (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning or notice

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We now have "Template:ProdwarningBLP" to go on the talk pages for the relevant article creators.

I propose a small change to "Template:ProdNoticeBLP". The basic idea is that "notice" is more friendly than "warning." Maurreen (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Users never see the name of the template anyway, it's subst'ed. Probably was named that way to be consistant with {{Afdwarning}} and {{prodwarning}}. If you do rename it, please make sure to update the twinkle feature request I put in, but I'm inclined to leave it named this to follow tradition. Gigs (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wording

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Gigs, I'm putting my reply here just for organization. I like your change.

I have some concern that the tag might be used against articles that an editor says aren't reliably sourced. "Reliable" is open to interpretation, etc. But your change helps with that, and I haven't yet figured out other wording. Maurreen (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well even selfpub sources are "reliable" when used in accordance with WP:SELFPUB. Gigs (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Except Scott Mac (Doc) has pointed out to me that that doesn't apply when "the article is not based primarily on such sources." Maurreen (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
That's what it says. In practice, I'm seeing AfD keep articles based primarily on self pub sources quite often. All the various notability standards that bypass GNG requirement of secondary coverage have created a situation where we have "notable" people who have no secondary coverage (or very very little), so the article must be primarily based on selfpub. I don't like the situation and I'm probably going to try to get it changed sometime, but that's the world we are living in. Gigs (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"Unsourced"

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion

There is disagreement over the meaning of "unsourced" and under what circumstances the tag is be removed.

This also makes me wonder whether there is disagreement over when the tag is to be applied. Maurreen (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this. I'd be a literalist when comes to this; unsourced means "no sources at all." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Does a link to the person's MySpace or Twitter account qualify as a source? I would think not. In using it, i've been ignoring social networking sites and official websites. Things like IMDB and other websites of its caliber, while not great sources, are enough to require an AFD if I want it deleted. The WordsmithCommunicate 01:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Well... hmm... alight. I'd count out myspace, twitter, facebook. But that's about it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The standard is simple for me. If it is a solid reliable and secondary source, it counts as partially sourced. Otherwise, nope. Remember that we aren't doing this just to screw over the people creating unsourced BLPs, but to make sure that our new articles are of somewhat decent quality. Having no reliable sources would count against that. NW (Talk) 01:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, you do that. As for me, I cannot always determine what a reliable source is on, say, soccer-players or cryptozoologists... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec: agreeing with above anyway) Some blogs are actually considered to be RSs under certain circumstances eg this blog archive is considered to be perfectly acceptable by the main editors at List of musical works in unusual time signatures. See that list's talk page. Making value judgements on sources might be going too far, therefore. Better just to apply to artilces with no sources at all, IMO, unless we expect people to read WP:RS, WP:IS, etc etc before applying the PROD... --Jubilee♫clipman 02:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
That is why I was thinking that a parameter can be used to say how good the source is. eg {{DILU|source=bad}} or {{DILU|source=none}} as the default or {{DILU|source=?}} for being unsure and needing checking. As well as band we could have primary for autobiographies. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I think this was discussed in the RFC, and as I remember it the consensus was that this process was for articles that were literally unsourced, not for poorly sourced articles. My experience with newby editors is that early intervention with {{primarysources}} can be quite effective, and IMHO is a much better route to go than extending stickyprod from unsourced to poorly sourced articles. But if people do want to make such a change can I suggest we first concentrate for a few weeks on applying sticky prods to unsourced articles and resolving any teething problems that arise there before we consider expanding the target group. ϢereSpielChequers 12:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Although I understand that people want rising standards, "unsourced" does not mean "poorly sourced." It would be an assumption to believe that people who !voted for sticky prods for unsourced articles intended to support the prods under any other criteria.
If WP ever chooses to delete poorly sourced BLPs as a class, some standard would need to be developed. "Reliable sources" and "badly sourced" are more open to interpretation than "unsourced." Any deletion of those articles would call for more deliberation than agreement by two people (such as the prodder and deleting admin). Maurreen (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Has this new debate been started in GF or is it just another delaying tactic? Unsourced is unsourced. The sticky prod topic is not about poorly or partially or unreliably sourced articles. Perhaps we should get back on track and get this thing up and running.

It is up and running, we're already using it. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, WS, I realise that now. I've just spent the last 48 hours in airplanes.--Kudpung (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It was in good faith, there was a little reverting going on on the template documentation. Obviously we will need to make some sort of value judgments at some point, whether something is a source or not, but that'll probably need to happen on a case by case basis. I don't see this as an issue that should hold up rolling out the use of this tag. If we need to take the word reliable out of the documentation, that's OK with me. Gigs (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Scripts

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

We really, really need to get this into Twinkle, Huggle et al. Does anyone here have that ability, or know how to get it done? I would even support a quick-and-dirty script if it would make the NPPers more likely to use it. Currently, it is far to inefficient to be useful to the hordes of Hugglers and NP patrollers. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle is prepared to use it, once it's part of WP:DELPOL I'll turn it on. Amalthea 19:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Just noting that it has been added, so Twinkle can be turned on. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Already in use?

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion

As far as I'm aware, WP:BLPPROD is not yet part of WP:DELPOL, but I already see it in use on a handful of articles. Did I miss something? Amalthea 19:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the sticky prod policy hasn't been incorporated into anything else yet. Here's a rough draft for something we could add to the appropriate pages.
"Wikipedia now requires new biographies of living people to indicate a source. New unsourced biographies of living people can be proposed for deletion. Unlike standard proposed deletion, these articles need to contain a source to avoid deletion. If a source is not added to the article within 10 days, the articles can be deleted." Maurreen (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
How about a modification to the third sentence: "Unlike standard proposed deletion, these articles need to contain a source before this notice can be removed. Active Banana (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
probably need to mention what our working defintion of new is at the moment.©Geni 23:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  Done I have added the information to DELPOL, based on Maurreen's statement. I clarified a few things, though, such as the date after which this goes into effect (18 march 2010) and a few other bits of language. There's no sense wasting time debating wording, we know what has consensus and we need it to start taking effect immediately. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Tweaked just a little, but looks good. Gigs (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I tweaked a little more, mainly adding a little about undeletion:
"Wikipedia now requires biographies of living people created after 18 March 2010 to indicate at least one source. New unsourced biographies of living people can be proposed for deletion. Unlike standard proposed deletion, these articles must contain a source before the tag can be removed. If the article remains unsourced after 10 days (in contrast to 7 days for a regular proposed deletion), the articles can be deleted. After adding the deletion tag to an article, the user must notify the creator or main contributor.
"If the article is deleted, it may be undeleted when an editor is prepared to add a source. The undeletion can be requested either through the deleting administrator or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion."

I've added info to:

Update: My addition to at least a couple of those pages has been reverted. Maurreen (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I tried to reword the section in WP:BLP to address the concern of the person who reverted you. -- Bfigura (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
??? What does that have to do with it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Seb_az86556, What this has to do with it, is that there are a lot of obsessive-compulsivee deletionist tagger/disruptive editors/vandals out there who will even step up their nonsense if we put even easier tools at their disposition. You will probably have a clearer understanding of the situation by reading the WP:BEFORE section below, although that discussion is now most probably moot.--Kudpung (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Well... I am one of those who does use Twinkle, but that does not mean that I am obsessed, neither does it mean I am a vandal. OK? :) Secondly, I don't think refusing to give people like me the proper tools would deter any of the obsessive-compulsive individuals. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I know little about Twinkle, but I agree with including this with it. I don't see why anyone would object. Maurreen (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I expect this will be added to Twinkle, consideration of that is on the to-do list. Is there any reason not to archive this section? Maurreen (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to workshop

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I very strongly oppose #2 or any discussion of the detailed implementation of Balloonman's proposal until certain preconditions are met.

The best choice would be

  1. Evidence, somewhere, anywhere, that unsourced BLPs are significantly less accurate than sourced BLPs.
  2. An actual increase, or likelihood of increase, in the number of unsourced BLPs, now decreasing.

Second choice would be a consensus, stronger than that which would be no consensus to promote a bureaucrat, to proceed with a policy change which will (by 1) do the encyclopedia no service and (by 2) accomplish no end whatever which will not be reached anyway. Consensus has a right to be imbecile unless it violates core policy.

Otherwise the same editors who have invented a problem where there is none, proclaimed a crisis out of something which is not happening, and perceive a consensus where there is confusion and a mutual acmiration society will call any agreement on how this should operate if it ever does consensus that it should operate.

"I will be considering the alleged closing, and see where it needs amendment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose there is a third choice: an explicit statement, with diffs from all the supporters of this irresponsible proposal, that nothing on this page will ever be taken as consensus to proceed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
In the drawn-out discussion, the community has decided in favor of sticky prods. Let's not keep beating a dead horse here, and move forward. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This is utterly false, and I suspect it is self-deception. Wikipedia is not a democracy, does not work by majority rule, and the community has agreed on nothing save to consider the as-yet-undesigned sticky prod in three months time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you're confusing Part 1 and Part 2.
Part 1, which had very strong support, included "An acceptance of a "sticky" BLP-PROD for new unsourced BLP's written after the close of the RfC."
Part 2, which had less support, included "We will hold off discussion concerning codifying the deletion of Old Unsourced BLP's for 3 months." Maurreen (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Part 2 had less support only because it had a small fraction of the original participants because the majority were either scared off or bullied off, or lost interest in the saga.--Kudpung (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
It was certainly my clear understanding that none of what was said there was a vote on a final proposal, just an attempt to narrow down the areas where there was greater and lesser consensus. I think this was said many times--by everyone who was not trying to rush through a proposal. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Archiving

Given that the workshop is proceeding apace, and that the person who had objected is otherwise participating, I plan to archive this section. Maurreen (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I've been refactoring a little as we go along, just to keep related discussion together and try to keep things on track. Maurreen (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If it was'nt for you..............? Mlpearc MESSAGE 21:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I've done a bit of the same. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Good work. I started doing the same, but I got my wrist slapped in spite of:
From WP:TPO - 'Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:'
  • Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or RfCs, using <nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples, and providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation.
  • Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a header to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc
We can all help here, but It's a shame that contributors to this page won't often reply/put their comments in the dedicated, existing sections, and use accepted talk page format. Admittedly, using the right sectin could be a bit difficult as this is not a standard chronological discussion page. I use the edit history to go straight to the diff shown on my watchlist.--Kudpung (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I appreciate the refactoring/discussion organization because I check in less frequently. Thanks! -kslays (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI: More summary deletions?

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

You might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people#A warning: BLP deletions to begin anew. This is just a notice; please hold any discussion elsewhere. Maurreen (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Get this sticky-prod show on the road and that question rather becomes moot. If there's an agreed way to deal with unsourced BLPs then no one should be using speedy deletion. I'll be the first to block any admin who does, when there's an agreed process.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
We could propose a policy to do the blocking of disruptive deleting admins, I suspect that this can be done already within existing guidelines, but this is not the page for this. We will want a clear and distinct reason to show on the delete summary so that recreators and restorers can see what happened. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose that this section be archived, as it does not appear that these deletions are occurring, and this section isn't moving us forward. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tone

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

(I moved this from the template talk page, which is now redirected here to consolidate discussion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

I strongly support making the template have a friendly and explanatory tone, so it won't be WP:BITEy. In my opinion, patronizing would be better than curt and short, which feels rude (although best of all would be explanatory without being patronizing). -kslays (talk • contribs) 17:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A point inconsistent with bot tagging. Who, then, is the newbie to talk to? Bot notification, provided there is a link to the tagger, is another quesiton. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Who does anyone 'talk to'? Like you or I did or din't when we were newbies. He puts a {{help}} tag on his talk page, or follows the links in the welcome template.--Kudpung (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not feasible to have bots tag articles (aside from converting {{unreferenced}} to {{unreferenced BLP}} on articles with Category:Living persons), because bots can't detect if an article is sourced. (To the extent a bot can make a good guess, I'd oppose that.) As for who the newbie should talk to, maybe we could have a questions page like WP:MCQ to direct lost contributors to, so they can ask questions about referencing etc. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Friendly tone is essential, but in my experience dealing with complaints, the longer the notice, the less likely it is to be actually read. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. The speedy deletion warnings that Twinkle gives out are three times longer than they need to be. The current warning templates are 1500 characters of prose long. That could probably be cut down to 500 characters of prose for our purposes. NW (Talk) 23:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that most of Twinkle's texts, like everything else on Wikipdia is versose. Ironically, most contributors to the encyclopedia are verbose, that's why they are here!--Kudpung (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that it's too long, or even close. Complainers may not read the whole notice, but I suspect many new editors do. Friendly tone is, in my opinion, the most important part of this template. -kslays (talk • contribs) 19:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Effective date

Latest comment: 14 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

I suggest using "March 15" for the sake of discussion, but not being tied to it. Maurreen (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

March 15 is a good date. It's roughly a week from now, which will allow sufficient discussion without making the process stretch out indefinitely, like the past two RfCs did. NW (Talk) 17:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, let's not drag this out, too many editors have lost interest already Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
June 1, now that Wordsmith has closed as he has. If we work out the wording before that, we can move the date again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Why on earth would we want to wait that long?--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Because, we agreed on it: it was also suggested that we hold off deciding this for three months, and I couldn't find any significant number of editors against this, though some felt that this was another veiled threat to resume deletions. To clarify: the proposal is not to have mass deletions begin in three months. Rather, at that time, another discussion will be held to determine whether progress is being made at an acceptable rate, and to determine if anything can be done to help. To quote Wordsmith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you've got that wrong. The consensus was for stickyprod for new BLPs NOW. For the backlog we wait three months to see if the current drive is still on-track to eliminate it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
That's a cut and paste from the closure. If I have that wrong, so does the closing admin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The consensus was certainly not approved for that with a sufficient majority for so basic a change. . If you want to use a date for the sake of discussion, make it July 1 DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This is what I feared. Filibuster. This is not constructive. This is just an attempt to fight a rearguard by kicking it into the long-grass. We have a consensus for stick prod, no more delay, we do this as fast as possible if not before. ANY delay needs strong technical justification.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
We have a consensus for sticky prod as a principle . We have no consensus on what it means, or whether to introduce it immediately. What you call a filibuster, I call a centrist action against an extremist coup, which is what I always feared from the manner it was introduced in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

For people on both sides -- When I suggested above an effective date of March 15, that was meant essentially as a placeholder. In general, the workshop is making decent progress. Once the details have been worked out, we might give a little bit of warning period, but there is no reason for a lengthy delay.

Can we agree on either or both of these:

  1. Use March 15 as a placeholder.
  2. Wait to consider the effective date until March 11. That's halfway between now and March 15. We will be at a better stage to review our progress and anything that needs further development. Maurreen (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the above suggestion is right--it will be easy enough to add when the time comes. Let's not try to prejudge now what may turn out to be an issue. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Done; I note that the date formats were 15 March and March 15. I like this independence of the silly date format argument, but be prepared when this hits production to have this cause controversy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Glad to see that an increasing number of participants are now admitting that these lengthy distorted discussions tend to scare people off wanting to be involved ;) --Kudpung (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people/Archive_1&oldid=1089114595"