Template talk:BLP unreferenced: Difference between revisions

 

Line 67: Line 67:

Param {{para|prefix}} should be removed, and replaced by positional param 1 instead, in order to represent words like ”section” in the expression, ”this section” (even, ”this paragraph”, ”this table”, etc.). This is handled in other, similar templates such as {{t|unreferenced}} or {{t|more citations needed}} by positional param 1, like this:

Param {{para|prefix}} should be removed, and replaced by positional param 1 instead, in order to represent words like ”section” in the expression, ”this section” (even, ”this paragraph”, ”this table”, etc.). This is handled in other, similar templates such as {{t|unreferenced}} or {{t|more citations needed}} by positional param 1, like this:

: {{xt|1=This <code><nowiki>{{{1|article}}}</nowiki></code> does not cite any sources}}

: {{xt|1=This <code><nowiki>{{{1|article}}}</nowiki></code> does not cite any sources}}

allowing those templates to use other scoping words like ”paragraph” as well, while the section wrapper template just passes ”section” in param 1. But that doesn’t work here, so that capability, present in other templates, is lost here. This is probably due to the chosen wording in this template, namely:

allowing those templates to use other scoping words like ”paragraph” as well, while the section wrapper template just passes ”section” in param 1. But that doesn’t work here, so that capability, present in other templates, is lost here. This is the chosen wording in this template, namely:

: This <nowiki>{{{prefix|}}}</nowiki> biography of a living person does not include any references or sources.

: This <nowiki>{{{prefix|}}}</nowiki> biography of a living person does not include any references or sources.

because just substituting in the normal scoping word, would produce something like this:

because just substituting in the normal scoping word, would produce something like this:

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Archives

1

I suggest adding a warning in the template text that BLPs without any sources are eligible for PROD. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But not all are. If they are too old for BLPprod and have also been prodded in the past they are not eligible for prod. ϢereSpielChequers 22:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I forgot that, thanks. I still think that the PROD-eligible BLPs should be noted in the tag somehow. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please modify this template to additionally populate the subcategory “Category:All BLP articles lacking sources“, as with Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability. —swpb^T 15:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Category:All unreferenced BLPs? Fram (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Fram: No: that category contains the ~3000 BLPs with no references. The intended category will contain all ~99,000 BLPs in subcategories of Category:BLP articles lacking sources, which simply have insufficient sources. This category is necessary to be able to select a random page from those 99,000. —swpb^T 15:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason this template you refer to is not labeled as a tracking category or hidden category (if appropriate)? How does this category relate to Category:BLP articles lacking sources? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: fixed intended template. I believe you are not requesting 3 separate edit requests posted at 3 separate talk pages for the same template. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: I put your suggestion in the template sandbox for now. Several things: as the creator of Category:All BLP articles lacking sources, can you please document the templates that will populate the category in advance, and make it at least a {{tracking category}}? I also strongly suggest pinging Wikipedia talk:Categorization or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories to get awareness about your intent for a new tracking category before this edit actually goes live. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Andy M. Wang: Template {{tracking category}} added. The only templates that will populate the new category are {{BLP sources}}, and {{BLP unsourced}}, per the requests. The specified project talk pages have been duly notified. —swpb^T 13:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undid. Please follow-up at Template talk:BLP sources — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request is currently being scuttled by lack of attention. —swpb^T 19:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There ought to be a linebreak after the “JSTOR” text, such that this text is on its own line:
(April 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

I also think that the date ought to be preceded by “Added “, but I guess that its current style is in keeping with most other templates… —Hugh (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Most maintenance templates append the date immediately after the template’s content. I could support moving the date after the word “immediately”, but it would be better to maintain parallel structure with the other, similar templates listed in the navbox at the foot of this template’s documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP unsourced has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:tfm|help=off|1=Unreferenced}}


to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Terasail^[✉️] 23:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Param |prefix= should be removed, and replaced by positional param 1 instead, in order to represent words like section in the expression, this section (even, this paragraph, this table, etc.). This is handled in other, similar templates such as {{unreferenced}} or {{more citations needed}} by positional param 1, like this:

This {{{1|article}}} does not cite any sources

allowing those templates to use other scoping words like paragraph as well, while the section wrapper template just passes section in param 1. But that doesn’t work here, so that capability, present in other templates, is lost here. This is a downstream effect of the chosen wording in this template, namely:

This {{{prefix|}}} biography of a living person does not include any references or sources.

because just substituting in the normal scoping word, would produce something like this:

This section biography of a living person does not include any references or sources.

which messes up the grammar. The ‘section’ wrapper template of this template passes this for param |prefix= in order to get around this:

|prefix=section of a

which does work, but it also means that you can’t really use the |prefix= param directly in this template, unless you carefully document the param value as having to be: |section of a=, |paragraph of a=, |table in a=, and so on, which is very awkward, to say the least, and also is inconsistent with how it is done in similar templates. This probably explains why the prefix param is not documented here at all, nor is it present anywhere else.

As it turns out, having left it undocumented helps us now, as although there are 7935 transclusions of this template, there is not a single one using param |prefix= directly; the only usage is in the wrapper {{BLP unreferenced section}}, where it passes the awkward phrase |prefix=section of a. This means that we can easily fix this with a breaking change that won’t actually break any live usages, because there aren’t any; the only use being the solitary case of the wrapper.

The fix has two parts: one in this template, one in the wrapper. In this template, we would drop |prefix= and add new positional param 1 instead to hold the word section and so on. Because of the wording currently in use, this is most easily implemented thus, but other ways are of course possible:

This biography of a living person {{{1|}}} does not include any references or sources.

and substituting in the scoping word would produce:

This biography of a living person section does not include any references or sources.

and the ‘article’ default would just leave it out. If desired, you could always do it differently, with wording like this instead:

This {{{1|article}}} does not include any references or sources, as required in a biography of a living person.

with article being the explicit default, and section or whatever being insertable in its place.

The other part of the fix, is to adjust the wrapper {{BLP unreferenced section}} to drop |prefix=section of a and pass |1=section instead, and we’re done. Now param |1= works just as it does everywhere else, and we can just steal the param doc from one of the other templates.

Release note: {{BLP unreferenced section}} has 7718 transclusions, and because of the breaking change issue, the most robust release method preventing even an instant of a broken wrapper appearing somewhere, is to have a three-step release sequence starting with a temporary step where {{BLP unreferenced}} has a hybrid implementation where it recognizes both param |prefix= as well as |1=. Step two: fix the wrapper; step three: come back and remove param |prefix= from this one. But this isn’t heart surgery, so I would just sandbox everything, and once we’re good, release the two sandboxes rapidly in either order, meaning there might be a few seconds of something broken that likely nobody would see. Mathglot (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]