Template talk:BLP IMDb refimprove

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Film: American

	Film portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

This template was considered for deletion on 1 May 2010. The result of the discussion was "nomination withdrawn".

This template was considered for deletion on 1 November 2011. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

This template was considered for deletion on 4 June 2012. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Discussion of possible merger

Discussion of possible merger of the "BLP IMDB refimprove" and "BLP IMDB-only refimprove" templates with the main BLP refimprove template should probably happen at Template talk:BLP sources. This idea was discussed at wt:URBLP and in the ddeltion nomination that just closed. Implementing a merger would be a matter of programming; a merger should be invisible to the user. --doncram (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critical review

"Talk about high and mighty. The Wikipedia entry on Jason O'Mara says IMDB "may not be a reliable source for biographical information"." - cultural anthropologist Grant McCracken. 86.45.130.239 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

IMDb

The database is now, and has always been, called the IMDb, not the IMDB. Varlaam (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from The-Pope, 5 September 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This template incorrectly places all these "referenced by IMDb articles" into the Category:All articles lacking sources cat, which is actually primarily used by articles with {{unreferenced}}. It should be in Category:All articles lacking reliable references. Please change the code from

}}
{{DMCA|BLP articles lacking sources|from|{{{date|}}}}}
{{DMCA|Articles lacking reliable references|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles lacking sources}}
{{#ifeq:{{{only|}}}|yes|{{DMCA|Articles sourced only by IMDb|from|{{{date|}}}}}|{{DMCA|Articles sourced by IMDb|from|{{{date|}}}}}}}

to:

}}
{{DMCA|BLP articles lacking sources|from|{{{date|}}}}}
{{DMCA|Articles lacking reliable references|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles lacking reliable references}}
{{#ifeq:{{{only|}}}|yes|{{DMCA|Articles sourced only by IMDb|from|{{{date|}}}}}|{{DMCA|Articles sourced by IMDb|from|{{{date|}}}}}}}

The-Pope (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would suggest using the existing category and subcategories of Category:Articles lacking reliable references. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I want, but Category:Articles lacking reliable references should only have subcats, not articles. {{DMCA|Articles lacking reliable references|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles lacking reliable references}} does it correctly, {{DMCA|Articles lacking reliable references|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles reliable sources}} doesn't. The-Pope (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(And I just noticed I used "reliable sources" not "reliable references" in my initial request, sorry about that!) The-Pope (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've made the change you have requested. Sorry for the delay! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Alpha Quadrant, 1 November 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add {{mfd}} to the top of the template, as I nominated the template for deletion. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Anomie ⚔ 18:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from C3F2k

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add {{Template:tfd}} on top of the template, as I have nominated the template for deletion. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 18:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please link the words "reliable source" to Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, which explains why IMDb is unreliable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be something of an WP:EGG? You wouldn't necessarily expect the words "reliable source" to link to "Wikipedia:Citing IMDb", as "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources" would be a more natural target. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I've added the piped link to "may not be a reliable source", instead, to avoid the easter egg effect Martin mentioned. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could this template support a parameter living=no? Currently neither this nor Template:Film IMDb refimprove offers a comfortable wording for biographies of deceased persons. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if they're dead then BLP no longer applies and this template would not be appropriate. Bazj (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazj: WP:RS and WP:CITINGIMDB still apply and a template pointing that out would be appropriate. Alas, this one is worded for BLP, Template:Film IMDb refimprove is worded for films, - and Template:Unreliable sources allows for no custom wording. IMDb references can be a significant WP:RS problem in many biographies of deceased persons and currently there is no template that can be used to tag that. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 21:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Finnusertop: I've placed your suggested parameter in the sandbox, and that version may be viewed on the testcases page. Does that meet your need? Painius 04:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Painius: Yes - other than the fact that the words "biographical article" still link to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There probably shoulnd't be any link in these words. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 13:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Finnusertop: I think it's better to keep a link, especially for contributors who are less familiar with BLP. I've modified the link for when |living=no is used; then it will link to WP:BDP, which explains that BLP may still apply to non-living persons under certain conditions. If that is agreeable then I'll engage it. Painius 14:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Painius: Yes, that sounds great. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and I'll take a look at the other template, too. Painius 18:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 12 February 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the link from the Wikipedia article defamation to Wikipedia:Libel as that pertains more to Wikipedia's policies. Thank you! <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 14 June 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add |removalnotice = yes inside the {{ambox}} template. Many of the other maintenance templates contain this and this one should be the same. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_131#Implementing_Help:Maintenance_template_removal.

Omni Flames (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"All" tracking subcategory

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please modify this template to additionally populate the subcategory "Category:All articles sourced by IMDb", as with Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability. —swpb^T 15:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: I put your suggestion in the template sandbox for now. Several things: as the creator of Category:All articles sourced by IMDb, 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 template that will populate the new category is this one, {{BLP IMDb refimprove}}, per the request. The specified project talk pages have been duly notified. —swpb^T 13:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:35, 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]

Re: The above request: Please weigh in at Template_talk:BLP_sources#New_comments

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

Edit request by Compassionate727

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace

[[{{#ifeq: {{{living}}}|no|WP:BDP|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons}}|{{{prefix|}}} biographical {{#if:{{{suffix|{{{1|}}}}}}|{{{suffix|{{{1}}}}}}|article}}]]

with

{{[[{{#ifeq:{{{living}}}|no|WP:BDP|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons}}|{{#ifeq:{{{living}}}|no|biography of a recently-deceased person|biography of a living person}}]]

in order to clarify that this template is meant to be applied only to biographies of living persons, not all biographies. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please obtain consensus that this change is needed. Also you have removed the suffix and prefix parameters, possible not intentionally? Please sandbox and test any changes using Template:BLP IMDb refimprove/sandbox. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: Bellezzasolo raised the same concerns at {{BLP primary sources}}. The intention that this template be used on BLPs is fairly clear when you compare it to other BLP specific templates, especially as this template both links to the biographies of living persons policy and uses BLP in the template's name. The change was also made to {{BLP sources}}, {{More footnotes}} and {{No footnotes}} a couple of years ago without controversy.

As for the removal of |suffix=, it was indeed intentional. A couple of years ago I had a conversation with another template editor, JJMC89, in which we concluded that we didn't think anyone actually uses |suffix=. We verified this at {{BLP sources}} a couple of years ago, when we added a tracking category and found the exact number of uses to be zero.

My experience holds that |prefix= is also unused, though I cannot speak for certain, because I can't think of any reason why you would use it. We can add a tracking category for both parameters before deprecating, if you prefer, but there shouldn't be opposition to doing so if they're unused. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I made some tweaks to the sandbox and deployed. Hope it's okay — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed. Thanks! —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC of potential interest

An RfC is underway that could affect this template and may therefor be of interest to watchers of this page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding Twinkle maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]