Template talk:BLP editnotice

Template:BLP editnotice is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the BLP editnotice template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

On 10 February 2024, it was proposed that this page be moved from Template:BLP editintro to Template:BLP editnotice. The result of the discussion was moved.

Related discussions: Wikipedia:Village_pump (proposals)/Archive 43#Editnotice for all blps, MediaWiki_talk:Common.js#BLP editintro

Expiry setting

Hello. This template when used on page editnotices always displays the message that the expiry time has not been set, even in cases when it actually has been provided (e.g. Template:Editnotices/Page/Dual Survival). Is there any way to fix this? --TadejM ^{my talk} 14:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious material paragraph should link to WP:BLPREMOVE?

Seems to me we are missing the most important wikilink for the paragraph about contentious material. We should link that term to WP:BLPREMOVE. Agree? Jason Quinn (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and my two changes to wikilinks related to this. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. – robertsky (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Following the improvements discussed in MediaWiki talk:Common.js#Removing magic editintros and Template talk:Editnotices/Namespace/Main#Interface-protected edit request on 6 February 2024, these templates are now loaded as regular WP:EDITNOTICEs rather than as editintros (which are generally used in preloads). – SD0001 (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems reasonable. Galobtter (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suppresses link to Page notice

When this template is added to an article via the Living persons category it suppresses the link to that article's Page notice. (When it is added manually to the Page notice, it works fine - it's just the automatic addition that creates the problem.) If wanting to edit the Page notice there is a workaround of temporarily deleting the Living persons category, making the edit, and then restoring the category. But it would be more useful if the link wasn't suppressed in the first place. Anyone know how to fix this? SilkTork (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: Also noticing this, have you figured a workaround out by chance? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EggRoll97. Yes, the workaround is to temporarily remove the Living persons category from the article page, save, then, when you go back in, the Page notice link is restored, so you can make the edit. When finished you can return the Living persons category to the article page. SilkTork (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing this same issue. My workaround is to navigate to Template:Editnotices/Page/PAGENAME to create or edit the editnotice. Pinging template creator and primary contributor Cenarium, any way to fix this issue? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One option could be something like

<div class="sysop-show templateeditor-show pagemover-show" style="text-align:right;font-size:90%">[[Template:Editnotices/Page/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Create additional editnotice]]</div>

at the bottom of the template. This would give a link to people with the technical ability to create an editnotice, but otherwise not display. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it Tamzin. SilkTork (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm no longer active, but I've briefly looked into the matter. The way the BLP editintro gets loaded has been changed following this discussion. You may want to ask around at Module:Mainspace editnotice. Cenarium (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a more general issue not restricted to just BLP editnotice. Even pages with the TFA editnotice don't have the Page notice link now. – SD0001 (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A random look at other editnotices on Category:Editnotice templates, and it appears that those notices which are placed manually are fine, while BLP editnotice and TFA editnotice added by bot (or transcluded?) are causing problems. SilkTork (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, BLP and TFA notices get added through namespace notice at Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main – which is also the place where the fix likely needs to be made. Might want to move the discussion to that talk page for visibility. – SD0001 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note there. SilkTork (talk) 08:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 13 June 2024

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

The first paragraph ends saying "see WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB". I propose to change it to "see Avoid self-published sources and Using the subject as a self-published source". It's the same links, but written in natural language rather than Wikipedian jargon. Cambalachero (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to the spirit of the request. I think we should alert editors that they are not being sent to article space by saying something indicative like "see Wikipedia's guidelines on self-published sources and using the subject as a self-published source". – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jonesey95's wording. SilkTork (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me also – and I especially like piping the present shortcuts with that wording (I've had a love/hate relationship with redirects for a long time now, mostly love tho'). So yeah, I think both editors Jonesey95 & Cambalachero have hit on something good here! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]