User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions with User:WereSpielChequers. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Home

Bling

Content

Userboxen

Editcount

Talk

Guestbook

Email

Archives

Big Events
2007 & 2008
2009, deletion 2009
2010, deletion 2010
My Badz
FAC Reviews, NEWT
Autoreview and Rollback
Article Rescue Squadron & BLP projects

This is where I archive 2010 threads that are mainly about Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron & BLP projects.

Would you like to be a featured editor in the next WP:Article Rescue Squadron newsletter?

I was hoping to interview two editors for the next Article Rescue Squadron newsletter. I have already interviewed a new editor, Teeninvestor but was hoping to interview an experienced admin.

Here is the interview from our first issue to give you an idea of what it is like:

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Article_Rescue_Squadron/Newsletter/20090901/Interview

Would you like to be a feature editor interviewed for the next issue? As an admin who was so influential with WP:NEWT, I think other editors hear your experiences.

I could e-mail you the questions, or we could make a special page on wiki for the questions.

Let me know as soon as you log in next.

Ikip 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, but what is the deadline for your next issue? Ϣere SpielChequers 00:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No deadline, just waiting for Feyd to write his section about references. The last issue was in late September. would you like the question on wiki, or via e-mail? Ikip 01:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

On Wiki would be fine. But I have a couple of unfinished projects that I'm trying to finish in the next few days. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, as you find time. I think you will enjoy talking about yourself, as much as other editors enjoy listening. I find this section the most interesting and fun to do.

Here are some initial questions:

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Article_Rescue_Squadron/Newsletter/20091001/Interview2

Ikip 17:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finishing. I will let you know what happens next. Ikip 03:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was wonderful. I love your new fascinating and useful additions. I was initially thinking of including more questions, but your latest additions have made the interview complete.

There has been a lot of questions about CSD before on the WP:Article Rescue Squadron talk page.

Many wikiprojects have sub-projects. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force is a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations

I strongly encourage you to create: WP:Article Rescue Squadron/New pages patrol and I mentioned this suggestion on the talk page too Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#WP:Article_Rescue_Squadron.2FNew_pages_patrol

Again, thank you for the incredible interview, your dedication to the project and your intelligence really shined through in that interview. :) Ikip 06:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "delete new unsourced BLP" idea

It seems that your alternative suggestion (diff) got lost in the noise. If you propose it elsewhere, please let me know, thanks. - Pointillist (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Tis expanded and done.See ~~Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Another Alternative.2C close the stable door. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)~~ Below:

Biographies brainstorming

Can you move your proposal from the village pump to the Requests for comment? It would help centralize discussion enormously. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

OK tis done Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people#View By WereSpielChequers Ϣere SpielChequers 17:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for the quick response. :-) Things are shaping up nicely so far. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Wikipedia Motivation Award
		The Motivation Barnstar is awarded to users who do wonders in motivating other Wikipedians Thank you for all of your hard work in promoting wikiproject Article Rescue Squadron, it was a pleasure to work with you. Keep up the good work when I am gone. I can't repeat this enough your incredible work on WP:NEWT was so very inspirational. Maybe the three of you who where featured in issue number two could do issue number three in my absence. Ikip 08:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Undeleted

Ok. Got sources for that batch. Need a break now and will ask for more later. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Could you undelete also Christina Dieckmann and Eudaldo Forment? Thanks, JoshuaZ (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Coffee is bullying and threatening an editor about removing PROD tags

As an admin can you look at this please? I message a couple of other admins too. User_talk:Power.corrupts#Warning. Ikip 05:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've got real life distractions this weekend and am not available to jump into that one as I don't expect to be online much. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, understood, I spend way to much time online myself. Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 23:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

	The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
	Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue \| Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

thank you

Thanks for removing the 5 indefs from the article rescue squadron member list. I strived so hard after the delivery of the last newsletter to make sure that these mistakes did not happen again, but I guess editor names change, people leave, and people get banned.

I appreciate your continued diligence . Ikip

Thank you

thank you again for your help with the template. Thanks for inspiring me to do this. Ikip 02:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP discussion

I think I sort of agree. Some of the unsourced BLPs are about notable people where the author did not understand the need to give sources, but it can take a fair amount of work to track down sources, a lot of effort goes into debates in AfD, and meanwhile the list of unsourced (and often non-notable) articles keeps growing. A practical problem is an article on Jim Johnson, Artist (I am making up this name). Google gives 89,300 results, but are any of them about this particular Jim Johnson? I have fixed up quite a lot of unsourced bios, and would never nominate an article for deletion without looking for sources - if I knew how to nominate an article for deletion. But given the growing size of the problem and difficulty of finding sources, I can sympathize with editors who take a "guilty unless proven innocent" approach. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aymath. I suspect we have a range of perceptions of the problem here. Before the recent deletions our total number of articles was over 3.1 million and growing at about a thousand a day. Before User:DASHBot started reminding people there were 50,000 unreferenced BLPs - it's way to soon to see the effect of that as the bot is still informing authors (as of yesterday It had informed 14,400 and still had 3,000 to go). My understanding of the situation is that we have higher standards now than we had in the past, overall quality is rising but there are some who would like to see it rise faster, and many articles that were considered OK three or four years ago are now rightly seen as inadequate - not because they have degraded in the meantime but because standards have risen. a similar process is operating on our best articles, the standards at wp:FAC are way higher now than they once were, and old FA articles are being delisted because their pictures don't have alt text or in very old cases they don't have sufficient inline citation. So yes "the problem" is growing, but only because the standard that we now expect of articles is currently rising faster than the average standard of our articles, and there are taggers identifying old problems that we have sat unnoticed for long periods of time. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not have that background - have only been editing actively for a bit over a year. It makes sense. I suppose I am towards the inclusionist end of the spectrum, but accept that bios of living people have to be carefully sourced because of the risk of damage. I assume the problem will sort itself out. Most of these articles are probably marginal in the sense that the subjects are not "highly notable", or they would have sources by now. And an article can always be recreated. I have been plugging away doing bios of Nigerian politicians - state governors, senators and federal ministers - who seem clearly notable in the sense that they must have had a lot of newspaper coverage during their tenure even if it is not all online. In three or four cases, I found I was recreating articles that had been previously deleted. That does not bother me particularly. My guess is that the old versions were typical puffy auto-bios, or perhaps attacks, and the new ones, while less complete, are at least well sourced and a better basis for expansion. I find it hard to feel passionately that all existing unsourced bios should be kept and fixed up, or that they should all be deleted. The end result will be the same - well-sourced bios for most notable people. Thanks for the feedback. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If an earlier article has been deleted it is often worth checking if there is something worth restoring - of course this depends on the reason for deletion. There are also occasions when multiple people have the same name or when someone was deleted as not notable but has since been elected to high office. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

History

Thanks for the clarification. I think the history is interesting and relevant. The BLP deletions that followed the stymied test may not have been a coordinated part of the original "experiment" but certainly seems to have followed on that effort. And both were instigated and supported amidst the same off-wiki venue discussions. I'm not sure exactly what the defensiveness about the Wikipedia Review connection is all about, except that people tend to be defensive here about lots of things and I guess there is some animus among some editors to Wikipedia Review as an "attack site". I don't have anything against Wikipedia Review and I think it's an important discussion forum. I also think it exposes some serious issues and failings of our community that are worth addressing. Anyway, is the outcome going to be some sort of prod? The irony of ironies as far as I'm concerned is that there is no connection between whether content violates BLP guidelines and whether it's sourced or not. Putting something like WereSpielChequers is a jerk in one article that doesn't have any references and WereSpielChequers is a jerk and throw in another article with bogus cite at the end doesn't seem to make much difference except that in the latter example people might assume that the statement is based on someing in the source indicated. Anyway, cheerios. I'm rambling, so it must be time to do other things! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you might very well think that, but I couldn't possibly comment. I don't have a problem with talking to genuine critics of wikipedia, provided they have coherent views and are prepared to talk rather than lecture. But I'm not really interested in wasting my time on trolls, and I disapprove of the outing and child abuse associated with some of those badsites. Some wikipedians who I respect are active on wikipedia review, so though its not for me I don't condemn all those who venture there, but I have been warned that they track IP addresses of visitors and one or more of the people associated with it has been involved in outing editors. I agree that its ironic that the current furore on old unsourced BLPs is distracting people from worse problems elsewhere; MZMcBride did at least have a good point that unwatched BLPs are potentially vulnerable and if his little experiment had been an audit to see what proportion of these already contained libel then I would have been much more sympathetic. As it is I have my suspicions that finding problems in these was much more difficult than those involved would like to admit, which is possibly why the MZMcBride experiment degenerated into BLP vandalism. I don't agree with you that the irony of ironies was that the lack of overlap between unreferenced BLPs and genuine problems, I think that the irony of ironies was that User:DASHBot was 14,400 messages into gently chiding the 17,400 authors of these articles when the same articles started being deleted without any other warning. Naturally some of the editors assumed that the two were related, and DASHBot paused.... So this initiative to supposedly improve our BLP articles by deleting them caused a temporary halt to a very big improvement drive that was running on those very same 50,000 unsourced BLPs.

There are errors and attacks in Wikipedia, though in my experience the worst ones are not in unsourced BLPs. We do need interesting ways to ferret out problems on Wikipedia, but in my view the current kerfuffle is a distraction that is hindering rather than helping the improvement of Wikipedia. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Click here to
automatically
add this project
to your
watchlist

Hi WereSpielChequers/Archive 11, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

>> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Ikip, but I'm afraid you need to broaden this invite to everyone before I'd feel comfortable accepting it. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

broaden, just forgot to let you know! Ikip 04:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ikip, I'll check it out. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your feed back

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#View_by_Hobit thank you! Ikip 18:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you, I responded, really appreciate you responding, and looking forward to more input. Ikip 20:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted BLPs userification request.

Hello. Could you undelete these pages to my userspace for me? I have sources to add.

--Apoc2400 (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done the first two - no need to move to your userspace if you are going to work on them in the next 24 hours. The third was deleted by an admin I haven't dealt with and I first need to check they are OK to have their deletions reverted the same way as Scott's. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take care of those now. Peripitus didn't object when I asked to have some other articles restores. Now, can I also ask for this bunch:

--Apoc2400 (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How many can you reference in 24 hours? Sorry to be bureaucratic about this, but the compromise we've agreed to avoid wheelwaring involves only restoring these for very prompt referencing, more details at wp:SJR. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have the sources ready at User:Apoc2400/Deletion_list#9. Is it more work to restore them to my user space? I suppose there would be less hurry in that case. Please tell me if you are busy, there are others I can ask. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to restore them as fast as you can reference them - but I would like to know how fast as I don't want to be the one who breaches the truce that ended the wheelwarring that these deletions lead to. I'm not keen on userfying bios to people's userspace as you lose the wiki benefits of collaborative editing, and you have to take out the categories (PS done one more as one of the first four is now referenced). Ϣere SpielChequers 22:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would move them back within a couple of days at the latest. I have noticed that when I have something restored, somebody else often adds sources before I get to add mine, because they shows up as the oldest unreferenced BLPs. I will keep working on them right now, and if you log of I will ask an other admin to take over. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm ready for more. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks is David Baynton-Power as sourced as you can get it? Ϣere SpielChequers 23:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As sourced as I was planning to. Anything you think needs verification? User:JamieS93 is working on this article too. I really don't want to get you into any trouble over this, so it's fine if you don't want to be responsible for more. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well its not so much worry about getting into trouble as wanting these rescues done to a certain standard, and without provoking another wave of mass deletions. There's also the issue of whether these people are in fact notable, and if we can't find third party references then one suspects they aren't. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if I cannot find any sources, then I don't ask to have the article restored. Some of these I asked for are questionably notable, but I was at least able to verify the central facts. Ready for more, btw. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

BLPN-RfC etc etc

Hello-- Wanted to give a personal thanks for adding me in your edit summary in midst of the section I added since it made it really easy for me to pick a starting point. This is good, but I'm also glad in general that discussion pace has picked up. I'm entirely in agreement on process to clean up some of the creation process problems and I can't think of anything you didn't already mention. The page creator in particular really bugs me and it requires Huggle to get listed as new and discovery by coding fluke isn't a good enforcement. Also need it for catching userspace creations that end up in the same trouble areas. Thanks again! ♪ daTheisen (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your inspiring idea realized

	The Unreferenced living persons contest
	Please help us build this contest. Your suggestions are warmly welcome. >> Sign up now. <<

RE: Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Scoring#Unreferenced_BLPs

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Unreferenced_Biographies_of_Living_Persons/Contest

Would appreciate your input and help. Okip (formerly Ikip) 09:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: [1] Doesn't this tag keep the article on the Category:Unreferenced BLPs if not, GREAT JOB and thanks! Okip ^{BLP Contest} 12:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No it's a separate category. Hence my suggestion at BLP RFC II that we have at least a one year moratorium before deciding what if anything to do about the backlog there. A few weeks ago I was loathe to suggest a trawl through the ones tagged as unreferenced simply to correct the tag, I'm now shifting my ground as I think that getting the tags correct is better communication to the contributors and more likely to get the article improved. tagging an article as unreferenced when it links to a professors page at their university is simply incorrect to the point of being confusing. Tagging it with {{primarysources}} and refimproveBLP spells out what we want done to improve the article. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/Contest

Hi, The contest has been revamped and I would welcome your input. Also, I hope you plan on participating. J04n(talk page) 02:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP discussion

Hi WereSpielChequers/Archive 11! If there is any consensus at at all, it is that the entire discussion has become a tangled confusion, and as a result both proponents and opponents of the issues under discussion are abandoning ship. None of us want this. It is still not clear which way consensus will fall and your contributions to the discussion are invaluable. However, In an attempt to keep the policy discussion on an even track, some users have decided to start the ball rolling for clarity by creating a special workshop pages. The first of these is for the technical development of a template at WT:BLP PROD TPL in case policy is decided for it . The taskforce pages are designed keep irrelevant stuff off the policy discussion and talk page, and help a few of us to move this whole debate towards a decision of some kind or another. The pages will be linked in a way that watchers will still find their way to them. This move is not intended to influence any policy whatsoever; It is to keep the discussion pages focussed on the separate issues. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prod workshop

Re your recent comment, please see Wikipedia talk:Sticky Prod workshop#"Stage managed" and "railroaded". Maurreen (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was gracious of you. I'll try to slow down my management and warn people of what I have in mind and why. Maurreen (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Uncategorized and unreferenced biographies of living people

You might be interested: Uncategorized and unreferenced biographies of living people (configuration). Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks that's very useful, are you planning on keeping it updated, and if so how often? Ϣere SpielChequers 12:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It'll update weekly. The user who requested the report also brainstormed about applying the same concept to all articles, not just pages in Category:All unreferenced BLPs. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case I'll blank the ones I've done, that should avoid confusion. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you help advertise this new bot?

There is a new bot which I requested and Tim created:

Possibly around 20% of articles tagged as unreferenced BLPs have references This bot lists 300 articles, tagged as an unreferenced BLP, which have 5 or more references.

The bot information is here: [2]

I am asking two other editors to advertise this, and will post it on active BLP policy pages and projects. Please help get the word out for this new tool.

Thanks. Okip 02:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that Okip, but I doubt anyone would delete those at present - so I'm concentrating on getting articles categorised to bring them to the attention of projects. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Database reports

I noticed you've been doing some work here, do these reports need to be updated manually? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Bernstein Bot refreshes the list once a week. I've not yet done more than a fraction, but I sometimes remove the ones I've done so far to make it more manageable. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 15:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride mentioned that he'd had two people request this, were you the other one? Ϣere SpielChequers 15:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Most likely not, but what request are you referring to? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 15:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

this Ϣere SpielChequers 15:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No that wasn't me. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 15:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prod

In reply to your query, others have started using it, so I'm sure you can too. It's only through usage that the final wrinkles will be ironed out, particularly regarding what kind of source is needed. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

SV, nice to see you echoing the words of my post - I take it as a compliment ;) --Kudpung (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, but it seems there are still objections to my resuming tagging, and the proposal is at best unstable with even some of the basics being reopened, so I'm going to holdback for now as I've already taken part in one false start on this and don't want to repeat that mistake. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

BLPPROD MFD

I don't see threats and ultimatums as very productive. We don't delete policies at MFD anyway. On a more positive note, go check out Kingpin's suggestion for a notification bot, that might satisfy both notification camps while leaving it technically optional. Gigs (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Things seem to have swung back to a policy I can support so I don't need to know how one does delete a policy for now. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prod

That's fine, I just randomly discovered the actual template was life by guessing at what it may be called and trying to insert it into an appropriate article. If the Twinkle mod ever actually goes live I'll be using that. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

the imdb templates

Hi. I think I get the gist of what you and the others are up to here, but am concerned that you're sending a wrong message. I look right by imdb in extern sections and at the foot of infoboxes, and if I see it used in a ref-tag, I'm inclined to replace it with citation-needed. Nothing in an extern section counts as a reference because it amounts to a vague waving of 'imdb' (or whatever) over the entire article. And imdb in a proper ref section is borderline fraudulent; it gives the appearance of sourcing. This happens other ways, too, such as plot details being cited to an episode. Frankly, we should blacklist imdb and Wikipedia from ref sections and have a bot cut them all, leaving fresh tags in its wake. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If IMDB was blacklisted then bot removal of all IMDB links would be a solution to the IMDB issue, but it would need to be accompanied by proper communication with the editors involved. Also I think it would be sensible for wikipedia to liaise with IMDB first, my understanding is that they have some verification, but I'm not sure either what their actual quality level is or what our acceptable error rate is for an external site; If they were simply a user generated content site then surely they would already have been blacklisted? Have they had a siegenthaler type incident, or worse caused one here?

In any event I would hope that regardless of how little trust we want to put in IMDB, we should all be able to agree that identifying IMDB sourced articles enables us to handle them appropriately and communicate with their authors more effectively. In my opinion the previous dialogue of us simply saying that these articles were unsourced, and the author and readers looking at an "unsourced" template on an IMDB sourced article was not effective communication. I hope that the new template will help wean some of our editors off IMDB and prompt them to use better sources. Ϣere SpielChequers 05:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I see large numbers of editors for whom any url at all will do. And imdb is one of the worst. These low caliber sites make huge reams of inappropriate material difficult to sort because they have a surface patina of proper form. Too many just count the number of "refs" wo/regard to what they are. I'm not sure where the state of the discussion re imdb really is; it's been going on for years and will, of course continue. See my more recent comment at the TfD; these templates have poor names that imply that imdb is a source. In my view, it simply isn't, and no amount of links off to there will serve to raise an article into the realm of 'sourced'.

I certainly see value in categorising pages using imdb, and prolly some other known to be problematic sites, such as iafd. It does seem that there are good intentions here and I'll certainly consider withdrawing the TfDs after I go read the discussion the led to this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are editors out there who have yet to understand the difference between a reliable source and a link to an unreliable site. But in my opinion the wiki jargon that some use of describing poorly sourced articles as unsourced is part of the problem here. Though if IMDB screen credit information is indeed kosher then our template message needs to be more along the lines of where IMDB can be used and where it needs to be replaced with a reliable source. I think that much of the problem is that though we have templates like {{primarysources}} and {{Selfpublished}}, too many taggers are treating it as a binary sourced v unsourced issue rather than getting the right template to explain what is wrong with an article. Perhaps my perspective is different here, I've only been editing three years, and I started off fixing typos and adding stuff I knew from books, so it may be as little as two years ago that I blundered into the whole is unsourced the same as poorly sourced mess. I suspect that if my first interest had been film or tv I'd probably have had the same short and problematic wiki career as many well intentioned newbies have. Anyway if you accept that it is worthwhile to have specific IMDB templates, please go to Template talk:BLP IMDB refimprove and say how you would like to improve them, rather than try to delete them. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP IMDB-only refimprove

What a great tag. (This is new, is it not?) There's been a lot of good work happening on the BLP side, it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very new. I think in an ideal world we should have resolved the issue of how reliable IMDB is and which parts are user generated and which are kosher before getting the tag, but the advantage of templates is that they, and the things they link to can be improved. It also means that the next DashBot message about unreferenced articles won't go to so many people who consider their articles to be referenced, and we can send a separate message explaining why IMDB is a problematic source. I think we are ready for a signpost article on the various BLP initiatives, and in the next few weeks I hope to launch something that could be much bigger - and is now in alpha testing. Ϣere SpielChequers 06:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great. I think it would be great if BLP IMDB-only refimprove could be added to the article maintenance pull-down menu for automated tagging: it would certainly boost usage of this template. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Help with {{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}}

Hey there WereSpielChequers, I saw you were taking part in the effort to tag BLPs with IMDB as its only reference with {{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}}. I am making a list right now of BLPs where IMDB is the only reference, and do not already have the tag. When it saves, it will save here. It should be done in a few minutes. Hopefully it helps. Tim 1357 ^talk 02:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it could take a lot longer. I really have no idea. :) Tim 1357 ^talk 02:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's done. There are 10,168 in all. (Note: When you view the list in your browser, the unicoode gets all messed up. I suggest downloading the .txt file if you want to use this list.) Tim 1357 ^talk 03:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prod

Hi WSC - thanks for cleaning up here. One question though, do EL qualify as references? The reason I added the tag was because it had no REFs that I could see (even the primary sources didn't substantiate any real claims on the page). Thanks for the feedback. 7 09:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If a newbie creates an article with an external link section but not a reference section then yes I would tend to check those links to see if they are the article sources. I had to click once or twice in each of those sites to get to his bio, but yes they do support his age and occupation, though of course one needs third party sources to establish notability. The Sticky prod is a weird and wondrous beasty that was born from an RFC started by a group of editors who were concerned about totally unsourced BLPs, and frankly it was a bit of a compromise between deletionists and others. As standards continue to rise on Wikipedia then I think that at some point we may want to review and broaden the criteria for sticky prods, but I can see several easier and bigger wins that I'd like to see come first (easier in that they will be less contentious and bigger in that they will improve the pedia far more for the amount of editor time they take up). Ϣere SpielChequers 10:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that makes sense. 7 12:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Project Tagging

Hey! I've noticed that you tag a lot of articles with their appropriate project templates and I was wondering how you do it. Is there an add-on like Twinkle that lets you search for and easily add project templates? I usually end up lookinf for a suitable and lowest sub group of a project then trying to figure out what the code is for the project's template. It takes me a while and I'm looking for a faster way to do it. Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated. OlYeller^Talktome 04:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi OlYeller21, Nothing quite so high tec I'm afraid, though I've been thinking of approaching the writers of wp:Friendly. I'm building up a list at User:WereSpielChequers/Templates, which you are welcome to use. I keep it open in one pane and copy it, paste it into the talkpages, then cut it back or adapt it to cover where the person is from and what they clam to be notable for. I'm pretty sure that all US States and most countries can be done with {{WikiProject Name}} except the US state of Georgia, and some African and Central American countries. Though I have had to create a few templates, when I come across an African or central American country without a Project I create a redirect to Africa, Caribbean or Central America (this means that in future whenever any of those countries split from their regional project they can turn the redirect into their tag and they will already have a bunch of tagged articles). So far the only areas I've been stumped by are traditional as opposed to American Pro wrestlers, and miscellaneous Americans where there isn't one obvious state to link them to (I tend to assume with the USA and Britain that you need to have done something for the country to be of interest to the national project, otherwise we'd simply bury those projects). Also, remember redirects are cheap, if a project doesn't already have WikiProject Name but only has WPNAME or WP Name then a redirecting template can't hurt and can be easier than remembering the one they use. Another thing I do is have a separate pane open to track down projects - usually looking for the main article for that sport or academic discipline will get you there. Hope that helps. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Your talk/panel

Dunno if you'll still need/want people to sit with you on your talk in re BLPs, but if you want an Arb chiming in I'll be in Gdansk. Just holler. — Coren ^(talk) 13:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was thinking of emailing the arbcom mailing list, but a volunteer arb is perfect. See you in Poland. Now I just need one of the deletionists. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I just have noticed that you will hold a panel around the whole unsourced BLP "drama" and i wanted to point you "old discussion" i had with Randomran in Wikimedia Strategic Planning about that subject.

Bear in mind that the whole discussion was oriented toward the return from experience and how it could be related to some Task Forces recommendations which were still under work by then. --KrebMarkt 21:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was interesting. I've rather neglected the Strategy Wiki of late, but my view is that the focus on articles that don't quote their sources is a distraction from the problems of abusive BLPs. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Can you confirm what time and location the panel will be? It's not entirely apparent from the schedule :-/ That'd be handy. :-) --15:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Its the third bit of the strategy theme Sunday afternoon 2.30 - 4pm slot- so probably 3.30 pm Ϣere SpielChequers 16:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Found it myself too. Thanks! I'm studying up. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Prod unref

Ah well. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but I guess you're right about consensus. Empty Buffer (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Empty Buffer, The idea of deleting articles simply because they are unreferenced without even attempting to reference them is still deeply controversial - some editors regard it as vandalism. Because we as a community want to raise our game re BLPs the stickyprod was introduced earlier this year for new unreferenced BLPs, but it is still controversial as to whether this should be exempt from wp:Before. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm, it seems I have much to learn about process and past history. Next time I'll ask around before creating a template, and save everyone a bit of time and effort. Thanks, Empty Buffer (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP Prod

"The BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article." Does a Blogspot blog really count as a reliable source for this purpose? Anyhow, I've sent Basilio Muhate to AfD. Fences&Windows 22:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You can only remove one by adding a reliable source, but you should only apply one to totally unsourced articles. I tried in the RFC to get this widened so that we could also sticky prod articles sourced from Myspace, Linked in, Facebook and Utube. But I don't think I got agreement even for that change. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have supported that. Maybe I missed it or it came later after I took my break and went to the UK. Is it worth dragging up again?--Kudpung (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people has kind of run into the sand and is waiting for an uninvolved admin to close it. But the issues it left unresolved will almost certainly be raised again when we next review progress on the project to reference our remaining 27,500 articles tagged as unreferenced BLPs. I suspect it will resurface in October, hopefully with some stats to cast light on the issues that divide us. Also to be fair one of the arguments for not widening this was that we should resolve the totally unsourced BLP problem before moving our focus to the poorly sourced ones. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favour of salvaging as many BLPs as possible — many articles on notable people get speedied or BLP prodded, especially those from non-English speaking countries — but I do think the lone source to remove a BLP PROD should be independent of the subject to stop vanity articles like that one having a get-out clause that pointlessly forces the use of AfD. Of course if editors merely added a PROD then these articles could be deleted (if unchallenged) even if sourced.... Fences&Windows 01:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Another idea: make PROD independent of BLP PROD, i.e. an article that has previously had a BLP PROD removed is still eligible to be PRODed if its deletion appears to be uncontroversial. BLP PROD is solely about having minimal sourcing.

A question: are people now sending articles to BLP PROD that would otherwise have been speedily deleted? Fences&Windows 01:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Fences, We are, but I don't think you'll ever know the true answer to that because the decision of the tagger is subjective. A lot of NP patrollers still don't appear to be aware of, or understand, the BLPPROD. I still tag blatant violations of policy for CSD or AfD, but that's based on other criteria. --Kudpung (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Good questions, at present the mimimum to avoid a BLPprod is a link that supports something about the subject (removing a correctly applied BLPprod requires a reliable source). There are some who want to make both tests a reliable source, which I'm uncomfortable about, that not least because while a Bio on a university website doesn't give us the third party confirmaton necessary for notability, it does protect us from libelling a Professor of business studies as an eminent sociologist - or vice versa.

I agree with the idea of allowing things that have survived a sticky prod to be subsequently prodded, and suggest you raise this in the RFC.

I'm sure there are some articles being sticky prodded that previously would have been speedied, we all make mistakes and the beauty of crowd sourcing is that smomeone else can fix those mistakes. One area where I think sticky prods work best are for the not really notable bios that assert importance but don't meet our criteria for notability, previously these were AFD material, but were frequently tagged and I suspect sometimes deleted through the speedy deletion process because though they didn't really meet the speedy deletion criteria they were obviously not going to survive AFD. Now they can be sticky prodded, and unless they are actually notable they are very unlikely to be rescued. I think that's a much better system, though not perhaps what we intended to do. Certainly when I'm going through the articles that have been sticky prodded I'm less likely to categorise or project tag an article that I don't think should survive AFD. Also we need to remember that our tags and online discussions themselves need to respect BLP, having on record that someone's biography was deleted because they weren't important or significant is close to demeaning. Having their Bio deleted because it hadn't been properly sourced is in my view more polite and respectful. That said I think it important that an admin run an early eye over these sticky prods, as well as lots of incorrect tags, I've also spotted one attack page. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WSC, I never saw that last argument before (about why BLP prod van be better than prod b/c BLP concerns), but I think it's a very interesting one, and well worth considering; I generally try to give any other reason for deletion than BLP prod if possible,or as well as VLP prod, but I need to think about this point. (we of course should make the other deletion notices as gentle as possible also) DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bill Shirley

Sorry 'bout that BLP tag. I was still working on my first cup of coffee... 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, to err is human and all that. Personally I think we are overcomplicating things and leaving a bit of a loophole by focussing on BLPs rather than Biographies of 20th and 21st century people. But I suppose the argument is that we need to focus on what pre-pubescent boys think is cool to vandalise, and being rude about someone's dead grandparents isn't "cool". BTW an understated advantage of creating an account is that you can load up WP:twinkle which makes prodding and various other things a point and click exercise. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to see every new unsourced article subject to a prod tag similar to {{prod blp}}. I think it would go a long way towards turning the place from a semi-joke into something to take semi-seriously and limit the fly-by-night editors to a dark corner of deleted articles and dashed dreams of glory. It would also probably help reduce the mounds and mounds of AFD discussions. And yeah, I know there are some really cool bennies for registering (moving pages for those who don't Understand Proper Names Are Capitalized (and other words are not) being one I the miss most), but it would eliminate my ability to be a living example of WP:IPs are human too. True, I'll lose my barnstars when my ISP changes my IP address, but those who pay attention will soon realize that they've seen my editing style before and I'm not some random noob. After all, I have been doing this for years and years. Whew, I wasn't expecting to give a whole philosophy of Wikipedia lecture. Thanks for reading, assuming you made it this far.

69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Made it thus far, I'm inclined to agree with you re requiring a source. But I think we should do it like the Germans have - inbuilt to article creation. What saddens me is the number of people we drive away because the system doesn't warn them that their first sentence can get deleted before they have time to save the second one. As for IPs, I'm aware that IP editors largely built the pedia. I think that lots of hugglers get jaundiced views of IPs because huggle keeps feeding them edits by school IPs and other formerly blocked IPs. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

blp prod where probable notability is asserted

For articles like Michael Hunt (inline hockey), or Emmanuel Clérico, where there should certainly be easy to find sources , I really think it's better to check first before tagging--in this case there certainly were sources. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi DGG, Thanks for rescuing those two, though I know we didn't entirely see eye to eye in the RFC, in my defence neither of those was exactly a hasty prodding. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed to do this earlier

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) regarding BLP-PRODing band articles. Your inputs are very much welcome.--Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 10:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP sourcing

Could you explain to me what life is like in the Magical Gumdrop Kingdom, where changing "external links" to "references" without reading said external links automatically makes the links references for the article information? I hear you have rivers of chocolate with marshmallow icebergs! Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Diffs plz, but you might also want to look at the recent RFC on these. My proposal to disallow utube, linkedin, facebook and myspace links narrowly failed to get consensus. So we are still working on the rule that if any link anywhere in the article takes you to something that supports something about the subject then BLPprod does not apply. Internal links and links that don't mention the subject can thankfully be ignored/tidied up. PS There is an internal logic - marshmallow does float in chocolate. But you need to make the chocolate very frothy or the marshmallow unusually dense, otherwise the icebergs will be mostly outside the chocolate. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry? "To be canceled, this process requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography". So again, did you actually read the sources, or did you just assume that because they were about subject X they must support clause Y? Ironholds (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's if the tag was valid in the first place. A correct tag requires a reliable source to remove it, but these tags only apply to totally unsourced new BLPs, not poorly sourced ones. Hence my unsuccessful attempt to extend it to BLPs sourced from utube, linkedin, facebook and myspace. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"To be canceled, this process requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography". Did you check the external links? Do you have any evidence that the "external links" were used as sources? Ironholds (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources are only required if the tag was correct. Yes I check links and only decline sticky prods if either they are a RS that supports someing about the individual or they were in the article before it was tagged and they support something about the individual. For example This chap is a Bolivian Footballer Ϣere SpielChequers 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Kibbitzing here, sorry, but this has been discussed on the talk page recently, see: Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 5#Are we broadening this to poorly sourced? I think we came to the consensus that the process is not symmetrical -- to place the tag correctly requires the article to be completely unsourced; to remove it requires a reliable source to be added. It might well be that the current guideline is poorly phrased, but that's what it says. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Espresso. There's also a thread on Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people about external links. in my view tagging an article for deletion because a newby has put their source in the wrong format verges on newby biting. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Refs vs Sources

Hi WSC. The creation of the sticky prod was a long drawn out and complex issue, and I for one cannot remember everything we discussed in it, and I dread the thought of trawling through it again. Don't you think User talk:Ironholds#Before and sticky prod might have a point? I do not always see eye to eye with him on many other issues, but on the surface, I would tend to agree with his semantics on this, but I'll naturally stand corrected if there's something I have missed because it would help me avoid risking making similar errors.--Kudpung (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, there seem to be several points of disagreement between me and Ironholds on this, was there any particular point where you think Ironholds might have a case? Ϣere SpielChequers 18:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, the link above to a short exchange between you says it all. I don't disagree with a single policy enhancement you have suggested. What I'm not comfortable with is the idea that any link anywhere on the page that mentions the subject is enough to prevent a BLPprod. User:Skomorokh's otherwise eloquent summing up leaves The proposal to alter the WP:BLPPROD to focus on reliability rather than bare existence of sources... met with significant support and productive discussion ... This proposal might benefit from further deliberation and refinement at the talkpage of the policy. I recently came across a posting (I can't remember where) that claimed vehemently that if there is an external link of any kind anywhere on the page, it should be considered as a reference and thus a sticky prod cannot be used at all.
You once said: a lot of taggers get confused by the prod applying to totally unsourced articles but requiring a reliable source to remove.

At WP:BLPRFC You said: The sourcing issue in contention is the test for whether a BLPprod can be applied to an article. I would like to keep the rule very clear, but to tighten it to specifically exclude four websites composed of selfpublished data: Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn and Utube. I think that would be simple and clear enough to be workable, but would also be a significant tightening of the process. DGG has other yet opinions. I kow that the current ruling states: 'totally unsourced' - the problem is, when is a link not a source 'narrowly construed' ? What I need to know is what we should actually be doing now, I would like to know if I'm interpreting the current policy correctly while I'm cleaning up the backlog of more difficult BLPs on NPP.

IMO there are too many dismissive accusations by some admins of what they perceive as bad faith tagging. Maybe we have had enough trial period now and we can reopen the debate. --Kudpung (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. The current process has the disadvantage of being complex. In my view it also has several other disadvantages, one being that we focus on BLPs to the point where I fear we lower our guard in some other areas. However it is worth remembering that the sticky prod is an additional deletion method, if you are looking at a BLP that you consider problematic then A7, G10, Prod and AFD are also possible routes. If you've made a goodfaith effort to find a reference for it then in my experience prod is a very effective route, and if that is contested without some properly sourcing it then I'd be surprised nowadays if an unreferencable BLP could survive AFD. As for sticky prods for new BLPs that have an external link - at present the acid test is whether the link supports a statement about the subject. So if the bio of someone who produced and was the solo performer of "Who's Who" the musical on the fringe at the 2010 Edinburgh Festival, then a link to Who's Who would be unlikely to name them, and if it didn't name them I'd regard a BLP prod as legit. But a link to the listing of the Edinburgh festival would either name them and their show in which case I think a sticky prod would be inappropriate, or omit them in which case I'd be tempted to do another search and then tag it as a hoax. Lastly the close of the RFC did leave room open for further discussion to seek consensus on a change to the sticky prods, I'm not particularly inclined to pursue that at the moment as my own suggestions were rebuffed and I have several other irons in the fire at the moment. But that doesn't mean someone else can't come up with a tweak to the process that could get consensus. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. That's also advice that I can pass on to others..--Kudpung (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

RE:Sticky Prods

Olá. Thanks for your explanation. That IP adress was just removing the template with no justify on summary, no use of talk page and, in fact, I didn't see no reference on those articles; they only have external links. I didn't know that a not-specifically-related-with-text 'external links' can be considered a 'source' (when you say that it was sourced you are refering to the external links, right?). Therefore, those links were included at the first edit. After that, the tag was included. Maybe the proposal was made because those links were not considered 'reliable' (they are a bit contraditory, but seems to be enough for the tag removal), which would require some explanation when untagging. Well, by reading your points, I understand your reasons and I think you are correct. If you say that only an external link is enough to avoid that kind of proposal, I'm agreed with you that the tag should be removed. Thanks again for your info.” Ţ_ęĻęŞ (T _{PT @ C G}) 19:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ola Teles, I would agree that it is an inelegant and confusing deletion route. We had an RFC on this recently and I didn't quite get consensus to broaden sticky prods to articles "sourced" from Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn and Utube. By the way are you active on the Portuguese language Wikipedia? Ϣere SpielChequers 22:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am. That's my home wiki. Why? Do you need a hand or something there?” Ţ_ęĻęŞ (T _{PT @ C G}) 10:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes please. I launched the meta:Death_anomalies_table to identify death anomalies between different language Wikipedias, there's an explanation at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-26/News and notes. So far we only have four languages getting reports out, and about 70 contributing data in. I would like to know whether PT has an equivalent root category to category:Deaths_by_year that enables us to identify people who you have as dead and EN, DE and others have as living, it would also be great if you could find some people on the Portuguese project who would be interested in working on a report of biographies on the Portuguese Wikipedia - we've used Wikipedia:Database reports/Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis to improve hundreds of EN wikipedia articles, and Merlissimo would be happy to produce reports for you guys as well. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Unfortunately, pt.wiki is poorly categorized in this matter. The category "Deaths by year" exist on pt.wiki (see pt:Categoria:Mortes por ano), but for some reason - don't ask me why - the articles were not categorized. As you can see on this category, separated lists were categorized instead (example), which probably will be a problem for bot activity. Maybe we should work first on pt.wiki by categorizing specifically each article as a requirement to start the identification of the anomalies. I don't know... what do you think?” Ţ_ęĻęŞ (T _{PT @ C G}) 19:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I see the problem. I hesitate to comment on a wikipedia in a language that I don't speak, but it seems to me that a list based approach won't scale as well as a category based one. If you were to shift to a category system then yes one advantage would be that we could include you in the death anomalies process. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I need community approval to make those changes (and some help from them). I think I should introduce this process to the rest of the pt.wiki users and see what they tell.” Ţ_ęĻęŞ (T _{PT @ C G}) 08:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, you might also want to look at the Dutch wikipedia as I believe they don't use the category system either. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your invitation is on Village pump. There's also a short explanation of the process and a request for opinion about the necessary change on our categorization. Regards.” Ţ_ęĻęŞ (T _{PT @ C G}) 16:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Turlington

I was wondering why you removed my BLPPROD from this article when nothing in it has a reference (much less a reliable one). Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well remember that the while you need to add a reliable source to remove a valid BLPprod, you can only apply one if the article is literally unsourced. I don't know anything about wordpress but when we last reviewed the BLPprod I wasn't able to get consensus to disregard Myspace, Utube, Linkedin or Facebook. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation about placing the BLPPROD and, quoting from WP:BLPPROD--"To be canceled, this process requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography. Do not remove the "prod blp" until the biography has at least one such source." I don't believe there is a reliable source, since the page you mentioned is for the organization he's wrestling for (or was at the time). Did you also intend to remove the notability tag someone had placed on the article? Papaursa (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup a valid BLPprod needs a reliable source to remove it. But its only valid to apply a BLPprod if its an unsourced BLP, not a poorly sourced one. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wordpress® is a free, open source blog software solution. It can be subscribed to and used online, for people who have ther own web server or hosting, can download it to their server as a stand-alone web app. I use it on my serer for my own blog. It's an easy way of making a personal web page, thus, 'self published' sources. --Kudpung (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

OK well clearly not a reliable source then, but as I said sticky prod is not for poorly sourced articles. That sounds as bad as Myspace, and my proposal to extend sticky prod to articles sourced from myspace didn't get consensus. As for notability "Intercontinental Heavyweight Title for kickboxing and a World Title for Thaiboxing" means either he is notable or its a hoax. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

More mass produced BLP.

Hi WSC. Please take a look at this (unresoved)if you have a moment. It concerns around 460 potentially non notable, very poorly sourced Danish BLP stubs that are possibly being submitted by a bot, and another 19 submitted in the last 72 hours. I have been told that most admins do not consider it a matter for concern. If that is indeed the case, I am surprised, but I will let it drop. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked by another admin late last night. Sorry to have bothered you. --Kudpung (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. As happened with the guy with a similar name to you, he turned out to be known to another admin. The more I come across incidents like this the more I see the folly of ideas like term limits to get rid of experienced admins and "to many admins" arguments to limit our numbers. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Untagged uBLPs

I've recently been working on Leon Mestel, and I was wondering why that had been untagged. When I found it, it was like this. The external link in that version is currently dead, and I'm not sure whether it broke or changed name. Any ideas about that, or why some articles are not being picked up? Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth, that was created in 2005 which is well before I started on Wikipedia, but I gather that sourcing requirements were rather less stringent in those days. I suppose the Internet archives might indicate whether this was originally linked to the university site or was already a deadlink. It was created by an IP editor so if NPP was going in those days it would have gone through NPP as IPs can't be autopatrollers. In this particular case just with a quick skim it looks like a typically harmless unreferenced BLP that you have now nicely referenced. There will be more such out there, and as most of our articles are sourced from online sources ultimately most articles will degrade that way if not maintained. Once the link went dead it became part of an "unknown unknown" problem group of unidentified and untagged uBLPs. One of my concerns about the fixation of certain people on the articles tagged as uBLPs is that it is illogical to be more concerned about articles that a tagger has looked and decided to tag as uBLP rather than G10, as opposed to the unknown number of articles that contain an unknown number of BLP problems, and haven't had a tagger run an eye over them tag some for deletion and the rest as uBLPs..

If we were prioritising BLP work on the basis of minimising risk, then doing some sort of audit of the old articles to make sure we have identified all the old unreferenced BLPs like this would in my view be one of several projects that would get a higher priority than targetting the articles tagged as uBLPs.

Ϣere SpielChequers 09:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hoping that the university page itself might also be on the internet archive, but I always struggle to find pages on that site. Anyway, I have some more information to add to that article, which I'll do today. What I was wondering was whether previous 'sweeps' to find old uBLPs would have missed this one for some reason. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how all the various sweeps work. One I do know about looks at articles that are tagged as unreferenced and categorised as living people, and that would only have picked up this one if someone had spotted that the link was dead and tagged the article as unreferenced. As far as I'm aware that is the biggest single source of newly identified old uBLPs. I suspect we may also have people looking at such groups as articles without external links, but one of the reasons why I regard it as a mistake to prioritise known uBLPs is that we have an unknown number of untagged uBLPs out there and we can't predict how many will be found in any one month. If someone was to find six thousand this month we should be celebrating that as some useful work done rather than castigating the uBLP cleanup squad for failing to keep up with that months findings of old uBLPs.

Also I think it important to think of the search for unidentified old unreferenced BLPs as a number of queries for likely prospects rather than systematic sweeps through the whole pedia to identify them all. In other words there could be lots more out there just like this was. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) However many sweeps we run there will still be plenty of these around, basically because there's no easy way of finding them. Category:Unreferenced BLPs still has dated subsections for every month since the BLP Prod was created. The irony is that many articles BLPs tagged as unreferenced aren't any more because sources have been added, but untagged ones are harder to find so there's less chance of improvement. Occassionally they become high-profile for whatever reason and do get improved (Cash Peters is a classic example), but otherwise they're reliant on specific interest editors, and there aren't all that many of those... Alzarian16 (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, and the vast majority of articles in those months are not eligible for BLPprods because they are old articles. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

BLP PRODs

Hey, first of all, I wanted to say that you do a great job patrolling the uBLPs proposed for deletion—your efforts certainly make reviewing them at the end of their 10 days easier. Anyway, you seem to be the person to ask on how liberally we're interpreting the word "source". For example, going through them today, I declined two on the grounds that they had links to IMDb and was about to decline a third, Philip Goddard, but decided to delete it after seeing your edit summary (sorry, stalkers, admins only). With the exception of personal websites, I tend to err on the side of caution and decline, but I wondered where you came down on the issue. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi HJ, Thanks for that. The complicated thing is that the rule is different before and after the BLPprod is applied. If a BLProd is valid i.e. when it was applied there was no source however poor that names the person, and the article is a new BLP (not a music group, fictional character or Dark ages monarch) then it needs a reliable source to justify removal. In that particular case the self published source was added after the BLPprod had been applied, if it had been there before then the BLProd wouldn't have been valid (If that sounds like an awkward compromise, well it is). So I often trawl the queue declining some invalid tags, categorising and project tagging many that some projects might care about and occasionally deleting per G10 where that is more appropriate. So far I've stuck to near the start of the ten days and avoided the end of the tenday process. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You've got to love the weird catches this community comes up with! The process doesn't seem much good at its intended purpose to me, but it does a reasonable job of weeding out those new BLPs that can just scrape through A7 but don't stand up to any real scrutiny ("such and such is an actor who only had a non-speaking role in a marginally notable film" etc). I never did understand how an unsourced BLP that nobody ever looks at is more prone to be libellous, but I suppose it's better than nuking the whole lot in one fell swoop. I hadn't actually realised that the threshold for removing the tag was higher than that for applying it, but just about every admin I come across when trawling through WP:PRODSUM has a slightly different approach. I just hope the finer details get hammered out on a talk page somewhere instead of by ArbCom after a wheel war. Still, what counts as a reliable source is itself the subject of much debate, so I think I'll continue to leave AfD to decide on reliability with the exception of the obvious self published websites etc.

Out of interest, how many BLP PRODded articles do you think end up at the end of the process because I must delete at least 90% of the articles I come across that have had their 10 (usually 11 or nearly 12 in reality) days. It's quite rare that I come across one that has anything remotely source-like and I've only come across a handful that had unambiguously reliable sources, but must have deleted several hundred. Strangely enough, I don't make that much use of the delete button (PRODs, the odd bit of spam, G10s when I'm quick enough), but I hadn't anticipated the amount of log entries that came from deleting the talk pages and redirects left behind when I stood at RfA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think it has been very effective at its stated purpose of changing our processes to no longer accept new uBLPs. We are still finding shed loads of old ones, but the new ones are under control. What you won't see at the end of the process are the ones that were referenced and had the tag removed. I know of two editors who are doing this and I think they are saving a significant proportion of these articles, probably a majority of the ones worth rescuing. I suspect the references you see at the end are from incorrect tags and articles that have been referenced by the authors but they aren't sure if they are allowed to detag them. As for non-reliable sources, I would like to reopen the debate and try and tighten the rules on self-published ones to limit it to ones such as Government and university Bios that are likely to be genuine, as opposed to Myspace etc that we have no way of verifying are for real. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

HJ, I agree with WSC--the reason the articles left at the end are almost always deletable is because the sourceable ones have mostly been source, if not previously by the authors, by me & a few others trying to check systematically-- as for me, I try to work 1/2 to 2 days ahead of the 10 day limit. (I wait till then because many will have been dealt with previously.) There's one other factor in checking--the BLP Prod bot does not run continuously, so articles still appear there for sometimes up to a day after the tag has been removed. (When I have a chance, I also try to quickly look at the ones just placed, in order to weed out the clear speedys, so they do not have to be bothered with further) DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Status of the BLP situation

Hello there, long time no speak. I've been trying to figure out how the wind was blowing with the recent proposals by TS and Uncle G. It all went down when I was away for a few days and frankly I find it impossible to catch up. I believe that the status quo is getting things accomplished quite well with more articles being tagged, the BLPprods and the various efforts at sourcing the old one but I can't seem to get a feel for what the majority is thinking. Do you think it would help if I expressed by opinions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification or somewhere else? —J04n(talk page) 14:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it seems to have gone a tad quiet. progress continues with 22k almost achieved. Part of that is down to EPBR trawling through the ones that missed sticky prod and sticky prodding a couple of hundred, and thats a oneoff, the rest of the ones from March to October are either poorly sourced or old articles. I think it would be well worth joining the discussion especially if you are able to produce a graph that shows what we've achieved without it being masked by the continual finding of more old uBLPs. Also there's a claim that all we've done is upgrade them to refimproveBLP, so if you can lay your hands on a figure for what that category contained at the beginning of the year it would refute that point. TonySideaway is now doing something useful with his tranche idea, one of several approaches to divert attention to a less deletionist and more useful approach. Unfortunately my efforts with Botlaf are stuttering as I can't find a Python programmer willing to adopt Olaf's code. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, creating graphs and obtaining stats are a bit beyond my technical abilities. I will highlight that of the 22K less than 1500 were tagged prior to 2009 and >5K (I got this adding up the current individual months, is there a better stat somewhere?) since May 2010 when this drive began. I can't see how it can be refuted that therer hasn't been success. The refimproveBLP issue may be tough to refute. I like his tranche idea and signed up for one, have been able to catch more than a few problems. —J04n(talk page) 17:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom have archived their thread, I guess we have a few weeks before it next blows up. As for the RefimproveBLP, it wasn't invented this year, it wouldn't surprise me if it had increased this year, but I vaguely remember it being >20k when this began. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realized this morning that it was archived. Alas, the world will never get to read my pearls of wisdom. Oh well, I guess I'll keep chugging along. —J04n(talk page) 18:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Re your message

Damn it, I must have hit the wrong button on Twinkle; I knew Koala King was a horse. Sorry about that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, maybe we could get him to pull Australian State Coach which was the last equine related Australian BLP I encountered. As these things come in threes I'm now curious to see what I find next:) Ϣere SpielChequers 16:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I trust it'll be fun to see. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Douglas N. Graham

I don't see anything there even approaching a reliable source. There's a few links to blogs and forum sites. Gigs (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes but they were there before the article was tagged. In the last RFC on the BLPprod I tried and failed to get it broadened to articles "sourced" from Utube, Myspace, Linkedin and Facebook. If it hadn't had those links the BLPprod would have been correct, and it would then have needed a reliable source to justify removing it. The BLPprod is an awkward compromise where people tried to design in two different brightline tests, one for adding it and a different one for removing it.Ϣere SpielChequers 01:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I was heavily involved in the conversations when we were developing BLPPROD, but I didn't realize that we ended up with two different standards. I remember there not being a lot of consensus regarding IMDB, but past that, I didn't know we had consensus to allow random links to blogs and forums as a "source". In this case, the links weren't even supporting the material in the article. Gigs (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion was just after mine in the last RFC - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. If you look at the summary at the beginning neither my proposal nor the more radical one to require at least one reliable source for all new BLPs got consensus. I'm assuming that at some point we will want to move on from the unreferencedBLP to the {{refimproveBLP}} articles and when we do then a test of whether it contains at least one reliable source might be appropriate. As for whether the links support the material, the first link I clicked on talked about this chap being a raw food exponent and showed a picture of him doing a handstand. No reliable sources so we don't know whether this all true or someone's joke about their mate who runs the local fish and chip shop, but I'm happy for AFD to resolve it - if you weren't able to source it then it probably doesn't belong here. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in, but the section "Objecting" at WP:BLPPROD is worded to make it sound that the link added must be at least arguably within the remit of our reliable sources guidelines. Specifically (bolding mine):

"To be canceled, this process requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography. Do not remove the {{prod blp}} until the biography has at least one such source."

The next sentence mentions borderline cases, which I assume to mean an IMDB link for role verification or such. I don't think this applies to links that do not meet WP:RS at all, such as 'linked in' and 'MySpace'. If that were the case would the original sentence not read "*To be canceled, this process requires the presence of at least one external link or source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography. Do not remove the {{prod blp}} until the biography has at least one supporting link"? --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If the BLPprod is valid then yes you need a reliable source to remove it. But for a BLPprod to be valid in the first place then it needs to pass all of the following tests:

Was it created after the 18th March 2010? This gets arguable where there was a redirect before that date and someone subsequently expands it - I tend to the view that those are valid.
Is it a Biography? - I've declined sticky prods on articles on rock groups and other articles that contain biographical info but are not biographies.
Is the person Living? - I've declined sticky prods on 1st millennia Kings and fictional characters.
Is it about a person? - I've declined sticky prods on Horses
Is it unsourced? - This is the most frequent one that people skip, there was a proposal at the last BLP to require a reliable source for all new BLPs, that didn't get consensus though we nearly got consensus to ignore Myspace, Utube, Linkein and Facebook and I may suggest that again in the future. In the longterm I think we have overcomplicated things by having a lobster pot arrangement with different sourcing tests for tagging and detagging, but realistically we need to clear the backlog before we can change things as otherwise we could have the process swamped with a wave of sticky prods. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The process could surely use tightening/refining. That being said, I'm off to help clear the backlog! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's an inelegant compromise that confuses a lot of people, and while I think it should be broadened in the long-term I'm also keen to simplify it. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ivić Pašalić

Please, next time you come across an unreferenced BLP from WikiProject Croatia, regardless of a negative tone, if it's been up for years, it isn't necessarily an attack page. I and many others reviewed the entire list many times over, and if there were really egregious BLP issues, we would have noticed by now. Instead, please tag article for rescue or PROD them, but mostly - tell others who may not have it on their watchlists, and it's more likely they'll get fixed rather than deleted. TIA. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Joy, Thanks for referencing that one, and for the reassurance that the Croatian project has screened the rest of them. {{G10}} isn't just for attack pages, it is also for negative unsourced BLPs, I consider myself one of the more inclusionist editors involved in the uBLP cleanup, and I'm sure that many of the alleged mafiosi, pornstars and others I delete would be fair comment if they'd been sourced. But if I come across a negative unsourced BLP I do consider it a legitimate deletion as without a reference we have no easy way to differentiate between covert attack pages and legitimate but negative articles. Incidentally we have editors threatening to resume the deletion sprees of unreferenced BLPs, so if the Croatian WikiProject could reference some more of those uBLPs it would be really helpful. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

IMDb and sticky PROD

Hi. Please have a look at Elizabeth McCarthy. My question is, would the addition of a link to this IMDb entry which confirms at least some of her career, be sufficient to remove the BLPprod? I feel that, given the aim of BLPprod is to reduce the flow of fictitious or utterly un-notable BLPs, it should be, though counting little or nothing towards notability; but I can't find any clear statement or precedent. The background is that the article was actually put in as a copyvio from IMDb, zapped as such, and I have been trying to help the author whose talk page is now a discouraging sea of deletion notices. (The article may well not survive an AfD, but that's another question). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Question is no longer urgent, as other refs have been added; but I'd still be interested to know the answer. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi JohnCD I gather there is an issue with using IMDB as a source as it contains a mix of user generated and verified content, and for that reason it doesn't normally count as a reliable source for biographic details. So with BLPprod an IMDB link is sufficient to prevent a BLPprod being added because it means that the article is at least poorly sourced. But if an article was unsourced then you need to add a reliable source before you can remove a sticky prod. That may sound like an awkward compromise, but what happens in practice is that these are usually created by newbies who we are trying to get to start doing some sort of sourcing, whilst most of the BLPprods that get rescued are referenced by editors with a good understanding of reliable sourcing. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

FaceBook now official?

Hi WSC. I see we now have an official template for rapid insertion of FaceBook links into bios and bands. I can't however find an RfC where FaceBook has been declared by consensus as an acceptable WP:RS. --Kudpung (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I'm not aware of this and my first thoughts are to hope that this is to hope that this is part of the external links not a reliable source. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(2cents) The existence of any template does not over-rule the consensus of WP:SELFPUB and WP:ELNO#10, in that they ought to only be included in BLPs or band articles where considered part of the official website. I don't know which particular template you are referring to, but if a template is consistently misleading users then it would make a good deletion candidate. Fæ (talk) 10:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It was the fist I'd seen: Template:Facebook, but apparently it's been around since June 2009. --Kudpung (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where that template is to be used, or how one tells whether a Facebook account is under the control of the subject or a parodist. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Armen Nalbandian BLP

I didn't see anything there that really counts as a reference - it all seems to be own-web-site and a couple of press-releases reproduced onto AllAboutJazz? AllyD (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi AllyD, self-published and primary sources certainly don't establish notability, or help make an article NPOV. But they do reduce the chance of an article being libellous. Having twice tried and failed to get Myspace, Utube, LinkedIn and Facebook excluded from the sources that prevent a BLP prod I'm not likely to try a third time, but from what I can see AllaboutJazz is a cut above those "sources". If you can't find reliable sources for Armen feel free to take it to AFD, or just add a conventional prod. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'd been looking from the viewpoint of reliable sourcing, but I take your point that the specific BLP concern and its prospect of rolling into a BLP Prod is a subtly different thing. (As for AAJ I look on its signed reviews as a decent reliable source but less so the News sections which are usually PR in origin.) AllyD (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's a confusing system - two different tests one to apply a BLPprod and the other to remove one. In hindsight a recipe for confusion. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks, much appreciated. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Musical ensembles composed of living people, plud

It didn't feel right to place the BLP Unsourced tag on a band, but it seems there should be a way for us to identify those groups where the members are all alive and kicking. Obviously, each musician's personal biography article outside their role in a band would require showing whether they are alive or not, but what about the situations where a band page has been created, but the members of the band do not yet have biography pages of their own? Just a thought.

Hey, while I have your attention, a couple questions-- I'm one of the older editors (in addition to having come to the States from a 3rd world country without money) - so computers are foreign to me. Question: do you know how to set up a talk page so that it can automatically archive itsekf? Any ideas with that? Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Leah, there are huge numbers of articles which aren't BLPs but contain Biographical information on living people. You can tag their talkpages with {{BLP}}, but in my view we have so many articles on pop groups, Albums, locations, books, films, teams and schools it is better to think of ways to find problems across the pedia than to try and identify which articles do and do not have BLP implications.

As for archiving, I use a theme based manual system, but I can probably set you up with one of the bots. How many days do you want before threads are archived?

PS You might be surprised at the age range of editors here. At one of the events I went to recently the oldest editor present was probably five times the age of the youngest. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I previously had an exchange about whether the BLP notice was appropriate on bands (I thought not) and got pointed towards a discussion, now archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians/Archive_5#living.3Dyes_for_articles_about_musical_groups, which seems to have headed towards {{Blpo}} instead, which at least offers some respite from BLP-overkill. AllyD (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks AllyD, that makes sense to me, having living = yes or BLP on the talkpage does bring up the BLP talkpage message and means that it would be possible to select for these articles in a report. My concern is that rock groups should be marked {{unreferenced}} not {{BLPunreferenced}}, aside from everything else it would completely stuff our project to reference our unreferenced BLPs if we suddenly retagged all our articles on bands, films, sports teams and so forth as BLPs. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(2p worth) I'm a frequent user of blpo and add it using blpo=yes if there is a talk page project banner shell. I think blpo is under-used for articles naming living family members of a deceased person and on groups of many kinds, especially companies and charities where there are often lists of (and poorly sourced claims about) living board members, trustees, involved celebrities and so forth. Fæ (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this discussion. I confess I was unaware of the blpo template and have now added it to my list of useful tags.--Plad2 (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

BLPPROD

...whoops, sorry about that. I was so busy debating with myself whether or not it was valid to put the prod up with the two "references" (which didn't actually identify a reference), that once deciding they didn't exclude it from blpprod, I failed to notice that the individual is dead. Thanks for noticing it and removing the prod. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, at least he was human and from the right century. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Cat:BLP Unsourced

Hi Again. I'm gnoming through this category atm, crazily googling and either referencing or prodding as I go. Currently working thru May 2010, I notice you were very busy then, tagging articles as BLP unsourced, or Self-Published sources, often both, and I'm finding several that warrant prodding. I am being careful to prod sparingly but needs must. I have found a nest of articles that are interdependantly linked, but mostly tagged BLP unsourced, and wanted to run it by you before I carry on. Timothy Kirkpatrick is one you tagged in May, whose claim to fame is that he once played for As Friends Rust, who list him as having played for them, among others. When you check thru the "Past Members" section of that article, past members with pages are almost all tagged BLP unsourced, all depend on Myspace sources and, I bet, when I google each in turn I'll come up with little more than Myspace or other self-Published. Now I'm happy to carry on, carefully referencing wherever I can, but some Admin is going to wonder why markdask is so hot on prodding. I note also that in December you declined speedy deletion (A7) of Timothy Kirkpatrick, "credible assertion of importance", but his only claim to fame is that 10 years ago he played guitar for As Friends Rust, who are themselves tagged as unreferenced and who only list self-published sources. As Friends Rust are notable, barely, I've googled them, but past members? I will work through the past members and prod where I cannot source but thought you would care to check it out first. Mark^Dask 11:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mark, when I decline A7 speedies such as that all I check is whether the article should be deleted G10 and if not whether there is a credible assertion of importance. Timothy Kirkpatrick lists four bands that he's played for, of which two are blue links, so in my view he's far from an A7 candidate and deserves at least an attempt to source his article via a Google search. If you've done that and drawn a blank then I would suggest a prod with a rationale such as failed to source him via Google as I see you've done with others. As for former members of bands, I rather think that depends on what the band was up to when they were members, true notability doesn't lapse, but nor is it inherited. Freddy Mercury and John Deacon haven't ceased to be notable since they ceased to perform with Queen and I would consider Freddy more notable than some of the newer band members, as for Boney M. they've had two members who are only known as Mike and Nathalie, and I doubt many of their newer members are notable either...... BTW, great work on May 2010, but you might consider joining Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue and working from the back of the queue - with a fair wind they are hoping to clear Jan 2009 before our tenth birthday. Alternatively if you'd rather work on a group of BLPs that are more likely to be of interest to you, have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects, I know that Catholicism, Heavy Metal and I think New York City have people who reference them but whatever your personal interest there is bound to be a group of uBLPs to rescue there. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you thats very reassuring - I've joined BLP Rescue and will start on Jan 09 shortly. Good to know there are others focussed on the backlog. Mark^Dask 13:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We've had a net reduction of 40,000 in the last twelve months despite thousands being created and thousands of old ones being found, there are several areas where people are working on this directly or indirectly - even my little death anomalies project helps in a small and distinctly morbid way. I think the key was to broaden this from people interested in Biographies to people interested in biographies of people related to a subject that interested them, that and changing the rules so that we no longer accept new unreferenced BLPs. Though I've got huge admiration for those who enjoy the challenge of referencing the purely random BLPs tagged from a particular month, and they've achieved far more than I thought they would. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

blp reply

Hi WereSpielChequers, thank you for your helpful message. Sorry for misplacing the tags as I was using twinkle to tag appropriately. Thought the tool was granular enough to determine person or fiction. Obviously, I'll follow with your advice. Wish the notability tag dropmenu would have fictional characters covered such as Arceusism or I might be looking at the wrong place. I know what to do with BP or BLP next time. --Takamaxa (Talk) 02:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Takamaxa, no Twinkle offers the same dropdown menus on any article it doesn't know which are fiction. Notability is the same on all but certain others come in separate BLP and non BLP versions. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:WereSpielChequers. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

→