Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Living people

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Living people and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

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

Expanding the scope

Unlike with ordinary biographies, the BLP policy affects the entire project, in addition to actual BLP articles themselves. In particular, I've noticed that articles on schools, particularly high schools, receive a lot of vandalism, as they are an obvious target for high school students. All too often, the vandalism is libellous in nature. Because the schools tend to be barely notable, they are under watched, and the libel can remain. Additionally, many school articles are poorly written, and are ruined by multiple edits/vandalism/false information. I wonder if school articles should be covered in this project? Or indeed any kind of article that has the potential, or does discuss living people. Majorly talk 21:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're already covering a staggering number of articles. If we were to open it up to articles that discuss living people, it would be overly broad. You're talking schools, sports teams, companies, bands and other groups, court cases, current events, etc, etc. Libel can pop up in almost any article. I'm not sure the best way to address this, but I don't think putting them under the purview of this project is the best option. لenna vecia 04:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project name BLP/N and IRC channel

Why living people instead of WikiProject BLP, out of curiosity?

I'd like to see a model of BLP/N that has a case management system more like SPI or AN3 (although last time I tried AN3, it was a horrible experience). AN and AN/I are our least effective noticeboards, and AIV, AN3 and SPI are the most efficient. We should probably try to model BLP/N more after the latter than the former, and while it isn't a subpage of this project the folks involved here could have an impact on making progress there.

As for the IRC channel... The channel and the bot at the moment are not terribly useful, as the freeform "noticeboard" style lends itself to conversation and debate and new edits don't necessarily signify anything. But if the reporting and management process were more efficient (at least in terms of workflow: identifying which problems were serious and outstanding, which were resolved, etc.) the IRC channel and the page itself would be a lot more useful. Nathan^T ^{(formerly Avruch)} 18:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't think we should change the noticeboard, we just need more people to watchlist and or respond. Its possible I just might need an example but it doesn't sound too doable at the moment. Synergy 18:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name is as it is because it was originally created as a sub-project of Wikiproject Biographies, so it would have been redundant. However, upon creation, I realized (from a tap of a clue stick by MZMcBride) that considering we would have many subpages, it could get messy, having subpages of subpages, etc. Thus it was moved to be a sister-project. As far as your idea to remodel BLP/N, I think it's probably a good idea. AN/I is an extreme waste of time, so anything to improve the current workings of the BLP/N would be fantastic. Perhaps create a working model on a subpage? لenna vecia 04:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a model of sorts at User:Nathan/BLPN. It isn't working, because making it operational takes bot resources and testing that I can't do, but I don't think implementing it ultimately would be difficult. Nathan^T ^{(formerly Avruch)} 13:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "WikiProject Living people" to match the category name "Category:Living people." --MZMcBride (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in general, while shortcuts and acronyms are very useful, they shouldn't become the norm. BLP has no meaning for a casual editor / reader, while the current name is much more obvious. Fram (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambitious Proposal

To get the ball rolling. - Mailer Diablo 04:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing BLP's based on religion & sexual orientation

There seems to be widespread violation of WP:BLPCAT, which states, in part:

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met: 1. The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question; 2. The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

I think there needs to be two issues addressed: making sure that more editors are aware of this policy (based on informal discussions with various editors, I think many editors are simply unaware of the policy), and going through categories based on religion and sexual orientation and making sure the articles in the categories conform to the policy. I've started putting tags ({{Subjective category}} & {{Categorization of people disputed}}) on the category pages to try to better publicize the policy. Does anyone have any suggestions of how else we can address this problem? -shirulashem^(talk) 15:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Cynthia Lennon

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Cynthia Lennon/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP unsourced

There is a discussion at the moment whether this template should add the category:living people to articles. Any input is welcome at Template talk:BLP unsourced#Remove living indicator from this template. Fram (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Conley

The above may benefit from some expert attention, there is currently a discussion started at my talk page about sources (the article almost exclusively presents primary material written or authored by the subject) for the article, I am however about to leave for a while with no access to a computer and no means to follow up on the matter. Thanks in advance, MLauba (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay to remove the "refs-needed" banner now?

Hi. Sinequaoui here. I'm the guy who's been building the Robert Conley page. I'm a medical writer and editor, and work with references all the time. I just want to state that the reference materials for the Robert Conley page are from highly respectable PUBLISHERS of material (The New York Times Archives, NBC News Archives, Carnegie Foundation, National Public Radio online, US Congress). They are not simply self-authored references. Robert Conley is a journalist; so the references pointing to his PUBLISHED writings and AIRED film stories are naturally from the archives of The New York Times and NBC News, etc, and simply support the claims that he wrote for The New York Times (as claimed) and/or reported on pieces for NBC News (as claimed). Thanks to MLauber for all the editing help. Sinequaoui (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New link

User:Jennavecia/AFDBIO was added to the task banner a few days ago. It lists all BLP AFDs by listing date. Lara 12:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion on BLPs and AfD

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Default to delete for BLPs seems like it would relevant to this WikiProject. Please comment. NW (Talk) 02:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential biographies

--MZMcBride (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current pages of importance

Lara 19:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - prefixes in article title of Eastern Orthodox officials

An RfC is currently open (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#naming_convention_associated_with_Eastern_Orthodox_officials) regarding the appropriateness of having position titles in the article title of religious Eastern Orthodox officials. Commentary would be welcomed, as the WP:NCWC talk page has a low level of activity.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ammended: The proposal currently tables is to remove of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

150 changes to BLP policy in the last week, mostly by one editor, with few people discussing or overseeing

The editor seems to have a lot of chutspa.[1]

I really think this ought to be overseen. I can count the number of editors discussing all this on the fingers of my hands.

There seems to be a little ownership of the changes going on. -- Rico 22:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to understand the problem you are reporting. What are the effects of the changes he has made? Perhaps you could explain more clearly on the talk page for Biographies of Living Persons. Here? Fireflo (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Year of birth missing (living people)

You are invited to join the discussion at Category talk:Year of birth missing (living people)#Privacy of personal information. -- Trevj (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New maintenance templates?

Hi all, and thanks for all the important work you do. I find {{BLP unsourced}} and {{BLP sources}} very useful. Would it be practical to make BLP-specific versions of {{no footnotes}} and {{more footnotes}}? --BDD (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Height

Just seeking a wider range of input from informed persons at Template_talk:Height#rfc_97AACED.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard section titles?

Hi Folks, is there a recommended or standardized list of section titles or maybe a preferred outline structure for BLP articles? Thanks, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really depends on what they are notable for and the amount of information available. Is there a particular article you're working on? Lara 20:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lara, I'm speaking in the broadest sense, so just basic stuff like:

Early life (sometimes with Education if sources exist)
Career
Personal life
Death (if applicable)
(Awards, etc.)
(Bibliography, Filmography, etc.)

Recently I saw someone merge the Early life section into the Personal life section and then place it at the top when the person's Notability was based pretty much entirely on their their Career. It just seemed like an odd "Cleanup edit" to me. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would only merge those sections if there was very little information in one or both, and not always even then if the article is otherwise chronological and merging would disrupt that. It's also not necessarily a negative to have sections with little information if there is information available to be researched and added, as readers may be encouraged to then do the work. Anyway, it's really about readability. What best facilitates flow and an easy understanding of the subject? As for the heading examples you have, that looks good to me. I think there is no set standard because biographies vary so wildly, but that list seems a good base. Lara 17:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
When? June 2015
How can you help?
1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

(timestamp may not be accurate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with Colleen Bell?

Hello, I'm looking for help updating the article on U.S. Ambassador to Hungary Colleen Bell, and I'm wondering if any active members of this project would be interested. While I have drafted a possible full update to the article in my user space, I'm now specifically looking for editors to review my rewrite of the Political career section. You can see my open request at Talk:Colleen Bell. Currently, this section's name isn't necessarily appropriate for the content, there is unsourced information, and some reliance on primary sources. My draft attempts to address these issues. As noted on the Colleen Bell Talk page, I have a financial conflict of interest: I am working on behalf of Ms. Bell through my firm, Beutler Ink, and SKD Knickerbocker. I will not make any direct edits myself so I'm looking for others' input and assistance in making the changes if they seem reasonable. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Wiglesworth?

Is there a reason why there's no article for Kelly Wiglesworth? It redirects, so I don't want to replace the redirect if the issue has already been beaten to death. valereee (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hello there! There's an ongoing RfC concerning Paul Singer and WP:NPOV in a broader sense, that you might care to comment on. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Talk:Tony Blair

There is an RfC at Talk:Tony Blair#RfC on inclusion of Iraq in the first paragraph which needs more people to comment on it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for help on a first article

Hello, I hope I've chosen the right project for my question: I've created my first article here and it has been tagged with "Tag: Possible self promotion in user or draftspace" on creation. I was wondering if that is a default tag for articles about living persons, or if I've done anything wrong. I also wrote a german article about that person (because that is my first language), and I thought it would be a nice start for also contributing to the English wikipedia, since I've already done the research (mostly in German, though) and can concentrate on translation and formatting (I've learnt that there are some differences between the wikis). One mistake I know about is that I didn't add a translation tag to the Edit summary when creating the article (I unfortunately only read about that after submitting). But since it was a translation of my own article I thought that shouldn't be such a huge problem. So, any idea what could be the problem? I'm talking about this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ralph_Stock - and I hope I haven't forgotten anything that's needed for articles about people. I'm not sure about those wikidata objects ... —Graufeder (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request of proper review

Hello, I started a new draft on a american filmmaker Mark Kendall. It seems to me that SamHolt6 is just looking for reasons to decline instead of properly reviewing the draft. The draft is based on Mark's career nothing else and I think the tone is neutral. Can the project members help me get a fair review at least? Thanks and have a great day 64tsbitz (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:64tsbitz has been blocked as part of an undisclosed paid editing sockfarm; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josher8a/Archive for details. The draft they are referring to has been deleted. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about Sherdog.com at RSN

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Responses (Sherdog.com) regarding the reliability of Sherdog.com which is going to affect thousands of BLPs. I would like to hear your opinion on that. Thanks in advance. Best, Lordpermaximum (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Yeargin

As Scottish as Donald Trump yet listed as a 'Scottish Athlete' instead of 'American' or 'Scottish-American athlete who represents Great Britain' etc. Thoughts? Is primary Twitter bio an adequate source? 2A02:C7F:944B:3300:ECFB:C573:8CE8:A63C (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Boris Havel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Boris Havel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Havel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dans (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need a feedback

Can I get feedback about the sources of this article, Draft:Sandeep maheshwari

Is this reliable and in-depth? Tojoroy20 (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]