This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

@GhostInTheMachine:, can you look at test {{Primary sources|section|BLP=yes|date=October 2022}} which appears to be failing? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I added the tests. The code does not cope with both BLP and Section together — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The test now fails "correctly"!? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK now to sync the sandbox back to live? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a moment to remember why I did this, but it still seems valid. It is to cope with both section and BLP=yes at the same time. The tests seem clean. Thanks @Nihiltres: for the catch — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add "Article" between "this" and "by" Lina211_{Follow your dreams} 03:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be clear enough from the context of the message; this ought to be a "less is more" situation IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done For some reason, the template did not match the documentation. Having "this" without a word following it was grammatically awkward. I added "article" as the default, per the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change "secondary or tertiary sources." to "secondary or tertiary sources to this section." if parameter 1 is section. Timothytyy (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: if this were edited, then the sentence would read: "Please improve this section by adding secondary or tertiary sources to this section," which would use the word "section" twice and sound strange. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be beneficial if this template said something to the effect of "Content based solely on primary sources may be undue and is liable to be removed." I'm not married to that exact wording, but an addition like this seems appropriate to explain the nature of the issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What words would you remove, to make (mental) space for this new sentence? These messages need to be short and sweet – assuming we want people to actually read them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why single out primary sources. Content may be undue when based on secondary sources also. Many newer editors get the idea from some of our guidelines that primary sources are bad for anything and must be replaced. I think a sentence like this would just add to that problem. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]