Template talk:BLP unreferenced

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Do not merge, 4 April 2022, see discussion.
Keep, 21 June 2020, see discussion.

On 6 May 2022, it was proposed that this page be moved from Template:BLP unsourced to Template:BLP unreferenced. The result of the discussion was moved.

Archives

1

BLP PROD

I suggest adding a warning in the template text that BLPs without any sources are eligible for PROD. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But not all are. If they are too old for BLPprod and have also been prodded in the past they are not eligible for prod. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I forgot that, thanks. I still think that the PROD-eligible BLPs should be noted in the tag somehow. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"All" tracking subcategory

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

Please modify this template to additionally populate the subcategory "Category:All BLP articles lacking sources", as with Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability. —swpb^T 15:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Category:All unreferenced BLPs? Fram (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Fram: No: that category contains the ~3000 BLPs with no references. The intended category will contain all ~99,000 BLPs in subcategories of Category:BLP articles lacking sources, which simply have insufficient sources. This category is necessary to be able to select a random page from those 99,000. —swpb^T 15:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason this template you refer to is not labeled as a tracking category or hidden category (if appropriate)? ~~How does this category relate to Category:BLP articles lacking sources?~~ — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: fixed intended template. I believe you are not requesting 3 separate edit requests posted at 3 separate talk pages for the same template. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: I put your suggestion in the template sandbox for now. Several things: as the creator of Category:All BLP articles lacking sources, can you please document the templates that will populate the category in advance, and make it at least a {{tracking category}}? I also strongly suggest pinging Wikipedia talk:Categorization or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories to get awareness about your intent for a new tracking category before this edit actually goes live. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Andy M. Wang: Template {{tracking category}} added. The only templates that will populate the new category are {{BLP sources}}, and {{BLP unsourced}}, per the requests. The specified project talk pages have been duly notified. —swpb^T 13:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undid. Please follow-up at Template talk:BLP sources — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Template-protected edit request on 29 April 2021

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

There ought to be a linebreak after the "JSTOR" text, such that this text is on its own line: (April 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

I also think that the date ought to be preceded by "Added ", but I guess that its current style is in keeping with most other templates... —Hugh (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Most maintenance templates append the date immediately after the template's content. I could support moving the date after the word "immediately", but it would be better to maintain parallel structure with the other, similar templates listed in the navbox at the foot of this template's documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request to complete TfD nomination

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

Template:BLP unsourced has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:tfm|help=off|1=Unreferenced}}

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Terasail ^[✉️] 23:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 May 2022

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP unsourced → Template:BLP unreferenced – Should probably be aligned with {{Unreferenced}}. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 09:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support pr WP:CONSISTENT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support would make tagging with Twinkle easier. Dialmayo (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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