Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 11

< November 10	November 12 >

November 11 edit

Template:BLP dispute edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete BLP dispute Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP dispute (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:BLP sources (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:BLP dispute with Template:BLP sources.
It seems to me that the two templates are interchangeable. Perhaps they could be combined by using the better language from each? BLP dispute doesn't really mention anything about a dispute in the message of the template, so I wouldn't think that's the distinction. Bsherr (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While BLP sources is used to indicate an article whose overall level of referencing is inadequate, BLP dispute seems to signify the presence of contentious information in violation of the BLP policy's requirements for supporting sources (even if the references are otherwise impeccable.) The correct response to noticing such material is to remove it immediately, not to place a maintenance template. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{BLP dispute}} as pointless and potentially harmful variant of {{POV}} / {{Disputed}} as Peter Karlsen indicated above. When sources for contentious claims are really bad (never mind non-existent), the correct course of action is to remove the material, or at least move it to talk, not tag it with some incredibly wordy and watered down version of {{POV}} / {{Disputed}}. Despite the fact that this silly template is fully protected, it has less than a hundred transclusions. It's also stacked with similar templates that are more widely used, like on Corrine Brown. I suspect this template was created to fill Category:Disputed biographies of living persons with little regard for its wording, but there are other ways to get category intersections. I got 2978 results using one of those tools to intersect Category:NPOV disputes with Category:Living people, so the manually populated intersection category is not even covering 5% of the problem. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Chemical structure edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Airplaneman ✈ 05:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chemical structure (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated template, not transcluded anywhere. Leyo 15:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox galaxytv/Header edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obselete template originally used on Galaxy Television (Nigerian Television). Same effect can be generated by simply placing the image on the article. Salavat (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not really a template, just a thumbnail image, and an unused one at that. Pointless. PC78 (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Native speaker edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was redirect. If a redirect is not desirable (e.g., confusing), that can be discussed at RFD. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Native speaker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template with only a handful of transclusions. The article where I encountered it, George Berkeley, already had an alternative stacked above it: {{Copy edit|for = English grammar}} I'm not convinced we need a separate template, but if we do, it could just be substituted with the parametrized copyedit template. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. {{Copy edit}} should be sufficient. It's not like native English speakers are in short supply around here. PC78 (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. To Template:Copy edit, with which it is redundant. --Bsherr (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.