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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Deprecation is a good idea, but it looks like an alternative is forthcoming. There's no sense in deleting these now if an alternative is in the final stages of being implemented. Note the significant support of keeping these templates for now at the RfC. ~ Rob^Talk 06:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PBB/2155 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Is there a reason for a separate template for this infobox? It's only used at Factor VII and just hides this from the main page. The page there is just over 7k and this template is 4k so it's not a page size issue. This isn't protected so it's not a vandalism issue. Bots are updating this template which is fine but no one sees these changes on the mainspace page so there's a chance for hidden vandalism with this set-up. There's over 11k such templates at Category:Human protein templates but I'm trying to see if there's a reasoning for why these are necessary. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep – The reason why these ((GNF_Protein_box)) are transcluded is to reduce clutter in Gene Wiki articles. There are over 10,000 of these transclusions and I do routine monitor these templates for vandalism which there has not been a lot of, Furthermore the bot maintains these templates. All of this data is in the process of being migrated to Wikidata, so this soon will not be an issue. In the mean time, there is no reason to interfere with a system that has worked well since 2008. Boghog (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cite doi templates has "worked" for years as well and it's ended up with over 58k templates all to be deprecated. "Reducing clutter" can be achieved in every article is we have the infobox and all sorts of portions hidden away in templates and subpages but on some level, it is still supposed to be that actually clicking edit should actually do something, not give me a random "PBB" template string that I have to learn how to find to touch. Wikipedia shouldn't require a programming knowledge to edit. Second, if this has been around since 2008, what is this "migration to Wikidata" happening? We had that argument with template:cite doi and its tens of thousands of subpages since 2014 with repeated stops because some day it may eventually migrate. Finally, just because you are watching this singular page does not mean that all eleven thousand templates are being watched. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boghog: I started a larger RFC on the topic at Template talk:PBB. If there's no support for the individual discussion here, I can withdraw it. The same issues that applied to citation templates applies here in my mind, along with the same arguments for and against (including the specific migration to Wikidate argument). However, I'm open to reasons why it's entirely different. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: Just to be clear, by monitoring GNF_Protein_box recent changes every day, I am in fact monitoring both the 11,000 templates and the 11,000 articles that they are being transcluded into. Also why fix something that isn't broke? There is no widespread vandalism and the little vandalism there is rapidly reverted. Finally as this data is in the process of being migrated to Wikidata. Hence this whole issue will soon be moot. Boghog (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the bus factor? If you stopped, then all these hidden pages are unwatched? The pages are at least watched. On July 30, 2014, this nonsense was added. Rather than someone seeing the actual page and removing it, we have a question here and finally the removal here on August 9th. Now you can argue a week is nothing but still you weren't aware of it and that's an insane thing to ask of someone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a shame, because Cite doi should also have been a Wikidata target (maybe it is?) rather than something to be institutionally vandalised. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:52, 12 March 2016 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was subst and delete all. A clear consensus was developed at the RfC on Template talk:Cite doi against using templates to store article text in this manner. Similar RfCs for similar templates have all yielded the same result. The community consensus is clear, and WP:Local consensus applies. ~ Rob^Talk 01:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Rotten Tomatoes score/0088247 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Following the discussion here, I'm listing the remaining templates for deletion. The first template here is used at The_Terminator#Reception_and_legacy but it's static language from April 2014. The bot has been deprecated from the method of creating subpages but these subpages remain. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: While the bot may no longer be running, the script for these templates still works perfectly fine. Besides many of these templates are for older films for which all reviews have been accounted for and no longer needs the bot for maintence. This TfD effects a large number of films, for which no action is needed. Deletion should only considered on an as needed basis, not lumped together.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you interpret the choice to deprecate to mean if you still want to use the script? Better yet, when would deletion be appropriate and deletion not be appropriate? Nothing but Trouble (1991 film) was an older film as well. Note that, for example, Jersey_Girl_(2004_film)#cite_ref-14 contains the same date error that we had with the prior template which likely will require the same esoteric knowledge of the template as discussed here. I'm still not sure how to fix that. Is this really a good mechanism for this when plain text is just as fine, especially for older films where this is nothing to update? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per TriiipleThreat, that each template should be determined on a needed basis if it should be deleted, not all lumped together. There is still value to having the templates, even if the bot no longer runs (though a fix is/was in talks). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  What value is there? Is this actually be deprecated or are you saying there is a value because the deprecation can be ignored? How are we to identify which templates are "needed" and which aren't? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What specifically do these sub-templates do—as the template documentation and names doesn't make that clear? Also, what prevents them from being subsetted in place? If these templates are just holding data, what benefit does storing data in template space have over storing that data on the articles directly? And finally, how many of these templates were used on more than 2 articles? If a template is used in multiple articles, it would be easier to justify it, but these appear to only have been transcended to one article. —Farix (t | c) 12:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's text. The first template adds to The_Terminator#Reception_and_legacy the following text: "The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 100% approval rating with an average rating of 8.7/10 based on 50 reviews. The website's consensus reads, "With its impressive action sequences, taut economic direction, and relentlessly fast pace, it's clear why The Terminator continues to be an influence on sci-fi and action flicks." The approval #, average rating, reviews and I imagine the consensus are all hard-coded in and checked whenever they are checked (here's it is July 2015 so that many months old). Using templates to "standardize" (and it's barely standardized here) wording isn't a new idea here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - These have the same issues as Template:Cite doi does, only without the supposed benefit of applying to more than one page. They're content hiding in the template namespace. --Izno (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - The proper way to do this would be to make a macro like the four tildes. Typing it would scrape the website and add text directly to the article. Connor Behan (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2016 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Userfy to User:Gerda Arendt/User talk before you block without a redirect. Gerda thanked me for my edit explaining userfying, so I'll take that as being ok with the move. ~ Rob^Talk 15:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:User talk before you block (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A question about this template was brought up in a recent WP:RFA, and now, turns out that I have concerns with it. As far as I can tell, it's use is unclear on whether or not it is supposed to be transcluded of substituted, and if it is the former, this template has 0 transclusions. If this template should be anything, it should probably be the start of a WP:ESSAY, probably at Wikipedia:Talk before you block. (I could see this becoming a community-accepted essay if expanded; as a template, it doesn't seem rather useful or helpful.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is "usefulness" or "helpfulness" gauged here? Have any administrators ever read this and had second thoughts about blocking? How would one know? You seem to suggest that a link to an essay might be more effective, but only if community-accepted. I was wondering does anything like this already exist elsewhere, in any form? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: I left a note at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion (here) about this discussion. I'm thinking that WP:MFD regulars may have a better idea if this template can become an essay (or if such an essay or guideline already exists) than most regulars at TFD. Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A very wise move. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec, read only the notice on may talk) History: I created the template because I have a short memory and like to have it ready when an admin needs to be reminded of priorities. It happened twice so far, I created the template the second time, and it was changed also by another user. I asked in all recent RfAs, the answers of three candidates have helped my decision, how is that not helpful? We have so many user templates, how is this a special problem? I don't want to expand, the shorter the better. I could make it a project essay to link to, but think the curly brackets are more elegant ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gerda Arendt: Regarding how this may be a "special problem" if this page remains in the "Template:" namespace: If a page is to remain in the template namespace, there needs to be clear instructions on how to apply this template via either substitution or transclusion. In the page's current form, it is neither clear or, in my opinion, practical to either substitute or transclude this page anywhere. (This is why I suggested that the better route for this page is to probably convert it into some sort of WP:ESSAY.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: That, and as you said, if it is a template that you personally use in certain situations, it may be better to move the template to your user space, possibly User:Gerda Arendt/Template:User talk before you block so that it is moved out of the "Template:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (next edit conflict) I am no template editor, and my favourite template was driven away (by too many blocks without talking to the user). I will need help to understand what you say. Why does it have to be substituted or transcluded? The simple link ((user talk before you block)) works fine. My alternative is to repeat the same code to the next recipient, - not efficient. - Essay sound a lot like teaching to me. I want to appeal to ask questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Who knows if others wouldn't also want to link to it. How would I do it if it was in my user space? How about project space, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gerda Arendt: Hi Gerda! First time I've seen you around since I've become active again. If this were in your userspace, all you'd have to type is ((User:Gerda Arendt/User talk before you block)) or whatever subpage name we used. Typically, we try to keep the Template namespace for things that are widely useful to the project or used in the mainspace. If your goal is just to have an easy way to place this template on a page, userfying it won't change anything. Would you be ok with a close as userfy? ~ Rob^Talk 05:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's used, by Gerda. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Weak userify It sounds like it would be more useful as an essay than a template but it's not an used template and seems more like a user's personal template at this point. I don't get it, is the goal supposed to be to template that onto an admin if they are acting aggressively? Is it to be posted by users on their talk page if they are asking to be unblocked or wanting to act aggressively? It seems like it would be counter-productive overall. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2016 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by CactusWriter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Harrison Kervitsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an article about a nonnotable individual, and not an appropriate template in any event. Edison (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be inclined to speedy ((A7)) this. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  
• And have tagged it as such. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:48, 12 March 2016 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Upon request, this can be WP:REFUNDed to the userspace. ~ Rob^Talk 05:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Calgary Mavericks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links to 1 link of exact relevance to the topic, which is the topic itself. Fails WP:NAVBOX Izno (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or userfy as premature —PC-XT+ 18:28, 15 March 2016 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Rob^Talk 05:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:University box3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant, non-standard infobox with three remaining transclusions to be replaced by Template:Infobox school. PanchoS (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant. Not sure what drove the creation in 2004. Amazed anyone was still using it. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mackensen: No problem. It might even have its merits as a design study, as background color and font are really nice. You may want to help us improve the visual design of our standard infoboxes instead? --PanchoS (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2016 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Rob^Talk 05:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Chicago Knights roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This team folded in 2011, so a roster isn't needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I removed the navbox from all the pages it was on. DMC511 15:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Please don't do that. It prejudges the outcome of this discussion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    

Hmm. I have always had my doubts about focussing on current rosters. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:50, 12 March 2016 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Rob^Talk 05:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bloomington Blaze roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This hockey team dissolved in 2014, so a roster isn't needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and unneeded if I read Bloomington Thunder (SPHL) properly —PC-XT+ 18:39, 15 March 2016 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Rob^Talk 05:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CB Granada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This team dissolved in 2012, so a roster isn't needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused per CB Granada#Comeback to LEB and dissolution —PC-XT+ 13:08, 15 March 2016 (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).