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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox MYX Music Awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All information is in the very first line of all pages that transclude it. I do not think an infobox is needed for these pages at all. Magioladitis (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, I replaced it with ((infobox award)). Frietjes (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, now replaced by the IB award template.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2014 (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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BoxOfficeIndia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Like the recently deleted Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_22#Template:Box_Office_India, the template merely encourages linkspam particularly giving the impression that linking to the site is somehow "official". As can be seen from the example page in the template ((BoxOfficeIndia|3_idiots|3 Idiots)) unless one subscribes, the site gives no information other than what is already typically found in articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is easy to add an external link without a template, and it is easy to misuse Wikipedia to promote an external website by adding such external links. As pointed out in the nom, even the example given in the template documentation does not satisfy WP:EL. There are often hundreds of websites that mention a film, and there is no reason to endorse one of them with an "official" template. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IT is not for linkspamming. First have consensus on other templates like Bollywoodhungama,Boxofficemojo,IMDB. This boxofficeindia tempte is much better as it is bollywood films dedicated website and give detailed info everyday--Nehapant19 (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The only difference between these two is that the deleted one was for actors, whereas the one here is for movies. How's that for needlessly confusing template names! But anyway, all the reasoning at the former would seem to hold for the latter: no clear evidence of reliability, special information, or other material that would meet WP:EL, and as we see (and as with the other one) it is merely blindly being slapped on pages rather than with thought about its page-specific use as a reference. DMacks (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, no evidence of reliability, and generally redundant to more reliable sources. Frietjes (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Godhulii 1985 (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2014 (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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SputnikmusicAlbum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No interrelationship between the albums outside of being well received and named "best album" by a single music website. There are a lot of music magazines and notable critics out there that publish year end ranking and there is no need for a navbox for each one. Better off as a list or subsection within Sputnikmusic. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, better covered by a category and/or a list article. Frietjes (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom; could be added to the article directly. Matt Deres (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2014 (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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Sword of Shannara (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is redundant to Template:Shannara books, as the majority of the listed articles are redirects. TTN (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is a character template, which has one character article (the others redirect to the main article or the first book's article) but that one character occupies 5 categories as the only entry... so the entire character category tree also needs to be pruned. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE related category deletions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 24 -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the related categories have been deleted -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete insufficient character articles to justify a template. N2e (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nom redirected articles without discussion or proper review, and now seeks to cement the redirects here without appropriate disclosure. Violation of the fair accompli principle set fort in their arbitration case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:T3. Redundant to ((Shannara)). Also - it's a mess. It duplicates links to the same pages, and there's even some cross-namespace linking. If this was tidied up, there would be nothing left. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• merge with ((Shannara)). Frietjes (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the template has been tidied up, as noted by Rob Sinden and 70.50.148.122, so the only content left in the template now is Allanon. Moreover, Allanon just went through an AfD, and the consensus was to merge it with one of the book articles. So now even Allanon has the same problem as all the previous links that have since been tidied up. This template is nearly empty; and will be as soon as someone tidies it up further. N2e (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2014 (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.

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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jann Browne (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, links only four pages, no chance of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Six? Thincat (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, has enough links. Frietjes (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete has only four relevant links (related items and backlinks are usually not counted as relevant links, Thincat) The Banner talk 10:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I'll count again. Six. Thincat (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Has enough links, and Howard is listed in five of the infoboxes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2014 (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.

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 Withdrawn by Cirt — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(t • e • c)} 23:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is cumbersome and a nuisance. A good example is at Maybe Baby (2000 film). The template text sat in main article space for a week without being addressed. Instead, ugly placeholder text remained in main article space. The bot doesn't update at all unless info is changed at Rotten Tomatoes. So for older movies, if no new reviews come out, it will never update the page. There is simply no reason for the placeholder text to be displayed in main article space in full view for our readers. In addition, there are numerous complaints on the talk page about the wording used for the template, which modifies existing wording that may have been added through peer review processes including WP:FAC discussion. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The template as used creates more problems than solutions. — Cirt (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've notified WT:FILM about this deletion discussion. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy SNOW Keep This is a template that is employed by Theo's Little Bot in task 22 and is required for that purpose. For a little background as to why this user is so upset about this template, if needed, see User talk:Technical 13#Fuck help and Talk:Maybe Baby (2000 film) — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(t • e • c)} 21:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no option to have the coding not display in main article text for its placeholder function. The bot does not update unless there is a change in review statistics at Rotten Tomatoes, so likely will never update for older movies. This means that it creates a situation where it is not needed, and at the same time creates ugly placeholder text. These issues are inherent in the template and remain unaddressed. — Cirt (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is, and after telling you that you could easily add it yourself, and you refusing to get the point, I finally gave up and just added it myself. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(t • e • c)} 23:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT: Please note that I will defer to community consensus from this discussion about this matter. If the community discounts my concerns about use of this template and bot, that's totally fine. I just wanted to raise these concerns to the community. If the outcome is delete, so be it. If the outcome is keep, I won't remove the template from article space but I will query the maintainers in the hope that the template can be modified to not create these problems in the future. If users don't want the template used on individual article pages then of course we should discuss on the associated talk page to establish a consensus of whether or not to use the template. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There IS an option to have the coding not display in main article text for its placeholder function. It will always make a first version of the page. That's still not a justifiable reason to delete a template required by a bot that is being transcluded and working perfectly on 70 pages. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(t • e • c)} 22:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A good example of how the template doesn't work properly is the placeholder text in the history of the page Maybe Baby (2000 film). — Cirt (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What I see as a placeholder is "The [[review aggregator]] website [[Rotten Tomatoes]] reported a 46% approval rating with an average rating of 5.1/10 based on 28 reviews." is that not what you see? Those that look at the edit history, my last edit there is what I told Cirt they could do a half dozen times on my talk page. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(t • e • c)} 23:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The main example article given on the template documentation is Man of Steel (film). The template was added to main article space on that page on 28 July 2013. There have been zero associated updates to the page since then. Just another key example of the problems with this template and its associated bot. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It appears you are having one issue with the template, that should be taken to the template's talk to discuss on to solve, not just outright delete it. This template is very useful. Granted, I use it on newer films, so as you seem to have pointed out Cirt, if there is an issue updating for older films, you should have brought it to the template talk, not nominate it for deletion because it doesn't work like you want it too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I understand your reasoning, but I brought it here because it seems to be not just one problem but an inherent problem with the entire thrust of the purpose of the template itself. — Cirt (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Man of Steel (film) is not an old film. And yet there have been zero updates to that page since the template was added there. So you see, multiple problems across multiple different article pages. — Cirt (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying..."zero updates"? The subpage is currently in sync with RT, so there is no need for an update... I think you may be a bit confused. The bot doesn't modify the article itself, but instead modifies the template subpage associated with the particular film. @Technical 13: did you mess something up with that placeholder kerfuffle? I didn't really pay attention to what you were doing, but it seemed superfluous at the time... Theopolisme (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, I didn't mess anything up and was just about to post "According to the history page for the Rotten Tomatoes data, it has been updated 56 times..." myself. This person is upset because they don't understand how transclusion works. Cirt doesn't like your default placeholder, and refused to listen to me that Cirt could add one until the bot came around and picked up the page. I eventually gave up and just added the alternate placeholder myself. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(t • e • c)} 23:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn. Thanks very much, Favre1fan93 and Theopolisme, for your most helpful explanations. Please close this discussion as withdrawn. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2014 (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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Shield (professional wrestling) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A group with just three members and no associated articles does not need a navbox. McPhail (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This template does not have enough entries and I see no conceivable options for expansion. I don't see this as any different than The Fabulous Freebirds which does not include such a tempate.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough relevant links The Banner talk 11:00, 7 February 2014 (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.

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 keep, seems to be a misunderstanding of how the ((cite isbn)) template works, the correct subpage will not have the final checksum digit. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite isbn/978158005221 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think this page was created by mistake, by a new contributor working at an ArtAndFeminism editathon. Another Believer _(Talk) 04:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this template to one with a valid ISBN, fixed some syntax, and found some articles in which it is useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete the redirect, but keep the now moved template. Frietjes (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2014 (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.