The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. On one hand, there were strong arguments that these templates makes it harder for new users and/or users of the visual editor to edit the article. This was the main rationale for deleting the templates, or making them substitute only. On the other hand, there were strong arguments that these templates enforce consistency/standardization of the text, and if these templates were deleted (or substituted) it makes it much harder to maintain this consistency/standardization. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All prior XfDs for this page: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 18 § Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose – keep

• Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:MC film (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These two templates violate WP:TMPG, "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. They should also not be used to 'collapse' or 'hide' content from the reader." Because these templates are used, it is difficult for an experienced editor to change the text at all. For an editor to make a change to the text, they have to copy the text, paste it, restore blue links, retrieve the related URL, and fill out a new citation template. This is nearly impossible for novice editors to do. The use of these templates pretty much "locks in" the templates' wording of Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic despite zero consensus for a specific wording of either review aggregator. Please notice that we already have numbers-inserting ((Rotten Tomatoes data)) which can insert scores and still allow the text around it to be edited. That is the kind of template that should be accepted, not this one that dictates entire sentences. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify about my argument, editors who argue to keep these templates should make the case that the templates do not make it more difficult to edit the content and that the templates do not hide content. WP:TMPG at the end says, "Templates that violate the guidelines on this page... may be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion." It seems like some editors are not actually responding to whether or not these templates meet WP:TMPG's first bullet point and are making unrelated arguments. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. This nomination makes similar arguments to the nominator's one last June that resulted in a keep outcome, and I predict there will be a similar result here. My thoughts are basically unchanged, so I'll copy the bulk of my !vote from last time:

  First, the existence of this template does not force any particular wording, as its use is optional, so editors are free to ignore it. Second, standardization is often good. Readers become accustomed to certain aspects of Wikipedia style over time, and when articles are similar, it makes it easier to navigate unfamiliar pages because they know what to look for. Third, templating allows for optimization. When a format is applied over hundreds of pages, it becomes worthwhile to refine small details like whether to use % or "percent" that probably would never have been considered at the level of an individual page. It's particularly advantageous for sensitive areas like critical reception, as it helps us remain neutral—when this template is at an article, it's unlikely to be changed to Film did extremely well at Rotten Tomatoes, where critics gave it a very positive 68% fresh rating. Fourth, removing the template would hamper future improvement efforts. To see what I mean here, look at the example of census data at WikiProject Cities: a long time ago, a bunch of census info was added to city pages, but because it was done via copy-and-paste, rather than templates, updating and improving it turned from a relatively straightforward task into an arduous saga. The same sort of thing could happen here. For instance, it's perfectly plausible that at some point Wikidata will be able to mass-import RT scores on a regular basis. If this template exists, plugging those in to the transclusions will be easy. If not, it'll be basically impossible.

  Deleting a template like this is pretty irreversible—you don't have to agree with me on all of the points above, but if any of them resonate, take a pause before rushing to delete this.

  On ((Rotten Tomatoes data)), I have no objection to that being used instead where editors desire a customized wording, but per above, it's not a reason to delete this one. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To your point about Wikidata, this template is not needed for that to exist. That integration is completely separate and independent of this template. Wikidata integration is done with ((RT data)). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, if this is closed as subst and the substing isn't done extremely carefully to invoke RT data, substantial information will be lost. Many uses of this template code the values into parameters, so those would need to be bulk converted. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 04:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I never mentioned WP:TMPG in that discussion, and it looks like only one editor mentioned it in passing. Now that is the core argument. Your counterargument is contradictory. You argue that the templates are good for standardization and optimization, and in the same breath, you said that it does not force any particular wording. It's obvious that template use will encroach on natural use, as it is easier to change the natural text into text dictated by the template than it is vice versa. And the fact that you are warning us that deletion will be messy and problematic shows how unnecessarily centralized the article text becomes under these templates. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Consistency + use of wikidata. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Some Dude From North Carolina, wikidata can still be used, as evidenced by ((Rotten Tomatoes data)). I don't think anyone disputes using these kinds of templates. It is more about specifying the article text surrounding the data in a way that makes it difficult to edit. As for consistency, there is no consensus for wording the reporting of Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores in only one way. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fine, delete both. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both Nothing has changed since the previous TfD. As before, [the sole argument for keeping] consists of fundamentally disagreeing with the merits of Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines point 1 without making any attempt to argue that rotten tomatoes is not normal, and is thus outside the scope of TfD. Furthermore, the suggestion about Wikidata would be a clear violation of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2, and it makes no sense to keep templates in order to make it easier to ignore consensus. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection to keeping as subst only. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Make them subst-only and subst the existing uses per WP:TG. All prose should be at the discretion of editors of each article. These templates unnecessarily make editing harder and less flexible, especially for newcomers. Nardog (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've never been a fan of these, since it "locks" in an apparent "correct" version of this information. While consistency in this information may be good/useful, editors should still have the ability to adjust it freely. To any points about the Wikidata integration with the Rotten Tomatoes template, the Wikidata information has a bot that goes around, User:RottenBot, that can put the Wikidata template calls (((RT data))) into any articles, so that functionality won't be lost. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Would also support changing to subst only (or substing first, then deleting outright). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Favre1fan93. There is no reason to hard-code this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've always found it pointless. No need. JOEBRO64 04:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Notifying those who participated in the prior TfD who have not commented here yet: @Facu-el Millo, Kingsif, Shadowboxer2005, Chompy Ace, Aoba47, Οἶδα, Froth, Some Dude From North Carolina, Nyxaros, Zpierson01, DrewieStewie, Plastikspork, Peter NYC, Frietjes, Emir of Wikipedia, Anonymous-232, Kumagoro-42, Uses x, Izno, Seraphimblade, TompaDompa, Don Cuan, and Labdajiwa:. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 04:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I said keep above. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, forgot to remove your username; apologies. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 04:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • To the closing admin, I'm not sure if it is appropriate for Sdkb to have notified all editors from the previous TfD (that did not involve the WP:TMPG argument) where more editors !voted to keep than to delete. As evidenced by DrewieStewie's !vote below (they voted in the previous TfD too), they are not even responding to the WP:TMPG argument here at all. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Still Keep. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Edit the template to notify an editor it needs replacement, and once all instances of it are gone, delete it. - Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in some form – subst-only is fine with me --Iiii I I I (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or subst-only. Templates should be a help, not a hindrance, to editing. In this case, they clearly are not; someone who wishes to change the text would need to have substantial knowledge of what templates are and how to work with them. If made subst-only, their helpful features could be retained without the problem of making editing of the text difficult, so I'm fine with that as a solution. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: So I may be a bit of an idiot user who isn't up to parsing templates, but if I stick a plain ((RT data|prose)) into Suspicion (1941 film), I get

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 97% of 33 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 7.8/10.

which seems pretty OK to me. Now, ideally, a novice user would like that template to create a cite as well, but that would be like wishing for a pony, right? == Peter NYC (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter NYC, sometimes ponies exist If you'd added |ref=yes, it'd have included a reference for you. Granted, we don't have retrieval date working automatically yet, but we'll get there soon if this template isn't destroyed. You highlight a great overall point: this makes it incredibly easy to quickly build reception sections, an ability that would be lost if it's deleted. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 06:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subst-only sounds like a sensible solution (unless there's a strong counter-argument to it that I haven't heard yet), so if change is really needed then go for that. QuietHere (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Still delete basically per nom. But also, even stronger, based on usage.
  1. there appears to be very few editors actually adding it to articles, and where they are adding it, they are instead replacing very similar wording that already existed. Its implementation has been functionally pointless and not widespread.
  2. the templated text does not "update", so the figures presented in it do not change even when the figures on the websites change, even though it is supposed to be automatically generated. It looks like the actual template will need to be cache-purged to just update that once, so: the template immediately becomes outdated, the process to update it is manual so it's pointless to have an "automatic" template, and there's no easy way to update at the individual articles.
  Suggesting subst-only is also ridiculous because the text was already at all these articles, people just replaced very similar text to the template, with the template. Might as well have just left all the text there. What an exercise in futility this has been, as several of us predicted at the beginning; no useful outcomes and a lot of effort in making and debating a template that could have been used elsewhere. Just TNT it.
  Seriously, what are any good arguments for keeping? When you're (already) writing a critical reception section you can't also copy-paste a RT consensus line? Really? And for all the people that would have spent more time finding this template exists than just writing out the sentence, it's a slap in the face for the select few users who use this template to come and cover over their work unnecessarily but uneditably (which also takes longer than doing nothing). I don't think it should be dictated what phrasing to use, but even if it was, when an instance of alternate phrasing is found it is just as easy, realistically, to change the text at the article as it is to add this template, because you already need to go to RT/MC to make sure you get the name they have for the [film/show] correct.
  Sdkb suggests that this template makes it easy to write a reception section, whereas I think it does the opposite: 1. a reception section should not only by aggregate scores, so other work is needed. 2. a good place to start is by looking for reviews at RT/MC, so you will already be at those webpages and can add the aggregate scores yourself. 3. I hope I don't have to point out how extra useless a reception section that, when opened to edit, is just a template, is. It discourages further editing (i.e. basic-level improvement) from new users who may be inclined to think they need to add to the template or add more templates and don't know how (or that they don't).
  There really is no good reason to have this, and no amount of !keeps changes that. Kingsif (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To illustrate #3, this is what such a section looks like, first seeing the text:

==Reception==
On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 23% of 57 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 4.8/10. The website's consensus reads, "Alice's well-intentioned attempt to reckon with racism sadly misses the mark on multiple levels, although Keke Palmer's performance remains a consistent bright spot." Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 52 out of 100 based on 17 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".

...then trying to edit any of the text:

==Reception==
((Rotten Tomatoes prose|23|4.8|57|''Alice''(('))s well-intentioned attempt to reckon with racism sadly misses the mark on multiple levels, although Keke Palmer's performance remains a consistent bright spot.|ref=yes|access-date=March 18, 2022)) ((MC film|52|17|ref=yes|access-date=March 18, 2022))

Per WP:TMPG, how is the average editor supposed to engage with the above that shows no way to edit the content? Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The template is gradually getting smarter and smarter, so some of the parameters you mentioned are still needed, but we're rapidly working toward a point where it's as simple as entering ((Rotten Tomatoes prose)) and it automatically populates the entire sentence from Wikidata information that is being constantly updated. That's all that will need to happen for the vast majority of articles—the standard wording is perfectly good for all but the most edgy of cases—but if someone wants to customize the text, it'll be as simple as adding a "subst". It's incredibly convenient and helpful for experienced and novice editors alike to create, and it's simple to maintain since updates are handled automatically.

Overall, it's not a hard template to use, and it's getting easier and easier as it becomes more advanced. This nomination is a torpedo to those efforts, based on an inflexible interpretation of WP:TMPG, the consensus for which is highly dubious (other prose templates like ((Year article header)) enjoy widespread support). If you don't personally find it helpful, fine: just don't use it in the articles you edit. But there are no grounds here to impede those of us who do find it helpful, and the idea that it should be deleted (rather than made subst-only) is not even internally consistent with the nomination argument. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're dodging the heart of the matter. It is difficult to edit the content because the article text is stored out of sight for the average editor. Of course certain templates like ((Rotten Tomatoes data)) are useful, but they are narrow insertions. Furthermore, if you are actively wanting to standardize these templates, it is against the policy of WP:CONSENSUS because there is no consensus for the specific wording dictated by these templates. As another editor mentioned, if we "subst" all the templates, we're back to where we started in simply using article text. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The template has a full set of TemplateData, so if newcomer accessibility is your concern, it's as easily editable as any other template, and it'll only get more so over time as TemplateData improves. But editability is only really a concern for things that need to be edited all the time. If the scores are stored manually or without this template, then yes, they need constant editing. But if they're being updated by bot automatically on Wikidata, there's no need to ever edit this template after you insert it. Indeed, most possible edits would be bad ones (see third point in my quote block above), so some structure is a good thing (and again, if there's truly a good reason to customize, just subst). Your idea of how consensus works is mistaken—no wording is being imposed on anyone, because the decision to use this template is optional. If your notion were true, we'd delete all the user warning templates because they are against the policy of WP:CONSENSUS because there is no consensus for the specific wording dictated by these templates. Lastly, while I maintain that subst-only would be a bad outcome here for the reasons in the block quote above, it's still clearly superior to deletion, since unless Hollywood closes tomorrow, there will be future films. For many of us, it's much easier to just type ((subst:RT data|prose)) than to fetch all the data from Rotten Tomatoes manually or remember all the more specific templates and type it all out. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So help an editor who is on the fence here... Invoking subst-only means the prose can easily be updated on subsequent edits, but the numbers are not updating automatically. So how is that an improvement over placing the suggested prose into the MOS or an explanatory supplement of some kind? Doesn't sound like we really need to have a template in that situation. A guideline or supplement with some backing of consensus would do just fine. And speaking of consensus, that becomes a concern as well for the template. Imagine a scenario where an editor inserts the template without substitution, because they agree with the wording and want the automatic updating. But then months or years down the road, the template wording is modified, updating in every article that uses the template. While the editor who originally inserted the template agreed with the old phrasing, we don't know they still do with the modified version. I believe this is why we typically want to steer clear of doing this for article text, as the concern about consensus as Erik points out is a valid one. Your comparison about user warning templates is apples to oranges, since they exist in a different namespace.

I really want to have a reason to keep, because I think the intentions behind it are of good faith, but I'm beginning to think it's causing more problems than it solves. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60, having suggested prose encoded into a policy or guideline would be creep, but aside from that, it's just convenience: having to remember or search out the suggested prose is a lot more difficult than just substituting a template whose name is pretty easy to remember.

On substitution, the possibility for template text to change is something that exists in all templates, and I'd argue it's a good thing. It allows for updates and improvements as norms and best practices evolve. Templates are also often watched more than obscure articles, allowing better scrutiny: if a well-meaning newcomer really excited about an obscure film decides that they'd prefer the wording critics loved it and gave it a very positive 58% fresh rating, no one would likely notice, but if the wording at the template is changed, people will. So it's more stable for the long-term to rely on a single template than to have very similar wording spread out over a bunch of articles. This is the don't repeat yourself principle—if similar content is used in a bunch of different places, you want to have it centralized in one core place, not copied and pasted. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 23:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I feel like the template is kind of a waste. I mean, how hard is it to type one sentence for the reception/percent score on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic? Having a whole template dedicated to this is pretty pointless and I feel like it is only used because some may be just too lazy to type just one simple sentence. SlySabre (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or make it subst only per above. Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or subst only per WP:TMPG, as it interferes with editors' ability to edit article text. Hut 8.5 20:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. Standardizing how we refer to review aggregators is a net benefit. Wherever I've seen articles deviate from the wording used there, it has been for the worse. At times suggesting that RT and MC assign these scores themselves. The only portion better served by free text is the critic's consensus in the RT template. Don Cuan (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So you're saying that it's a good idea to make it harder for editors to edit the content about review aggregator scores for this "net benefit"? And again, there is no consensus for the wording for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores. Keeping these templates and wanting to make them the standard across all film articles is a forcing of specific wording despite no consensus, which violates Wikipedia's WP:CONSENSUS policy. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To Erik's point, editor should recommend the necessary components that should be covered in review aggregator statements, but the actual make up and construct of that info should be open to implementation without one "standard" idea, which as he noted, there is currently no consensus for such wording, especially the ones in these templates. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We're talking about one or two sentences here that ought to convey the same kind of information in about every article that references review aggregators. It's not like there is much flexibility in wording these two sentences, or need to change the sentences afterwards. (which could be an argument to keep it subst-only at least) Don Cuan (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. It's useful for readers to see if a film is well-received or not. Dunkaccino2020 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC) — Dunkaccino2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not what we're discussing. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Now that I think about it, since hardly any articles use it and it works just as well in typed words, there's really no need for this template. Songwaters (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or subst-only per others above. --Izno (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both (preferred) or subst-only (less preferred). This is WP:CONSISTENCY overreach, trying to apply it across articles. We should be discouraging snow-cloned formulaic article writing, not encoding it into law template form. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or subst-only – I agree with the points outlined about making the wiki markup easy to read. Additionally, I've seen some talk from supporters of this template about automatically updating the scores (example), which greatly concerns me – if we place too much trust in automating the process from RT/MC → Wikidata → Wikipedia, we risk all appearances of the templates breaking if something goes wrong with one of those connections (i.e., Rotten Tomatoes changes their website's format and the scores cannot be retrieved). Writing it manually or substituting the template means the info might not be quite up to date, but it avoids any possible issues from the data retrieval process. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. Rotten Tomatoes is useful because it contains reviews not only from professional critics, but also from ordinary viewers. 53zodiac (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  53zodiac that is not what's being discussed at all here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, and also Kingsif's summary. Converting to a subst-only form is a reasonable idea, in that it would provide a good basis from which editors can expand as necessary. Locking in textual presentation in this way goes against the spirit of a wiki, and it's directly contrary to WP:TMPG. Mackensen (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not leave around to be subst'd (although making subst-only is preferred over keep). Mostly because this sets a bad precedent: that machine-generated, formulaic sentences are the way to write articles. These sentences are fine, but unfortunately the use of a template will encourage certain editors to "fix" articles to one particular wording when actually many wordings would be fine, and some might even be better based on context (e.g. a contrast with others, a comparison with other aggregators, etc.). This kind of template-expands-to-prose should be done exceptionally rarely and only when there's truly One Right Way to write something that needs to be enforced, not merely a stylistic preference. SnowFire (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subst-only which allows for standardization and optimization without preventing revisions. I object to deletion. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  08:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a substitution option. Lazy or not, its use is still a net positive benefit to the encyclopedia in adding valuable information. Substitution use allows it to provide an easy prose baseline to incorporate without having to dig up the last instance of "good" use, and still allow customization/user-friendly edit capabilities. If substitution is too difficult thanks to the use of additional templates and Wiki data, a concern raised above, keep outright. Just because it is there does not mean it must be used. In order to prevent WP:OWNERSHIP edit warring, perhaps a large note can be added to the template documentation pages stating something to the effect of this: "The use of this verbiage is discretional, and it is not intended to replace any existing prose. If the template is replaced with readable prose, use of the template should not be restored." (But I think substitution is the better route to take.) -2pou (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - based the multiple well-reasoned keep !votes above. Plus I don't believe we should be dumbing-down tools just for the sake of fly-by editors. If people want to edit this project, they should make the effort to learn how, just like the rest of us. That's how you go from "novice" to "experinced" editor. Templates have instructions, there is the help desk, teahouse, village pump, sandbox, plus article, template and WikiProject talk pages - all places where people can seek assistance and learn. There is also the old trial and error tinker until you get it right method (hopefully using the preview function).

  And also, Erik: "For an editor to make a change to the text, they have to copy the text, paste it, restore blue links, retrieve the related URL, and fill out a new citation template. This is nearly impossible for novice editors to do." - huh? Am I missing something? Why not just copy & paste from the edit window? All the mark-up for wiki-links and cite templates is all right there. - wolf 21:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It sounds like you agree that the templates violate WP:TMPG but that "fly-by editors" should struggle anyway with changing the article text to anything but what is dictated by the template. I'm not sure what you're not understanding about the process. The template can't be substituted without making a mess, and have you tried to change an article using ((Rotten Tomatoes prose)) to an article using plain text and/or ((RT data)) elements? It's much easier for the article text to be plain and not templated in the first place so any editor can change a few words as appropriate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm... try reading my comment out loud and then see if it "sounds" just as I wrote it, or how you seem to wish it was written. I noticed you avoided answering my question about your quote, but I suppose that is in and of itself an answer. Have a nice day - wolf 17:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I am not swayed by the arguments for deletion. --Pokelova (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: Per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, "An edit has presumed consensus unless it is disputed or reverted." Erik's demand that "editors who argue to keep these templates should make the case that the templates do not make it more difficult to edit the content" puts the burden of proof on the wrong editor. If there are any "novice editors" that agree with him that this template makes things more difficult, let them speak for themselves. I am certainly not an advanced editor and it doesn't seem very difficult to me. Kire1975 (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Policies and guidelines take precedent. You have to make an argument as to why the template is appropriate even if it makes it difficult to edit the content. If you don't believe that it is difficult, please, share an example of a hypothetical template that actually makes it difficult. I can't think of a better example than this one, which literally puts the article text out of view for the passerby editor. And "subst" does not work either; it creates a muddled mess needs further detailed cleaning-up. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "subst" does not work either; it creates a muddled mess needs further detailed cleaning-up Not if you use WP:SAFESUBST. Try previewing the diff of ((subst:Rotten Tomatoes prose/sandbox|88|7.30|274)), which results in On the [[review aggregator]] website [[Rotten Tomatoes]], 88% of 274 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 7.30/10.<ref name="Rotten Tomatoes">((cite web |title=''Ralph Breaks the Internet'' |url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ralph_breaks_the_internet |website=[[Rotten Tomatoes]] |publisher=[[Fandango Media]] |access-date= |archive-url= |archive-date= |language=en ))</ref> on Ralph Breaks the Internet. Nardog (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you seriously arguing that there's been "silence" and that this template is not disputed? It obviously is disputed, because there's a TFD open for it. IMPLICITCONSENSUS is off topic here. Also, more generally, demanding that the "long tail" of any group speak for themselves is a formula for disaster. If Wikipedia makes it hard for casual editors to edit, they won't come write a detailed essay as to why. They'll just stop editing. This is true in many domains - many a group/company/service has gone down by only listening to the most hardcore insiders, and accidentally repelling the 90% of casual fans/users. Now, if you think that this template isn't a problem for casuals, fine, but saying that newbies aren't our problem, and they should speak up for themselves if they really care, is just flat wrong and a philosophy that is destructive in the long-term. SnowFire (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Strange standardizations like this need to disappear from Wikipedia. They greatly restrict future editors. Editors should be coerced by past decisions on the site as little as possible. Despite claims otherwise by users above, the existence and established usage of such templates does get used as a cudgel to force its continued use and thus force a structure to future edits. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment QuietHere and several others in the keep-but-make-subst-only camp have asked what benefit there could be to keeping transclusions of this, so allow me to present a plausible example. Currently, the Rotten Tomatoes template includes the average critics rating out of 10, a meaningful but distinct number from the Tomatometer score (which is the percentage of reviews which are positive). However, Rotten Tomatoes itself hides the average critic rating, requiring an extra click to get to it. Let's say that they decide in the future to stop reporting it entirely. And let's say that the community decides that given this, we don't want to include it in articles. What happens then? If there's no template, it becomes an arduous slog through every film article on Wikipedia to remove the information. But if some articles have it in template form, it's as easy as making a single edit to the template to stop displaying it. If you dislike that example, you can consider any other possible future change, but the overall principle is the same: having a template allows for refinement and optimization. And it's better to have that in a centralized forum, where it can be given more scrutiny through the wisdom of the crowd, than to have it dispersed over hundreds of individual pages. All that's left then is a bureaucratic reliance on an overly strict interpretation of WP:TMPG that ignores the normally qualifier and the widespread precedent from inline prose templates like ((Year article header)). As for the straight delete !voters, I have yet to see any reasonable explanation at all of what would be so awful about beginning a reception section for a new film article by writing ((subst:Rotten Tomatoes prose)) and having it automatically populate with useful, automatically updating prose and a complete reference (functionality we're quite close to achieving)—it's more convenient than copy and paste, and the result would be perfectly at home in any FA. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 00:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your invocation of "normally" is the same thing as dismissing WP:TMPG as "just a guideline". You can simply say, the templates make it more difficult to edit the content, but it has these so-and-so benefits. I see the benefit of the templates for the specific scores, but I see zero benefit for templates for extremely specific wording for which there is zero consensus. Your "wisdom of the crowd" argument is completely wrong-headed because the text-dictating template function is top-down control and not being open to editors presenting Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic details in alternative ways. Your advocacy of centralization seems to indicate that you want this template to be in all articles even as you say that using it will be optional. This is basically pushing a one-size-fits-all solution, and I oppose that solution and that mentality. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Sdkb's comments. rogueshanghai^{chat (they/them)} 07:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – After giving this a lot of thought and reading the concerns on both sides, I've settled on removal. I feel the template is not truly optional as posed in its defense, because on the other side of that argument is the goal that it should exist in as many articles as possible, transcluded for the purpose of easy updating in the future. Already, we have seen editors going back to even featured film articles from decades ago, injecting this template unnecessarily and overriding perfectly acceptable prose. Even at newer film articles where plain text prose is first added, I've noticed some instances where the same editors are sweeping behind and replacing with this template. I realize this doesn't mean keep supporters condone this behavior, but the template's existence is an enabler. It only takes a small handful of template warriors to override local consensus at low-traffic articles, many of which may have fallen off the radar over the years as newer editors supplant veterans who used to watch them. I also agree with the point Dfsghjkgfhdg made about how this could stifle innovation by hampering future editors. The template falsely projects past decisions for existing text, of which there has never been a solid consensus for. ((RT data)) is also a sufficient stand-in for those who are concerned about number maintenance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add that I also oppose subst-only (though it is preferred over keep). It is a slight inconvenience of having to copy/paste, but the larger concerns I addressed still remain with subst-only. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find this as a good tool to keep things uniform across articles and provide a 'template' from which articles can utilize. Some editors argue that this stifles change, but if change is ever called for to for example change the wording then that is a separate discussion that can be had to edit the template for further use. I also agree with above comments by Sdkb and others about the utilization of template features such as automatic generation and comments from above. Yeoutie (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeoutie, just to clarify from my POV, the stifling is in regard to innovation by natural means, not the ability to change the template. Newer editors could be less likely to try their own phrasing to begin with after running head-on into that template or noticing its use, because as Dfsghjkgfhdg points out, the projection of past decisions may give the appearance of an uphill battle from the get-go, making it more likely to conform than to innovate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GoneIn60, conformity is sometimes bad and sometimes good. It's most often bad when it forces a one-size-fits-all solution into places where it doesn't fit. But every Rotten Tomatoes page has the same basic structure, so that's not applicable outside of rare unusually structured films like this two-part one, which does not use the templates but is harmed zero by their existence. On the other side, conformity is good when it helps provide a consistent experience for readers and nudges editors toward best practice ("stifling"). A lot of effort has gone into optimizing the information we present, so we want a new editor to take a brief pause before deciding to change something up like introducing the user-generated audience score. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that conformity in prose is required for readers to have a "consistent experience", as slight variations in wording matter less than section headers, positioning, and the actual numbers themselves. But in fairness, I will say that if the template is kept, it may finally nudge the film project to form at least a rough consensus over the prose it contains. Currently, the "percent% of count critics' reviews are positive" format is far from what I've seen used in film articles prior to this template's creation, at least in my experience (but that's another discussion for another time if it's kept). --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete zz9pzza Delete ( just a random user passing by ), it makes edits harder.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kpgamingz (rant me) 01:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst only I can see the utility in having a template for this boilerplate text, but it makes it harder to edit the text later if you don't know the template syntax. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or add again to 'Infobox film') For standardization purposes and boilerplate text, both can even be merged into a single template with a variable number of aggregators with the numeric values/scores as arguments and a more concise text, or well, it can even be so mechanically rigid as to be converted to a field in Infobox film and add the fields again. We save prose and show the numbers for that matter. --Roqz (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sjh (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. Lexy-lou (talk) 00:59, April 1, 2022 (UTC) I think Sdkb really landed it. To me "guideline" is just that: a guideline, not an ironclad rule. I feel the utility of the templates overrides the nominal facilitation of editing by newer contributors.
• Keep both. I don't find any of the delete arguments compelling, and I see no improvement from the removal of these templates. I use WP to research TV and movies very often, and unlike a few of the "delete" voters are claiming, I see these templates all over the place. I find them useful and I see no reason to get rid of them. Ţᶳᵃʶ∙Ɓᵒᵐᵇᵃ (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, deleting these templates does not mean Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic will no longer be reported. These websites will continue to be referenced and the scores from them shared. The issue at hand here is that these templates make it difficult for editors to edit the content. Saying WP:ITSUSEFUL is not compelling by itself. Reporting Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores was not a problem before July 2019 (when the RT prose template was first created), and the template creates a problem of dictating a specific wording that editors unfamiliar with templates will not be able to adjust. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - currently both sides are pretty reasonable for me, so I'm pretty mixed here. But I found that more than 500 pages (not just articles) use this template. We're gonna have to adjust all these 500+ pages before the template can be deleted; remember not all articles have an editor who frequently oversees it which we can contact. GeraldWL 11:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC) (ping me!)[reply]

  If this is closed as delete we can just subst the existing uses and it would take about ten minutes. Nardog (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:TMPG. It is not a template's job to mandate what form the prose should take. Looking through some of the articles where it was added, perfectly acceptable and clear prose has been replaced by this template. The template is pushing conformity where it is not needed, and possibly not wanted. Betty Logan (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. Standardising and automating this kind of boilerplate is absolutely the sensible thing to do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing "boilerplate" about this. There has never been any consensus about how to word the scores from either website, and there have been numerous discussions that went nowhere. If there was a consensus, there could be a case for these templates. But without that consensus, these templates are unwarranted, especially when certain editors above want to override the lack of consensus and push this specific wording everywhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The irony here is that if we were proposing an addition to the MOS such that the aggregator info should be written in the template form, you could count on Andy to oppose it on the basis of it being "too prescriptive". Betty Logan (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You could not. Do not attempt to speak for me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Erik, your comment gives me the impression that your opposition to this template is rooted to a significant extent in some disagreement over its wording. I don't know the full history, but if that's your issue, please say so directly, rather than hiding behind other arguments. We can happily consider suggested changes, although if they've already been considered thoroughly and rejected, tough luck, that is (despite your earlier protestations) how consensus works.

  On "boilerplate", whenever anyone brings up that word, people's minds immediately jump to the bad examples, since those are the ones that stick out; when good boilerplate works, people don't notice it. The difference, as I argued above, is largely whether there's enough variation in circumstance to warrant frequent customizations. In this case, there is not: Rotten Tomatoes has a highly standardized format, so the wording in this template is exactly the same as standard non-templated text used elsewhere (or could be made to be the same, if you have an objection to its construction as you implied above, in which the path is modification, not deletion). Unless I'm missing it, the only person in this entire discussion who has brought up a specific example of a way in which anyone would want to modify the template in response to the situation at a particular article is me, illustrating how niche you have to go, and how even then, there's no harm done to have this template exist and not be used there. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Definition: "Boilerplate text, or simply boilerplate, is any written text (copy) that can be reused in new contexts or applications without significant changes to the original". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also I am just not a fan of "boilerplating and standardising" prose in this way, it makes Wikipedia seem like an AI-generated joke.—indopug (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. One of Wikipedia's worst problems is how stiflingly bureaucratic and impersonal it is, and this is a perfectly illustrative symptom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.229.181 (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Additionally, keeping them as subst-only wouldn't actually open these sentences up to editing, given that, as GoneIn60 mentions, there are editors who will endlessly steamroll any text that does not conform. (Posting from my work network.) 12.50.48.146 (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and please delete Template:RT data and the like as well, adds nothing of value and makes editing and vandal fighting more opaque. Fram (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Template:RT data can be nominated seperatly if you disagree with its use, mentioned positively in some delete votes here though so important distinction Indagate (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, ((RT data)) is completely different in its purpose and function than the two templates nominated here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in (safe)subst form per Sdkb. I see this template being helpful in a pinch (way easier to type ((RT prose)) and fill out the appropriate parameters than it is to find the text in another article you seek to emulate and find-and-replace the variables). Uniformity/boilerplate isn't always a bad thing, and there's only so many ways to write the same sentence before you border on elegant variation. However, it should be (safe)subst to make it easier to editors using the VisualEditor to edit the prose. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Both - The advantages of having the template seem to exceed the trouble the requestor is indicating the exist Alohawolf (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Both Having standardized templates keeps movie articles neat and clean, plus the work necessary to replace the template on any and all pages it’s included on would be immeasurable. Some precedents don’t need to change. The Kip (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SDKB's strong points. There is no obligation to use this, and the option for standardization is beneficial. Editors are welcome to substitute the template, but I don't think it needs to be deleted. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On paper, that seems reasonable, but in practice, that's not how it's shaking out. Not only is text hidden from novice editors that wouldn't likely have a clue on how to change to subst-only form, but others are injecting this template in older film articles overwriting acceptable prose. The latter presents a MOS:VAR-type issue, where we shouldn't be changing from one stylistic preference to another without substantial reason. This template encourages that behavior in a multitude of ways as discussed above. Sure, we can add guidance on the template's documentation, but it's an uncommon situation to be in where a template dictates prose and has to contain a MOS-like specification. It's one thing to examine a template's purpose and limitations, but it's another to measure it's actual impact, and I think that's why we're seeing a divide in the !votes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the responsibility of an editor changing an article to make sure that they're doing so in a way that improves it, not of a template to make sure it's a perfect fit for every article. Despite the request above, the delete side still has not provided a single example of an article where this template did not fit well but where it was forced on it anyways, let alone enough examples to establish that it's a systemic problem rather than misuse by a lone editor (which would be the fault of the editor, not the template). ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the list of articles already provided in my !vote, a significant number of them predate the template. The editors overwriting prose with it (and there's definitely more than one) should have substantial reason to do so. That's why we have guidelines like MOS:VAR. Whether or not the template "fits well" in situations where it has been used unnecessarily ignores the point that it shouldn't be used in this manner. If the prose existed in someone's sandbox or desktop text file, and they chose to copy/paste at will, that wouldn't bother me. That happens already. But publishing it in a template strikes me as an escalatory measure that causes this behavior to become more widespread. Should we delete on the basis of a behavioral concern? Maybe, maybe not, but the observed impact is worth taking into consideration along with the other concerns over editability (WP:TMPG) and consensus for prose. Over the years, there have been many failed attempts to find some kind of consensus in this realm, and now we have a template that pretends it has the answer. Given all the opposition so far from experienced film project members, I'd say it's missing the mark. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both — its consistency is valuable, and I have seen no compelling argument why being able to change the text matters. As well, I do not agree that the template is either difficult or inaccessible to new editors. Countless templates on Wikipedia are used, many, like in Infoboxes, can be complex. They serve a function to make a clean, professional encyclopedia, and there is—there just simply is—a learning curve to being a most effective editor. Zkidwiki (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And yet, consistency will never be achieved unless you're arguing that the thousands of film articles not currently using the template be forced to do so. On the flipside, there is also no compelling argument that slight variations in prose is a problem that needs to be remedied. GoneIn60 (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your response really does not build on my comment. If there is no problem, then don't delete it. If slight variations don't matter, then slight changes for consistency don't matter. If it is not used in many other places, then there is no reason in can't be used in the many places that it exists already. Zkidwiki (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both, per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both Zkidwiki summarized my thoughts well Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both It's not rocket science, certainly not hard enough to warrant a big change. 2600:6C56:7100:1509:584A:C48A:DF59:9B98 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 13:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:BACRC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded template, as we don't need a template for every minor sports club. It has a link to the article, link to a former ground, link to an alleged predecessor club, and some spuriously related links Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Pointless nomination in my opinion. Fma12 (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 13:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Hoofdklasse cricket seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Invalid template, as only blue link is to the article itself, rest are redlinks (and never likely to be created, as I presume they wouldn't pass WP:GNG) Joseph2302 (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is one link so nothing to navigate to or from. Gonnym (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ProCricket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. Main article redirected (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro Cricket), body articles deleted via WP:PROD last month. Nothing left for this navbox to do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Thessaloniki Metro color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Thessaloniki Metro lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Thessaloniki Metro stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Thessaloniki Metro left/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Thessaloniki Metro left/2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Thessaloniki Metro right/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Thessaloniki Metro right/2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox station/Header Thessaloniki Metro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

now replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Thessaloniki Metro Frietjes (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've added ((Infobox station/Header Thessaloniki Metro)) after adding that functionality to the module. --Gonnym (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Air Forces/OR/Finland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. According to Member states of NATO Finland is not a member and does not appear on Ranks and insignia of NATO armies enlisted. Gonnym (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OR/Kingdom of Greece (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused as the entry at Ranks and insignia of NATO armies enlisted uses a different set. Gonnym (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OR/Thailand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Not a member of NATO which is why Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OR/Thailand is used instead. Gonnym (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Thessaloniki Metro geolocations map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused rail line station map. Gonnym (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Thessaloniki Metro icons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused rail icon template. Gonnym (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox manaschi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used, and, from the documentation (((Infobox manaschi)) may be used in an article about a person who is an manaschi.) not likely to be used. GRuban (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Segaton (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2022 (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).