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. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 19:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Heads of diplomatic missions of India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per WP:EXISTING. this template is full of red links, of the three blue links 1 is up for AfD, another is a redirect . LibStar (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:EXISTING. Does not serve navigational purposes and appears to be booster material. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 13:49, 18 May 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 19:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Vision Quest soundtrack (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template and not particularly beneficial for the few songs that's listed, some of them are internal redirects and not even have an article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These are just songs that happen to be on the same soundtrack album, nothing connects them other than this. Not what navboxes are for. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TG. The template is effectively a track list. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 13:48, 18 May 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 no consensus to delete, but there is consensus to change the functionality to produce an error message after the transclusions are replaced. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

As there are many types of Metacritic templates, all the transclusions of this should be substituted and replaced with the following:
<span class="error"><code style="color:inherit; border:inherit; padding:inherit;">Error: Please specify which type of Metacritic media this is. ([[:Category:Metacritic templates|Help]])</span></code>. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: Could you clarify what you're nominating? The page you nominated is a redirect presently. Did you mean to nominate that or the template it redirected to? ~ Rob^Talk 19:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I'm nominating the page/template/redirect Template:Metacritic. I propose all transclusions to be substituted and replaced with the content above. I would've been bold and changed it if it wasn't going to affect 500+ pages.Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Deprecate, but do not substitute the error text above and delete. We can't spam 500 pages with error text as part of the TfD process and leave it to other editors to fix things. We should properly categorize these under ((Metacritic film)), ((Metacritic television)), ((Metacritic album)), and ((Metacritic video game)). Once all transclusions are gone, we can make ((Metacritic)) generate the above error text and provide proper documentation encouraging people to use the correct templates instead. ~ Rob^Talk 09:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Sorry if I didn't make myself 100% clear, I meant substitute all the current usages of Template:Metacritic with "Movie title at Metacritic". Then replace the contents of the template with the proposed above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: In an ideal world, though, we don't want to dump that text in the article. It's preferable to just move them over to ((Metacritic film)) (or another template, if that's more applicable) so formatting can be changed without mass-editing 500 articles. ~ Rob^Talk 10:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a little confused. Are we discussing wrapping or redirecting to another template, or replacing it with a plain link? —PC-XT+ 22:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PC-XT: What I'm suggesting is all current transclusions of THIS tempalate (not the redirect target) get substituted and then this template is remade with the proposed text above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Anarchyte. I think what you are saying is that the name of this redirect is ambiguous, and should be eliminated, right? Redirects are usually discussed at WP:RfD, but since this is a proposal to replace it with text, I'm not sure if that is a requirement. If it had been created as a template, we could possibly deprecate the original, but it seems to have begun as a redirect. Otherwise, I don't mind converting from a redirect to a deprecated template as a matter of cleaning up ambiguity. I'm not sure if it should be substituted or if transclusions should be kept for gnomes to track and fix, instead. The substituted Metacritic link could possibly be found using search tools, but WhatLinksHere is more convenient for more users. —PC-XT+ 02:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are saying is that the name of this redirect is ambiguous, and should be eliminated, right? Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I didn't take this to RfD because I thought if the result were to include substitution, it'd be better off discussed at TfD. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:00, 6 June 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 as unopposed and per usual TfD consensus on this issue. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 11:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:EXISTING. Mostly red links and redirects, only two actual articles are linked. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 06:09, 11 May 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 05:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:University of Michigan–Flint (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:EXISTING. Three links -- a newspaper, the chancellor, and the main article. Currently only used in one of those articles (chancellor). Not enough to navigate. 🎓 Corkythehornetfan 🎓 00:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with nom on all points. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 06:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough active links to provide useful navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete far too little links to justify a template. LibStar (talk) 15:25, 11 May 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).