Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

February 15[edit]

Template:Infobox Empire Awards[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Empire Awards (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox film awards}}; only seventeen transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete A bit indulgent, not even the oscars or BAFTAs have their own dedicated infobox. However, if the template is going to be redirected the "venue" parameter needs to be added to the main film awards template. Betty Logan (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox National Film Awards[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete, after converting the transclusions to use {{Infobox film awards}}, which will probably require adding parameters to {{Infobox film awards}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox National Film Awards (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox film awards}}; only 59 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. Redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment as a creator: Though the template is derived from Infobox film awards, it does not use all of the parameter, which is expected. However, the reason for creating altogether a new template is that the main template does not provide any way to add multiple new customized parameters like Best Feature Film, Best Non-Feature Film, Best Critic, Best Book and Dadasaheb Phalke Award. (I am yet to add last three awards to the template.) - Vivvt • (Talk) 01:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Templates should not be forked to add new parameters; add them to the original; or use generic parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I am ok with delete if we can reach a consensus here to add few more parameters to the main template, especially the last four mentioned. - Vivvt • (Talk) 15:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Golden Disk Awards[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Golden Disk Awards (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox film awards}} {{Infobox award}}; only three transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Template:Carlyle[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. I'm not exactly sure why this was sent to TfD if the only request was to change the categories. Please feel free to simply change the categories if they are incorrect. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Carlyle (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

The template is in Category:Carlyle Group with a space as a sort order and therefore placing it before the Carlyle Group article. Not a good look. I would like to have Category:Carlyle Group removed and Category:Washington, D.C. templates and Category:United States company templates. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose it is the template for the Carlyle Group so should remain in that category. I have changed the sort key, and added Category:United States company templates. I think that "Category:Carlyle Group" should be in noinclude, since it should not be used to categorize whatever transcludes it. There is no reason for it to be in the DC templates category. It should also be renamed to {{Carlyle Group}} since it isn't about Carlyle -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Redirect from phrase[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was remove from category Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Redirect from phrase (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

It should not be in Category:Phrases, especially with a sort order that places it up with the eponymous article. (this is a discussion not a deletion request.) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Template:AllRovi movie[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep for now, although it may be fruitful to continue the discussion in a different venue. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:AllRovi movie (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

This is an external link template that links to the respective film's database page at the website AllRovi. At AllRovi, a database page provides an overview, a review, a cast and crew list, a list of release dates, and a list of showtimes. Such a page is not appropriate as an external link because per WP:ELNO #1, this is a "site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". None of the aforementioned elements are particularly unique, as opposed to other external links like a film aggregator that links to many more reviews than a featured article would have, or a box office website that provides a variety of breakdowns of a film's box office performance. It should be noted, however, that this does not mean that an AllRovi movie database page cannot be used as an inline citation in Wikipedia's film articles. Past discussions hold that AllRovi is a reliable source, and it can be used within the article. If necessary, we can arrange for a bot to migrate the link from the template in a given article to the respective talk page. The TfD issue here is with having this website as a external link. If there is consensus that AllRovi movie is not appropriate as an external link, then we would not need the template. Here are other discussions to review: September 2009 TfD and follow-up discussion for deprecation. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete Allrovi is primarily a "database" site, and they are a dime a dozen: The New York Times movie database, the AFI and BFI databases, which to my knowledge we don't have templates for. We already include the IMDB, which as a resource usually offers much more content. The template encourages misuse: as Erik points out, in most cases Allrovi doesn't meet WP:ELNO #1, but its existence has created a culture of indiscriminately adding it to film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
    Category:Film external link templates shows what we have, but I think AllRovi is older and has had a greater head start. Some of these other templates could be assessed, either in their entirety or to determine special cases. Something like {{Internet Archive film}} is an obvious resource, IMO. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The AFI and BFI ones seem to have been created recently which is why I didn't know about them. The AFI, BFI, NYT, Allrovi databases are all pretty interchangeable for the most part, so they aren't really "unique" resources. The TCM database sometimes offers archive footage for some of the films in its vault, like Gone with the Wind for instance, which is the sort of thing we are really after when we qualify a site as a "unique resource". Betty Logan (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom: the link does not anything of substance per ELNO 1, and thus the template is redundant and an invitation to needless linking. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Whatever purpose it served seems redundant, as it adds little to one's knowledge or appreciation of films. Hors-la-loi 22:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talkcontribs)
  • Keep. There are 17,266 transclusions to this template so editors are finding a significant use for it. I also like the idea that WP is able to offer a choice of links to reasonable external sources (otherwise we'll start to look like an IMDb shop). Instead of deleting the template, we should be tightening the instructions for its use and educating editors. Cheers. GFHandel   22:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
    Like Betty said above, there is a culture of indiscriminate addition of such links, so we cannot assume that there is "significant use" for them. Do you think that AllRovi and its movie database pages are acceptable under WP:ELNO #1? Erik (talk | contribs) 22:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. I never understood why it was there in the first place. It's not hurting anything, but it seems a bit pointless. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can't see the logic in deleting the template simply because it is being overused... and as GFHandel said deleting it makes Wikipedia look like an IMDb shop. Troll-Life (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    Other external link templates can be nominated for deletion too. I just consider this the worst offender in being widespread without being a unique resource. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep It. It's an External link. I'd rather allrovi/allmovie as opposed to the increasingly lengthy plot devices and spoilers being written by posters; despite telling them not to. In giving brief summary of long lost silent movies allrovi/movie is worth its weight in gold. I can't believe someone would tout the worthless TCM which is empty most of the time and when something is written it's usually based on something found on a citation on Wikipedia. BFI also empty most of the time but they deal only with British made films so I don't know what the problem supporters of BFI have with AFI or better yet IMDB which tries to cover all films around the world.Koplimek (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The BFI is actually one of the more comprehensive film databases around and certainly covers more than just British films—see Titanic and À Bout de souffle. It's largely incidental though, since it has actually been listed here as an example of generic database that should not be added to articles as an external link along with Allrovi. Betty Logan (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Nobody is touting TCM. We can nominate that for deletion too. AllRovi is just the worst offender here. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment There seems to be two main arguments presented for retaining the template: i) as a sort of "antidote" to IMDB, and ii) providing plot summaries for lost silent movies. I don't think the first argument is valid: Allrovi is not really something we can replace IMDB with—every article that links to Allrovi still links to IMDB because IMDB offers more. As for plot summaries, an external link should not be providing a synopsis: MOS:FILM recommends that articles include a plot summary, and Allrovi would serve as an article source when used in this capacity. Maybe I'm overlooking something here, but is it possible for those editors in favor of retaining the link to provide an instance of an article where the link is correctly fulfilling its function as a "unique" resource i.e. if we were to remove the link the reader would lose an important avenue of information? Betty Logan (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Ridiculous. Read that literally, ELNO #1 practically proscribes external links altogether. If Allrovi's reliability is established such that it can be used as a citation and IMDb can't, it would be more logical to argue for the latter. If it's a good, reliable database, there seems to be little point in suppressing its use. --BDD (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    I have mixed feelings about IMDb as an external link, but I think it offers a lot more than a standard database. I've called it WikiProject Film's database brother. I doubt it is possible to sever the relationship between the two. In addition, I think assessing AllRovi as an external link is separate from assessing it as a reliable source to use. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I said at WT:Manual of Style/Film#Why is AllRovi listed? It doesn't usually give anything useful not found on IMDb and other, better links like TCM. I never use it, as its credits list is disorganized and often gets credits wrong. The very example on the MoS page reveals its flaws -
If you click its Cast & Crew link, you'll see it lists the Production Manager as the Production Designer. That's ridiculous, and quite unreliable. It also gives relatively unimportant songwriters higher listing than major crew members. People often complain about too many ELs. AllRovi should be dropped as redundant and unreliable. It cannot be overstated how important good organization of credits is. The NYT film database is terribly disorganized, and often has inaccuracies, just like AllRovi. The IMDb has good organization of categories if you look at its combined details or full cast and crew pages. And the AFI and BFI are much more reliable for accurate credit listings. I have no objection to using a specific AllRovi page as a ref for info when needed, as some have said it's good for silent films. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep – I can't understand how a site can be suitable as a reliable source but is judged to be unsuitable as an external link. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    WP:ELNO #1 is why. It is not just AllRovi but any link that is lazily thrown into "External links" when it could actually be used in the article body. Wikipedia's policy is not to be a clearinghouse of such links but an actual encyclopedia. Anyway, that is why I am okay with adding the AllRovi links to the talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep – I'm kind of on the fence on this one, but I have one main reason for why I tend to lean towards keep. Yes, Allrovi can be disorganized, often incomplete, and I've noticed that sometimes credits for different actors with the same name are all attributed to one person. This is less common on IMDb (although it sometimes does happen there as well), however, as someone pointed out above, IMDb is not allowed as a reliable source for citing articles, while Allrovi is, so I feel like we need to figure this out once and for all – Either IMDb is less reliable because it has too many editors, or Allrovi is less reliable because it has too few – we can't have it both ways. As a frequent editor of both Wikipedia and IMDb (when I find inaccuracies there), I personally feel a bit more secure using Allrovi. The information may be occasionally misleading and disorganized at times, but I at least feel when I find mistakes at Allrovi, it's a mistake made in good faith, whereas IMDb, being a user generated site, tends to attract a lot of 12-year-old "fan" editors; bumping their "favorite" stars to the tops of credit lists, removing ones they don't like from credits altogether, etc. Bottom line, both have their draw-backs and advantages, so I don't see why it's such a bad thing to provide both for the reader to "cross check" the info they find at one site or the other (it's what I do every time I'm editing an article here).--- Crakkerjakk (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Crew credit lists on AllRovi are not occasionally disorganized, they are always disorganized. And I have not seen the order of actors on IMDb cast lists changing around. Once set, they seem to stay put for the most part. No one can go on there and just change them like WP. Changes have to be approved. It's the Trivia section that people complain about as being unreliable. The bar for making additions to Trivia is lower. The credits are usually good. And getting anything removed can be very difficult. As for "cross checking" credits, I use the film itself, and its poster. If you want another website, use AFI or BFI. I would never use AllRovi, unless no other source listed the film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I'm looking at more obscure films/television series than you, but I find problems with cast lists on IMDb all the time. And I haven't found IMDb difficult to edit at all (although this could be due to the fact that I've been editing there for years and have established myself as a reliable editor, so my edits there may be "fast tracked"). Regardless, I've had numerous experiences where I've created complete episode/cast/crew listings for a television series, only to come back a year later and they've been completely rearranged (incorrectly) to some 12-year-old's liking. As for using the film "itself", as you may (or may not) be aware, many older films, television films, television series, etc, were never released in a home media format, so offering an overly simplistic solution such as looking at the film "itself" is completely useless. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it would seem less "completely useless" if you read the sentence "If you want another website, use AFI or BFI." Their credits lists are the most consistently accurate I have seen anywhere. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Errr, no.. I was right the first time – completely useless. Anyone who actually reads the thread understands I was replying to the rationale for removal asserting that anyone who finds the Allrovi template useful can just use IMDb. I'm well aware of the various film/television databases. Some are more accurate than others, but the point I was making is that none of them are 100% complete, so using more than one is useful. Since you're so big on advice, let me give you some: Don't assume everyone who disagrees with you is some moron who needs to have it explained to them that films/television series have credits, and/or how other film/television databases work. I have literally tens of thousands of IMDb edits under my belt, so you should probably just stop now before you embarrass yourself any further. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't assume everyone who disagrees with you needs to be insulted with terms like "completely useless" and "overly simplistic". You either didn't read or chose to ignore If you want another website, use AFI or BFI so you could make that accusation. Then you double down and say you were correct? Maybe you shouldn't be bringing up terms like "embarrassing yourself." If you're going to have a civil discussion, you don't ignore someone's detailed points and then accuse them of being overly simplistic. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Crakkerjakk, I do not think it is fair to compare AllRovi to IMDb. I have my own concerns about IMDb, but it is really embedded in film articles. I think IMDb should be seen as more than a standard database, offering more than what a Wikipedia article about a film has to offer. AllRovi does not. The most ideal Wikipedia article about a film should be able to cover every aspect, so an external link has to be rare in what it has to offer beyond an encyclopedic article. Such an article has the infobox and the cast section and release dates, so the common database details are part of a film's Wikipedia article already. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, I don't think we can have it both ways. Using the existence of the IMDb template to argue for the removal of the Allrovi template, while simultaneously admonishing me for comparing Allrovi to IMDb when disagreeing is ludicrous. Read the thread again and you'll find I was simply addressing the comparison made by advocates for deletion. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I haven't used the IMDb template to argue for the deletion of this template. I prefer to assess this website on its own, especially as an external link (which is different from assessing it as a reliable source). There are other templates that could be assessed too, but my gut tells me that the IMDb template in particular will never be deleted. I think this one and some others are stronger candidates. Do you think that AllRovi movie pages can be seen as unique resources beyond film articles in their Featured form? I'm not seeing many "Keep" arguments in response to that key point, other than BDD saying ELNO #1 is being proscribed too heavily. That is the point, that we should not treat film articles as dumping grounds for links—this one and others too. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm guessing the reason why people aren't addressing whether Allrovi is "unique" is because it's something of a red herring on 99% of film/television/actor related articles. To answer your question - No, Allrovi most likely will not provide much above and beyond what would ideally be included in a featured article. Unfortunately, 99% of entertainment articles (particularly the ones that pre-date the existence of the internet) are not featured/GA articles and most likely never will be. Yes, I realize that's more of a problem with the guidelines set at WP:ELNO and not necessarily unique to this discussion specifically, but the bottom line is 99% of entertainment articles are not featured, so a database link is useful in most cases (and, since there is no definitive database that I've found to be 100% reliable 100% of the time, more than one database link). I would tend to agree that the "External links" section of articles tends to become a "catch all" for sources. We need to keep in mind that most casual readers don't understand all the complicated syntax of citation tags, so they see a template at the top of a page asking for more sources, and simply paste references into the external links because that's the easiest thing they know how to do. I would personally prefer they do that so that an experienced editor can come along and use them to source the article at some point, rather than leave it a "stub" or "start" in perpetuity. While I do find many external links to be inappropriate (and remove them when I do), in the case of the few "database" external links that are presently allowed, I personally haven't see it turn into a big "dumping ground" problem. Bottom line - deleting the template is just going to result in editors typing links to Allrovi by hand on any article that hasn't attained "featured" status, so whether this particular template stays really won't solve the problem you speak of, but merely creates an inconvenience for the editors of 99% of entertainment articles. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
That is fine if you disagree with the guidelines as they are, but the thrust of such guidelines is to have Wikipedia as the go-to for information about such topics. External links are supposed to be rare, but because we tolerate a template like this, Wikipedia is just a way station instead of an encyclopedia. If we operated without "External links" sections being used in Wikipedia articles, I suspect we would have more informative articles out of compulsion. Instead, we make such pages mere access points, and we're lesser as an encyclopedia for it. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I would actually agree with the guidelines for External links in general. I just believe there are Wikiproject categories (film, television, actors), that qualify as reasonable exceptions when it comes to a database template like this one (for the various reasons I, and others, have outlined throughout this thread). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep – I can't understand how a site can be suitable as a reliable source but is judged to be unsuitable as an external link, besides. who started this rediclous idea?Savolya (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    I started this idea, but I do not think it is ridiculous. The crux of the deletion argument is WP:ELNO #1. It has to "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". The information at AllRovi can be easily covered in the film's Wikipedia article. In contrast, a solidly acceptable external link is the {{Internet Archive film}} template, which links to the full film where available. That's something a Wikipedia article cannot offer. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - a strong delete: i just needed to check their high fidelity page to understand that this website does NOT bring anything (though i love AllMusic) kernitou talk 15:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep – I used this template a lot and get rid of it is going to more harm than good. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Allrovi does provide things you don't find even in an FA. Some information simply doesn't belong in an encylopædia article. For example WikiProject_Film is never going to say that information on all releases needs to be including in a GA. Does Fight Club (an FA) provide information on home release? Yes, it does. But it doesn't include a list of all of the various home releases, nor should it. AllRovi not only includes a list of all home release, but also includes lots of information about them, including summaries specific to to a release, list of included features and, even when that information is not available, includes information about aspect ratio and sound format which can and do vary from release to release. AllRovi also provides movie stills, previews and lots of other information that we can't and shouldn't provide and which yes, may often be provided on other database websites, but these types of database websites almost never completely duplicate the information available on another website. When each database website does it's best job, then yes, there is a lot of information overlap and some database websites do a more complete job or are more easily accessible. But sometimes AllRovi is going to be the best database site to link to. Maybe it will be the best EL to provide simply because other websites have not done as thorough a job as AllRovi, and these cases alone make a strong case for AllRovi. But also, in some cases the places where AllRovi provides unique information that isn't included by other sites may be substantial or important. Fight Club has been released dozens of times in different media formats. It has numerous special editions, and has been packaged with other movies more than once. It's been released in multiple languages, with different screen formats, sound formats and different aspect ratios. Several releases have different cover art. IMDB does do as good if not a better job than AllRovi in just about every other area in this example, but nowhere does IMDB have the same kind of information of home releases or ratings flags, and for this film, this area is substantial.
Additional Thoughts - Is link abuse really a good reason to strike a template? Does the existence of a template promote the universal acceptability of a link regardless of circumstance? What this template does do is make sure that when these links are used they are done so uniformly, providing the same level of information and accuracy from use to use. This seems beneficial to me. Is AllRovi overlinked? Probably. But that doesn't mean template removal is the answer. Shouldn't template removal be the answer only if there is no need for the template? Even if linking to AllRovi should only be used on 1000 pages or even a few hundred, isn't it still beneficial?
I really don't see exactly why deletion should be favoured over clean-up and prudent editing in regard to EL. Erik, you've been a strong proponent of this, putting it up for a Tfd twice. Is there a reason other than that it is not uniformly the best EL to use and is used in excess? Because those seem like reasons to make sure that WikiProject Film pays closer attention to the use of ELs and perhaps provides a guideline for ELs specific to film. 76.171.22.113 (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - Useful template, useful website, often carries information about awards, specifically, not carried on TCM or IMDB. I believe Erik may not be aware of its usefulness because he is focused on current films and not older ones, but in any case, I see no valid reason for deletion of this template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
    Nobody is disputing its usefulness, but it is not an appropriate external link per the guidelines. You mention awards, but any ideal featured article about a film would cover awards too. The content has to transcend what would be covered in such an article. External links go against the spirit of Wikipedia because editors do not have to bother with adding content. In a world without "External links" sections, we would have more informative Wikipedia articles because we are more compelled to do so. By having these templates on a mass scale, Wikipedia just serves as a link farm. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Erik, but you just effectively closed this discussion as "Keep" when you wrote "Nobody is disputing its usefulness". This template (as for lots of templates) makes it easier and more consistent to use URLs – be they in article text (e.g. references) or external links. Removing this template will not stop people adding external links (and, as always, they can be adjudicated against policy whether a template is used or not), however the absence of the template will make it more awkward for the instances where (as you say) this useful provider needs to be linked. Even if there ends up being only a handful of AllRovi movie links, editors and readers have the right to use a template to format and read them consistently. GFHandel   21:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - AllRovi's reviews are a good reference for "Reception" sections, and should be used that way; having an external link template for the site discourages editors from taking the time to integrate that info into the article. I've read over the "Keep" arguments and they all seem based on the misconception that AllRovi's usefulness/reliability is the issue here.--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This is the wrong venue Quoting from the nom statement. "The TfD issue here is with having this website as a external link." This is not the proper area to discuss external links. This area is used to determine if a template is broken, unused, or violating policy. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Reasons to delete a template The proper place to discuss external links is the External links Noticeboard. The 2 comments at Template talk:AllRovi movie#RfC: Benefit of AllRovi as an external link? are not enough to determine consensus. Please have the discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard with a link from the template to noticeboard rather than the other way around. Please gain consensus to remove the link at that noticeboard before trying to delete the template. Once there is consensus for removing the link, the template can be deleted per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Reasons to delete a template. Thank you. 64.40.54.59 (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
    The RfC was not meant to precede the TfD. It was not garnering much attention, and an admin suggested doing a TfD instead of the RfC. Even if we had a full RfC, the same kind of discussion would be repeated here. It would not have been a procedural TfD. There's a healthy discussion going on here, and I think that suggesting a bureaucratic halt to it is not useful. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
"I think that suggesting a bureaucratic halt to it is not useful." You may very well be right. I've posted a note at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#AllRovi.com notifying the people that monitor that noticeboard that you would prefer to have the discussion over here. You may want to post a note to the closing admin that this discussion should be judged on the merits of the WP:EL guideline as opposed to the WP:DELETE policy so they are not confused. You may also want to alert any new !voters to base their comments on WP:EL as opposed to WP:DELETE. I'm not sure what should happen with all those who have already cast their !votes. Notifying them to adjust their comments may run afoul of WP:CANVASS. Perhaps they should just be discounted by the closing admin. I'm not really sure. I'll leave it up to others to decide that. 64.40.54.59 (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can't see deleting the template making a difference in the site being used in external links. There should be a broader discussion on which links to use in which articles. Although sites like Rovi and IMBD are not considered as reliable they are still useful for readers to look at the pretty pictures that we don't have and their linking system to other pages may be more complete than ours, etc. Does this qualify under use of EL because we can't provide what they can?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I recently found the IMBD template useful to link to the other film in Roadie (film). There is no reason we can't keep the Rovi template as an easier way to reference an artcle. This has been mentioned above but I thought I would add my example.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Have not used the template but am swayed by the arguments above, especially the prevalence of usage. It is a very serious thing to nuke something with that much usage. Instead of there being an underused template or two versions of one, or some other issue with the thing itself...this is an all out attack on external links. It is becoming a very dangerous fashion on Wikipedia to eschew all external links and controlling templates (rather than monitoring use) is how people submarine attack that POV lately. Wiki is not a walled garden. We should send users to external content. For thing, OUR CONTENT is FAR from perfect and we link to it like crazy.  ;-). If there is an inapprorprate external link then fine, fix it...the same as fixing a reference, the same as fixing text that our editors write. But really even if you are anti EL, going after the templates is Wiki-gamey stuff.TCO (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - I commented a day ago on AllRovi as a unique source and my confusion regarding the reasons given for the deletion of this template. I even asked the poster to expound upon his reasoning. I haven't gotten a response and the continuing discussion in favor of deletion has continued to center on the same bad reasons. At this time I see no reason to delete this template. 76.171.22.113 (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    Hello, regarding your comment earlier, I do not find home media versions and formats a compelling feature to warrant inclusion as an external link. To think of it another way, I cannot imagine a website solely about a list of such versions (especially the commercial angle of it all) being accepted as an external link across Wikipedia's film articles. You asked, "Does the existence of a template promote the universal acceptability of a link regardless of circumstance?" Combined with the tipping point of its proliferation, yes, it does. It proliferates because it is proliferated, especially without consideration for the external link guidelines. Some editors arguing to keep want to disregard this guideline and endorse Wikipedia as a link conduct, which is fine as a stance. If external links were tolerated as "to be referenced" or "go there since we cannot provide that here" kind of links, database links would be fine, but I do not think the spirit of the guidelines reads that way. Wikipedia wants to be a content provider, not a content portal, and I think endorsing AllRovi as an external link goes against that premise. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I would normally reply to your points item by item, but this has become ridiculous. You are not arguing that AllRovi is not acceptable per WP:ELNO #1. "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." We don't provide crew lists, lists of home releases, movie stills or video. No one is saying that we do, not even you. Which means that AllRovi movie pages are fine when considering ELNO #1, if you base the decision on the merit of this website as an EL. But you and many posters seem not to be basing the decision on that, but that there are better ELs which should supplant AllRovi. Ok. That still doesn't make AllRovi verboten per ELNO.
  • One argument that is being made is that we shouldn't have ELs that duplicate each other in terms of context. That makes sense, I agree. But that doesn't make AllRovi a bad link or provide a reason for template deletion. If AllRovi and IMDB completely overlap each other, than only one should be linked to. But given that AllRovi is considered a reliable source and IMDB is not, I'd personally prefer linking to AllRovi. If what AllRovi provides can be found at IMDB and IMDB has more, link to IMDB. And vice versa. You seem to be making the argument that that can't happen, and therefore never will happen, therefore AllRovi violates ELNO. That's ridiculous. And several people have posted saying that sometimes AllRovi does a better job.
  • Another argument being made is that linking to AllRovi doesn't really violate ELNO, but since we have better sites to link to most of the time, AllRovi should be the exception and not the rule, therefore, no template. Even if it's the exception and not the rule, a template is still a good thing. If AllRovi is an appropriate link only 1% of the time, that still means hundreds of pages. More than enough for a template.
  • The last argument being made is that AllRovi is overlinked, and therefore the template should go simply to help correct this behavior. This is a little ridiculous. The existence of the template is not why it is being used. Nor will deleting the template help the problem. Editors will still link badly. The difference will be that we won't even have a way to track how much AllRovi is being used. If AllRovi is widely overused and a problem, the film project should write up a guideline on what to link to and when. This would enable someone to go through the pages that link to AllRovi and quickly determine whether the link is appropriate or not given the guidelines and be able to delete it quickly if necessary without any discussion. IMO, having the template helps make this problem easier to fix, not harder. 76.171.22.113 (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I have not compared AllRovi to IMDb, nor do I intend to. I see IMDb as a mainstay even though arguments could be made that it is not warranted (such as the reliability of it). AllRovi should be compared to Wikipedia's ideal featured articles about films. My perspective of existing featured articles about topics other than films is that external links are relatively nonexistent or extremely minimal. Like I said, Wikipedia is not a content provider, not a content portal, which to me means that it cannot be everything. Surely there are more intricate details to a given topic than an encyclopedic article will cover, but featured articles aren't going to also serve as portals for that kind of granularity, which I think you are highlighting here. I guess it depends on how one interprets "unique resource", whether or not AllRovi identifying lesser crew members counts as that. That's not necessarily unique, nor do I see photo stills and videos the same. In contrast, linking to a public-domain film available at the Internet Archive is quite valuable. I do not know if this warrants a comparison of all databases to determine preferential treatment, especially commercial ones like IMDb and AllRovi vs. noncommercial ones like AFI and BFI (which is another factor we haven't considered here, how much the first pair have benefited from proliferation).
    The problem with the template is that it is standardizing a website that is not serving as a unique resource, particular in the context of featured articles' primary roles as content providers and the available databases (if such items are even warranted as external links). It's tough to have a non-TfD discussion that won't be too localized (and probably lead to crying foul if the consensus involves change) compared to this one that is globalized yet about an overlap of usage and code to make usage easy. The template is used in over 17,000 articles, and it has been proliferated without too much thinking. (For what it's worth, Special:Linksearch can identify articles where certain websites are linked.) The popular film articles have such links, so the less popular ones do now. (Same problem is happening with the TCM database linking, though there seems to be a stronger argument about what TCM provides for some films compared to other databases as opposed to AllRovi.) Any formulated guidelines can contradict so-called natural outgrowth of certain editing patterns. For example, "Trivia" sections and mere tagline mentions are such outgrowths that do not fit the encyclopedic scope. The problem is that the increasing absence of the aforementioned elements are teachable moments where the absence of external links are seen as vacuums to be filled (even if someone previously determined that the links were not unique resources). It is an unpleasant issue of under-reaction and over-reaction when dealing with the overall trend of external links, the over-reaction especially failing to especially respond directly to WP:ELNO #1 (though I think you've made a decent case here). I'm sure you're not convinced, as these wall-of-text exchanges tend to insinuate, but I hope you get where I'm coming from. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, I am convinced. That's the first solid argument that I've heard, and the first non-contradictory one. But I think the action you've taken is the wrong one. If you don't find value in the the additional information, photos and video that is the mainstay of these databases, then a discussion should take place at the film project about ALL of these databases, and what constitutes unique information. That way people can decide what ELs should never be used and which ones are okay given a certain set of circumstances. But I'm highly uncomfortable with the way this is being handled. You aren't getting a discussion on whether or not these databases are appropriate as ELs. There's been no discussion on what is enough to qualify as a unique source and very little on what databases we prefer to link to and what one we're ok with if they are the only providers of a unique source. The discussion you've had with Crakkerjakk is the closest anyone has come to actually discussing the issue at hand here and you have vastly different opinions. I understand that you want global consensus, but you not only aren't getting that you aren't even getting a real global discussion about this problem.
    Your opinion about this EL problem is a valid one, but the conversation that needs to take place cannot take place here. If you want to seriously tackle this problem then create a policy proposal that deals with all of these database ELs. You can solicit imput from the film project and all of the many other projects that cover films. If that doesn't bring you the global discussion and consensus you are looking for, then you can have a bot put a notice on the talk page of every article that links to AllRovi, IMDB and any other database that might be affected. That is the kind of work that could have the effect you're looking for. Deleting this template is not going to create consensus or fix this problem and I think it's a completely inappropriate step at this time. People will put the links back in and the discussion you're talking about will happen over an extended period of time on hundreds or thousands of article talk pages. You'll get localized consensus, but it will differ in different areas of the film project. You want global consensus and to fix a big problem, then you have to do it the right way. And this is not the right way. 76.171.22.113 (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    I was actually wanting to do that in the first place... :) See this. So much for that. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah I saw that, but moving the discussion was a bad idea. Moving it here, especially. You didn't get the discussion you wanted, in large part because you didn't ask for it. Instead you said this violates WP:EL, so let's delete it. That's not the best way to find out the benefit of it as an EL. Instead, you're getting people saying "Keep" for a variety of reasons, many having nothing to do with it's relative benefit as an EL. They might have an opinion on its benefit but you aren't getting that in the responses.
    Start a new discussion, but don't just go to MOS for input, though I think that's where the discussion belongs, not here and not on the talk page of a template. I don't think you went far enough when requesting input. WikiProject_Film has over two dozen task forces. Not to mention the Actors and Filmmakers project, the Animation project, the Horror project and the Television project. If you asked just the active members of these projects and task forces to weigh in, you'd have hundreds of opinions, all from project members. I'm pretty sure that that could be used to build one hell of a consensus. Try reaching out to these people and work toward finding a consensus and putting it in the MOS/Film guideline. I really don't think that not getting enough input is going to be an issue. I think finding a consensus will, but that's never easy. If this is really an important issue to you, then try again and do a better job of soliciting opinions. Because what you've been trying doesn't work, you don't even get discussion on the area you consider a problem. Besides, a lot of people see going to Tfd as gaming the system, especially considering that you've tried this before and its failed. And I think you need to approach it in terms of all database sites. AllRovi may be the most overused, but you won't get a real discussion about what these types of ELs are useful unless you approach all of them at once. 76.171.22.113 (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - I work on mainly older film articles. As such, I often find that Allrovi has more information about those films than IMDb typically does. IMDb relies on users to supply synopsis, etc. - as a result, there's a wealth of information there about newer films that are easily accessible but there's a huge lack of information about film predating 1950 (unless they're a classic). Information about silent films is virtually non-existent. I can't speak on the new "wrong" information Allrovi has but the information it has on older films is actually helpful to readers (ie unique) which is why I occasionally link to it. I could see regulating this particular template on newer film articles because there are links aplenty out there for those, but I don't see point in deleting this just because we already link to IMDb. IMDb ain't the end all be all and we shouldn't be presenting it as such. That seems to be the logic here - "we link to IMDb, that rocks so we should get rid of everything else". The fact that Allrovi is considered a reliable source should also indicate that it is unique and helpful. Pinkadelica 07:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - I've looked at many hundreds of movie article pages, from "mainstream" to "just barely notable," and I've never ever felt the need to click anything other than the IMDb link. Should IMDb turn out to not provide the information I'm looking for, AllRovi wouldn't be my next stop anyway. On the other hand I can see the arguments from other commenters that in some regards AllRovi is a better resource than IMDb, but also that it isn't the end-all source anyway. -- This gist of this is, that IMO AllRovi links should not be added indiscriminately, but only when specifically relevant (compared to, say, IMDb). I would encourage to do exactly that - weed out links from existing articles - to solve this problem, instead of deleting the template. But if deleting the template accomplishes this goal, then I'm for it. Katana (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The keep arguments above are not convincing, and many of them made no attempt at an argument at all. The repeated conflation of the standards for external links and that for inline sources only confuses the issue. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 04:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Some time ago (Jan 31st, 2011 but who's counting?) I used the template as references in a couple articles, Lowrider (magazine) and Yule Log (TV program), and I have no idea how many more instances of the 17,266 links counted above might be examples of where the template is for a ref, not EL. Should the hammer fall and nearly all those links be obliterated along with the template [buries face in palm and shakes head], then those are perhaps but a few of the refs that would get wiped out should there not be careful intervention. Oh, and I would point out that the AllRovi entries linked from those refs, while minor, don't appear to have IMDb equivalents and don't easily appear in Google searches, perhaps because of the site's use of that accursed robots.txt. 4.252.214.247 (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Unless these links are deemed to be invalid external links, I see no reason to remove a useful template that provides a consistent look. Moreover, there seem to editors above that found the link useful, particularly for silent films and releases. I also don't see merit in the argument that the cast and crew are ordered differently than some would like. If the template is deleted without consensus on EL status and a bot is created to deal with the template, it should not remove the links even to the talk page, but instead replace them with non-templated versions. —Ost (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. I always thought WP:EL #1 ("site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article") is perverse: 99.9% of the articles should be harmed just to prevent 0.1% of the articles from having redundant content. GregorB (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep.--Ezzex (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. And then we can work on ELNO #1. Ventifax (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Based on WP:ELNO 1. Bede735 (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Delete. A much less notable website than Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB. Based on WP:ELNO 1. as well as it being more relevant to music reviews. KoRoBeNiKi (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've read the above points, and it seems to me that we want to delete this template because it's being overused. If you ask me, I think iMDB is being overused. Even Rotten Tomatoes is overused. From the article Dante's Peak:

Dante's Peak at Internet Movie Database
Dante's Peak at Rotten Tomatoes
Dante's Peak at Box Office Mojo
I sure don't see any reason for deletion for too much usage if other templates are being used more. However, based on the point directly above mine (and research), it is mainly a music site. On top of the search bar, 'Music' is listed before 'Movies'. Anyway, that's my take. (PS - I just added the AllRovi template to Dante's Peak. Meh.) MTG1989 (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep. From what I have seen on the allmovie site, it doesn't seem significantly different than IMDB, in that it provides additional information that is not usually found within Wikipedia articles. I also don't agree with the argument that because this site is "less notable" that we shouldn't link to it. I don't think it is in Wikipedia's best interest to support a monoculture of information on the web. And, I can see this kind of argument easily being gamed by sites to push their competitors' links off of Wikipedia, until there is just a single external link across an entire genre of Wikipedia articles. — RockMFR 04:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. What's the matter with having one more link (that seems to be very popular, too, therefore apparently useful) - WP:NOTPAPER, anyway... --Janke | Talk 07:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. As some have already pointed out above, if the AllRovi template should be deleted because it doesn't fulfil the rather questionable WP:ELNO #1, then all external links should be removed. WP:ELNO #1 talks about links to sites "that do not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Unfortunately, most film articles are not featured articles, especially not in the beginning, and most never will be. For this reason, WP:ELNO #1 can not be used as an argument. Hardly any Wiki film article contains all the material available in the various film databases that we currently have templates for, and many of them do not alway have the same content as IMDb (which actually contains a lot of incomplete or faulty material as well). So 3-4 links to external film databases can both help Wiki editors who want to improve and expand an article, and function as additional resources for Wiki users. I don't personally find AllRovi very useful, but some obviously do - and once we go down this path I fear that templates to most external film databases will be removed as well. It's just one single line in an article, so what harm does it do to keep it? Thomas Blomberg (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. For those of us who work on many an article, allrovi provides concise and to the point info about the film, lost or surviving. Most of us can't stay stuck on one film forever or we'd get nothing done. Rotten Tomatoes is based purely on opinion which is why I ignore it. It is not truly helpful in the construction of an article which for educational purposes should be based on the pedantic and esoteric, providing the user with in-your-face useful information without tiring him out with a windy article. IMDB, AFI, Allrovi, maybe a few others do the best they can with what is known. For instance in the case of early African-American produced silent films, (an almost sub-industry alongside mainstream early Hollywood), nothing is known about the lot of those films except maybe the title.Koplimek (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, or at the very least deprecate per WP:ELNO. The information in the Allrovi database is what should be present in the WP article itself. Quite lazy for us not to do that. -- Netoholic @ 08:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete – Has no unique information to offer that would warrant EL status. Any information from the website should be referenced within the article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Demography of Annaba[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Demography of Annaba (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

single use template, and now redundant after the information was merged with Annaba. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete - orphaned and redundant. Robofish (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
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.