Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< April 16 April 18 >

April 17

edit

Template:Jones-dennis

edit
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 23:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused citation template. The exact citation is used outside of template space on Moel Tryfan (locomotive). WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional delete. The template is unused and apparently has one potential transclusion; you don't need a dedicated citation template for that. If the author thinks the source will be used elsewhere then that's a reason to keep it. Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 18 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).

Template:KHL Sisak roster

edit
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use roster list. Substitute on the KHL Sisak page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:52, 17 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).

Template:Japan Map plot

edit
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused location map that was intended to borrow the function of its Japanese Wikipedia counterpart. However, it's nothing like Mapplot Japan. Doesn't seem to be necessary for use on this Wikipedia. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:52, 17 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).

Template:Illinois NRHP date for lists

edit
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 23:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and outdated since 2008. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:48, 17 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).

Template:Fastest known times for Pyrenees routes and summits

edit
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 relisted on 2022 April 24. ✗plicit 23:51, 24 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).

Template:File specifications caption

edit
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 relisted on 2022 April 27. Izno (talk) 02:13, 27 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).

Template:Arts of Azerbaijan

edit
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused specific citation template that was probably created in the wrong space. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:29, 17 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).

Template:Royal Malaysian Air Force aircraft

edit
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as the same list is already featured on List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:28, 17 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).

Template:Universal fire

edit
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 relisted on 2022 April 24. ✗plicit 23:57, 24 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).

Template:2020 Webby Awards

edit
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template using the subst pagename function just to say this person won a 2020 Webby Award. Not a good use of template space to just state this in biographical articles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:05, 17 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).

Template:Members of the Kurdistan Regional Government

edit
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template with no mainspace for use but also pretty out-of-date. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:01, 17 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).

Template:Miqaats of Syedna Burhanuddin

edit
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and primarily presents itself as article content. Not sure where this could be used. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:54, 17 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).

Template:The Clorox Company

edit
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused specific citation template that was probably created in the wrong space. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:51, 17 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).

Template:Year in State of Palestine

edit
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 23:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused year navigational infobox. One for each year for each country is not necessary. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It was a while back ago but I think I made this template as an effort to fix an error on the rendering of the Year in Palestine infobox. It's not used on any pages so deleting it doesn't have any negative effect on those pages. Thanks for messaging me WikiCleanerMan and recommend a speedy close. Cheers, Dan the Animator 19:48, 20 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).

Template:2019 Netball World Cup Scotland netball team roster

edit
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these templates. ✗plicit 23:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No longer needed as the roster is already on 2019 Netball World Cup squads as part of the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:39, 17 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).

Template:2018 Asian Games Iran men's volleyball team roster

edit
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused with all the players on the roster already listed on Volleyball at the 2018 Asian Games – Men. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:29, 17 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).

Template:Cite CinemaScore

edit
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. Replace or remove as necessary. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CinemaScore has no additional parameters with their URL to help cite a film's score. Its database just exists at cinemascore.com, with a search bar to narrow results to find the film in question. This doesn't need a whole template dedicated to it, when {{cite web}} is more than sufficient. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 230 templates currently exist that wrap Template:Cite Web exist per Category:Templates that wrap Cite web (249), don't see why this shouldn't exist when those do. Reasons to keep are helpful for standardisation, better for editors, and good for future preservation.
This template standardises the title and website parameters of normal cite web, and adds a note that was in some articles such as featured list List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films before template so I didn't write note myself. Note exists because it's a search engine and individual pages not available. That can easily be amended and discussion can take place at its talk page regarding it if anyone wants. I noticed a lot of inconsistency in title and website parameters when Template:Cite web used, or other parameter used like publisher, template standardises that.
Reducing parameters means easier to find access-date parameter to update, access-date should be updated if reference used in a franchise article and new entry added for example
A lot of pages had a dead link, https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/, either with archive or just dead, instead of https://www.cinemascore.com/, so a template may help to resolve issue in future by replacing url and/or adding archive at template-level Indagate (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template is actually detrimental to citation as pointed out at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Indagate_and_Cinemascore_template. To access the information on Cinemascore a reader must undertake a search on the title, thus putting up a barrier between the reader and the information. If the site dies then the information is lost. The Cinemascore scores are often widely reported by the industry press which can be directly sourced and archived to prevent link rot. Unfortunately, these direct citations have been replaced in many cases (such as at Batman Begins with indirect citations. This template is a solution looking for a problem and is inferior to the long-standing approach. If the template is deleted, then we need some time to restore the original sourcing. Betty Logan (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Vast majority of cases I replaces direct links to cinmeascore.com so readers already have to use search, that case a box office mojo news article looks unreliable unlike their box office figures. The problem is lack of standardisation between references for CinemaScore, that example is exception/
    Special:Links Search says #1,618 links to CinemaScore so it's widely cited as a suorce itself Indagate (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added note to documentation that think addresses this concern, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_CinemaScore%2Fdoc&type=revision&diff=1083514417&oldid=1082555112 Indagate (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given that the URL fails to point to the specific title of interest (I do not know if that can be fixed). --Izno (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno That occurs regardless of whether {{Cite Web}} or {{Cite CinemaScore}} is used, see these diffs
    The second diff has a dead link but still search bar
    Can be replaced with source like Deadline Hollywood like it is in some articles, and that can be good for archive so not saying replace sources like that, but CinemaScore is referenced itself in many articles and think this is better than Cite Web for that Indagate (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then a better citation should be found. Izno (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not always possible to find it in a reliable source, plus I'd say Cite Cinemascore is better than Cite Web even until a better reference is maybe found as has the consistent parameters until then Indagate (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Search links are not targets of citations. This is a misuse. You can either remove the {{cite web}} references and rewrite/repurpose this as a search-link template, or add variable |url=, |title= and |id= expressions that land the reader on the relevant film metric. And document it properly. 65.88.88.93 (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not possible though, there isn't a specific film page on the site, references have used search engine before and will if this template is deleted
    See the diffs and you'll see search engine used within cite web, this template just standardises the references Indagate (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Standardising misuse does not correct it. The right thing to do is remove the badly entered {{cite web}} templates, wherever you find them. If there is no specific metric available programmatically, then this wrapper is inapplicable. 65.88.88.93 (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have something that says cite web shouldn't be used for a search engine like this?
    The person who proposed this TfD mentioned Cite Web so seems likely would revert to that if deleted unless you propose something else Indagate (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    CS1 templates are an application of CS1 whose help page (WP:CS1) follows WP:EL (among others), including WP:ELNO. Point #9 classes search links as "to be normally avoided". Apart from that, the restriction is derived from both the spirit and the letter of citation practice. CS1 citations are subsets of bibliographic records that target specific article-related items. They are not supposed to target searches for such items. 65.88.88.93 (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first where was the consensus for any of these sites specific citation templates to begin with? Creating yet another does not seem like a good idea. (For years editors rejected {{cite magazine}} and we were forced to use {{cite journal}} for magazine references, yet somehow recently we've a rash of these site specific templates). Second of all this template is a reference to an empty search box, it is not helpful. (It is better than nothing but only just barely.) The big problem is that the CinemaScore website is fundamentally badly designed and does not give us a way to reference a specific film. I would have been more zealous about killing off these types of references but aside from the obvious user-unfriendlyness and general awfulness of linking to an empty search box the bigger rule I can of is that it violates WP:LINKROT. Editors should be strongly encouraged to link to reliable sources such as Deadline.com, Variety.com, EW.com, the LaTimes.com, BoxOfficeMojo.com if possible (and even the Cinemascore Twitter account as a last resort is better than an empty search box). I can appreciate the good faith effort to make things more consistent but unfortunately this template makes things consistently worse. I do hope more can be done to address the underlying problems that have been highlighted here. Thank you Indagate, and thank you Favre1fan93, either way this goes you are helping to make a better encyclopedia. -- 109.78.206.47 (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Site specific templates aren't particularly new, e.g. the RT and MC ones that's commonly used alongside this one was created two years ago, the RT one passed an TfD one year ago, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 9
    The previous reference for most of these pages was an empty search box, others a dead link search box, so that won't change if template deleted. The note saying the enter film in search box was not present on most articles but was present on a couple, think that helps the issue of it being a search but can be ach
    I'd agree it should be replaced with something like Deadline, but that hasn't happened for the many references to CinemaScore before templates creation and doesn't seem proposed, so likely won't for most cases in the future as not priority and not something bot can do. I'd disagree with BoxOfficeMojo from your list though and not aware of editorial standards checking of their articles so probably not a reliable source for that, is for box office figures. Anyone is free to change the documentation.
    Archive for dead link search box works so think archive for the live link search box would work in the future as archive downloads the page so don't think WP:LINKROT would apply.
    Thanks Indagate (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say those templates were new, not that it matters either way. A template survived a deletion proposal, that only shows that some of the most active editors (active enough to pay attention to deletion discussions) find these kinds of templates convenient, that doesn't necessarily make them a good idea in general. Valid objections were raised by user DarkWarriorBlake, these specific interest templates add more layers of complexity, more barriers, for minimal benefit. (A bot could replace cite Cinemascore with an Cite web but also add a {{better reference needed}} tag too while it was at it.) You can question the quality of Box Office Mojo, I do too, but it is clearly a higher standard than an empty search box, and I listed it (second to) last intentionally. Deadline is a far better source for anything recent, and Ew.com was usually good enough before Deadline existed. IIRC, Last I checked the archive URL we have have for Cinemascore with a long list of scores only went up as far as 2019, WP:LINKROT will be a problem sooner or later, linking to an empty search box is asking for trouble. I would hope that Cinemascore might eventually give us a better website where direct targeted links are possible, but linking to an empty search box should not be acceptable and it should not be encouraged. It is good that people have recognized there are problems here, but this template only encourages more problems.
    The convenience argument was enough to save {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} from deletion, this discussion may yet turn in that direction, who knows. -- 109.78.193.194 (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think they add more complexity, the user does not need to add url, title, or website parameters to reference that would be needed with cite web so those fields are consistent and not needed to be written in every article
    Maybe that better reference needed could be added to the template so appears on all pages with it? Especially when it's added to article of a single film which. That's something that can only really be done with template, not sure if possible for a bot to add that template to cite web and keep updated when new references created
    Not sure what you mean about 2019, new archives seem to be created multiple times a week https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://cinemascore.com/
    I'd like CinemaScore to have dedicated pages, and for the 1622 links to be replaced with Deadline etc too, but deleting the template will hinder that goal, not help it, by making it harder to find the links
    The current system of cite web led to many dead links, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=500&target=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinemascore.com%2Fpublicsearch%2Findex%2Ftitle for a list of 815 pages with dead CinemaScore links. Surely this template with live link is better than that? If in the future they change link again, then it's a case of 1 edit in template and no more dead links Indagate (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They absolutely do add more complexity for ordinary users, if you think editors who do not regularly edit film articles are going to want to spend the time learning how to use a very specific template you are only fooling yourself. If they actually made things better for frequent editors I think there might be more support for them in this discussion by now. I was referring to the archive copy of https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/ [1] a long list which contained all the available cinemascores in full. The last useful version was captured August 2019[2] Until that point an archive copy of the full list was better than an empty search box. It is interesting to see that the Cinemascore.com front page is being archived so frequently and capturing the short list of scores of whatever has been reviewed recently. That is a workaround to the problem of the awful Cinemascore.com website, but I still don't think editors should be referencing an empty search box in the first place. It is crazy that there are 230 templates that wrap {{cite web}} and maybe some of them have really good reasons to exist, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a strong point in favor of this template. -- 109.78.199.198 (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't need to learn how to use it, access-date parameter looks the same as other cite templates and only part that may need updating once reference created. Don't think anyone is saying empty search box should be referenced in ideal world but https://*.cinemascore.com is linked #2,080 times per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=2000&target=https%3A%2F%2F%2A.cinemascore.com. Think template can be used to add better cite template or easier to find them, or something else to improve references. The point is, those cite web templates exist so the reason for deletion cited, that this is redundent, doesn't seem true. Indagate (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment May be beneficial to link to previous discussions from WP Film regarding CinemaScore. July 2011 regarding referencing it at all - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_36#CinemaScore, and October 2017 regarding url being search engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_66#Cinemascore_and_inability_to_link_to_specific_films — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indagate (talk • contribs) 20:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CinemaScore’s website is very badly designed, just a search box and no separate pages for the ratings of each film. It is not a very good website to cite, even in cases where the CinemaScore of a film is relevant information, and if an article on a reliable source mentions the CinemaScore of a film, that would be a better source to cite. For example, many such citations of reliable sources already exist within the CinemaScore article itself. This template doesn’t do anything that the cite web template can’t already do, and it is basically standardizing bad behavior of linking to a site that is poorly designed and not a very good source. The design issues of the site could perhaps be alleviated if there were pages for each film that could be archived/cached, but sadly that is not possible.
The only solution I can think of for saving the results of a CinemaScore website search lookup for a specific film is to screenshot it, but such a screenshot could not be hosted on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons because according to the Terms of Use on the CinemaScore website, everything on that website including the logos and such is copyright with all rights reserved and the terms of use get into more restrictive language. See the “2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INFORMATION” section of the Terms of Use page on CinemaScore here. Unfortunately this means it would violate Wikipedia and Wikimedia policies to screenshot search lookups that actually show the CinemaScores of films, so the most we are able to do with the CinemaScore website is just link to its main page with the search bar (or archived versions of that same page) and expect users to type in the names of films themselves, which is not exactly user-friendly.
This is not the type of website source that we should be encouraging the use of or creating custom templates for. And custom templates like this confuse ordinary wiki editors who are unfamiliar with them and much more familiar with the cite web template (in fact, I am one of those users who finds this a bit confusing, to be honest). Now I appreciate that Indagate has put some effort into this but I agree with the other people who seem to know more about Wikipedia rules that this template is rather counterproductive and doesn’t really help the situation. What actually WOULD help this situation would be if the company Romin Inc. made its CinemaScore website more user-friendly and made it so if you look up a film, you could click on it and then there would be a separate HTML page specifically about that film, like how IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes and other sites like that have different pages for every film. But there isn’t really anything we can do about that here on Wikipedia, and creating a new template doesn’t actually solve this underlying problem, unfortunately.
It actually makes things slightly worse because this template is basically useless and doesn’t do anything the cite web template can’t do and this just confuses people who are used to using cite web, and ideally we would be linking to the CinemaScore website (in its current just-a-search-box form) as little as possible from Wikipedia, since it is not a very good source. This is not to say that CinemaScores of movies are not relevant information, for instance if a film is rated A+ or F, that is a good thing to mention in the Wikipedia article about that film, but thankfully actual articles on actual Hollywood news websites list the films rated A+ or F by CinemaScore and they are better sources by Wikipedia standards since the articles are at specific URLs, they have titles, they have text, they have authors listed who wrote the articles, and they do a better job at meeting the criteria for being considered good sources by Wikipedia. Basically, this template is useless as far as adding any functionality not found in cite web, duplicative of cite web, confuses wiki editors, and encourages the bad behavior of citing the CinemaScore website which is not a website we should be citing unless absolutely necessary because of its bad design. I am not saying that Indagate did anything wrong, though, Indagate was trying to fix things with CinemaScore citations, which are a real problem. It is just that this is not the solution, unfortunately. Others have cited specific Wikipedia policies in their arguments for deletion above and I agree with them and their arguments. I am mostly making a practical argument to agree/concur with them in order to try and help achieve a stronger consensus to ensure this issue is promptly resolved.
Also, assuming this template is deleted like I am arguing for, I hope Indagate is not discouraged from continuing to work on trying to improve things on Wikipedia such as articles that don’t have good inline citations, or anything else that needs to be improved. I have sometimes written things that ended up being deleted but I have continued to edit on this and other wikis and I feel that I have learned from the experience. That wiki editing experience, including sometimes seeing my work deleted, helped me learn enough skills to become an administrator on multiple wikis on the site currently called Fandom (formerly Wikia), and I hope Indagate gets something positive out of this too in the long run rather than getting discouraged, and continues to try to improve Wikipedia (as well as possibly other wikis). Also thank you to everyone else involved in this discussion for their thoughtful input and their insight into Wikipedia policies. —yetisyny (talk • contribs) 11:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. True that nothing that cite web can't do, but most uses of cite web that were used for CinemaScore had unused or misued parameters so worse than templated version. There's consensus for linking to the search engine at WikiProject Film so don't think that would change if this is deleted. Agree that it would be good for them to have individual pages but that's out of our control. Agree that better to cite actual articles, and something like better reference needed can be added to end of template if kept to ask editors to replace it with better url. The search engine is archived regularly, using the template would mean wouldn't have hundreds of dead links, most without an archive like we do now, as could replace the url or mark live-status as dead with archive. Disagree about others citing policies, only guideline cited in this discussion is WP:EL regarding search engine, for which there is special consensus for. Indagate (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I don't understand the argument that we shouldn't cite Ajax search results. We cite paywalled and print sources all the time after all, which are far more inconvenient than the Cinemascore website. That said, I don't really see how {{cite web|url=https://www.cinemascore.com/}} needs a shorthand, and the mere existence of the template may encourage editors to use it when there exist secondary sources that report the scores, which are more desirable, so I lean towards delete. Nardog (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The template is as you said, plus the website parameter, title parameter, a note that was in some articles about the search engine, and link-status is automatically set to live as same url so doesn't have to be done manually everywhere. Just access-date that's required
    Think using this when secondary sources exist could be discouraged with a better reference needed template added to end of reference? Indagate (talk) 11:59, 25 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).

Template:RfarOpenTasks/Status/1

edit
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these templates. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, this department is not being used. Q28 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with its parent Template:RfarOpenTasks/Status. Template:RfarOpenTasks was blanked and redirected on May 10, 2009‎ so these aren't needed anymore. Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagged Template:RfarOpenTasks/Status.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 17 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).

Template:Cts

edit
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; deleted as G7 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded wrapper for the station link as {{stl|CTrain}} can be used directly. Gonnym (talk) 08:43, 17 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_17&oldid=1084864362"