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. Erik9 (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Useless template that acknowledges in its own usage instructions that its content is likely to be inaccurate and unencyclopedic. TV ratings are inconsistent, with no standards. A single episode might have 3-4 ratings depending on the channel it ran on, or even the time of day or week. Such content is also not in keeping with the actual television series guidelines, which does not include such ratings because of their rather useless and varying nature. As such, it seems impossible that this template could be used to provide any valid, useful content and it should, therefore, be deleted. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 20:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for too much inconsistancy in too many categories to be helpful for the reader. (Extreme example: The uncut Swedish Lost season 2 DVD box has an 11 years and older age stamp, while the same DVD box has a not below 18 years age stamp in Germany.) – sgeurekat•c 22:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If I just look at my DVD collection. I will see that different episodes of a show have different classifications. Therefore it cannot be useful to list TV ratings for the entire show in one box. --Maitch (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Does not provide useful content. Should not be merged because the content is irrelevant.--TRUCO 23:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Goes agaist the established practice, which is also stated at WP:MOSFILMS (a related medium). If there is something special about the ratings then it should be discussed in prose, but ratings vary from station to station and country to country. It's virtually indiscriminate, especially when you just make a list of all of them with no context as to why they got such a rating. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per Powergate92. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 22:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. We don't need ratings from every single country, and all on a separate page. Bring it to Template:Infobox Television, with less points. Versus22talk 01:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure it was long ago rejected from the main infobox, same as the film ratings and the film infobox. So merging doesn't seem like a very good option when it isn't wanted nor appropriate in the target either, for the same reasons (plus the main infobox is for the entire series, not specific episodes/seaons). -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 01:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Useless template. BlackManta 09:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since "content is likely to be inaccurate and unencyclopedic", merging this to {{Infobox Television}} creates an initiative to add unencyclopedic content to a template in wide use. / edg☺☭ 15:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete — Aitias//discussion 00:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the general consensus is that movie certificate ratings do not belong in film articles except where actually notable (controversial ratings, etc), this template seems inappropriate to exist. It encourages the inclusion of WP:INDISCRIMINATE content to articles in order to avoid systematic biased and american-centric content. It also encourages editors to violate the Film article style and content guidelines, as it does not belong in any quality film article. This has been shown in discussions, and in the deletion of certificate, except again where there is controversy which should then be covered in prose. Recent discussions have upheld this rejection of movie certificate ratings in articles.[1][2][3][4][5][6] -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 20:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Per nom.--TRUCO 23:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and previous discussions. Lugnuts (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Concensus has long been against adding ratings to {{Infobox Film}}, and this seperate template only encourages the inclusion of indiscriminate detail. Is it truly necessary for Sex and the City (film) to note that the film was given an 11 rating in Norway? And why use the template in High School Musical 3: Senior Year at all when a simple line of text in the article body would do just as well? A good infobox should summarise key points about the subject of the article; a bad infobox—and this is one—is merely a dumping ground for items too trivial to note elsewhere. PC78 (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for every reason listed above. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any relevant information should be discussed in-context in prose. The JPStalk to me 11:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete long been consensus to only discuss ratings information if important. Alientraveller (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The problem with this template is that it does not provide any context for why a country rated a film in a certain way. Sometimes a film could receive pretty consistent ratings from various countries, so these seem like minor details. On the other hand, if a film is rated more harshly in one country than the rest, then why? There should be context behind ratings, which can be covered in the article body. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Infoboxes by nature are not designed to pack much context. Also, what Wikipedia policy demands there always be context for everything? That approach leads to a more serious problem, that of encouraging WP:OR. Dl2000 (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with original research. WP:IBX says of infoboxes, "...they are designed to present summary information about an article's subject, such that similar subjects have a uniform look and in a common format." That's what {{Infobox Film}} does. Ratings on their own are definitely not summary information about a film. We could talk about a rating field in the film infobox, but there is too much variation to consider (as well as systemic bias to avoid, as MPAA ratings will likely rule the roost). Hence ratings are best covered in articles when there is something to say about them beyond mere numbers and letters. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially unessential information FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, somebody's got to... But seriously, there was a previous deletion nomination for this template that should have been indicated - that result was keep and it is unclear from the above what fundamentals have changed since then. Note that indiscriminately throwing around notions of what is "indiscriminate", which suggests problems of the nature of WP:UNENCYC and WP:VAGUEWAVE here. The nomination admits there are at least some cases where ratings are notable and appropriate, therefore a wholesale destruction of the infobox may destroy cases where an international listing of ratings is notable and appropriate. The WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy itself notes that an infobox is actually preferable for readability where such lists are used. Dl2000 (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was almost 3 years ago, and yes, lots have changed Wikipedia-wide since then. I mean, HUGE changes, in terms of what is considered quality content, etc, as well as the now established consensus against such information being in film articles (which was not as clear before). Heck, quite a few guidelines and policies that are core now barely existed back then. That old discussion was also not a clear keep, but fairly evenly split. Also, my nomination specifically notes that ratings are notable and appropriate rarely and should be covered in sourced prose that also discusses WHY it is notable, not just an indiscriminate table/listing. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 01:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. BlackManta 09:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with it going against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The template has 60 parameters for various countries and there is no limiting as to how many of those parameters should be filled or not filled. Using every parameter (country) would make the article look very unencyclopedic, and using only select parameters (countries) would be biased and hinder the encyclopedia's global outreach (I forget exactly what it's called). –Dream out loud (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete — Aitias//discussion 00:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This template isn't used anywhere, is it useful? Rtphokie (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I say no since there isn't a main article to tie them all in.--TRUCO 23:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Been around almost a year without being added to an article. Also,, my Bible knowledge is a little rusty, but wouldn't nearly every Jewish person in the world qualify? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not being used in any articles, it's pretty much useless. BlackManta 09:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus to support deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This template (which purports to release the indicated image under CC-BY-SA 2.5 and earlier and GFDL) is used on the dropdown at[7] but is very often used incorrectly by users who just pick it because it's recommended on File:Replace this image female.svg (and corresponding male/butterfly/dinosaur/etc.) and/or in the hope that the nasty "this image will be deleted" messages will go away. And they do. But because the template's appearing on a rather large number of images that are pretty clearly copyrighted, I think it's a net negative. The images where the template is used should be checked to see whether they are plausibly the work of the uploaders, and replaced with the regular license templates if so.Stifle (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thats kinda what is meant to happen. The whole point of the template is the inmdicate that these images have been uploaded through the placeholder process and therefor have more potential copyright risks that most. They are meant ot be reviewed than have{{Multilicense replacing placeholder|class=people|reviewed=1}} used to indicate they have been checked.Geni13:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep The fault, dear Brutus, is not with the template but with those who misuse it. Collect (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC) --User:WoohookittyDiamming fool! 07:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per comment above, it all depends on the use of it by users and it serves as a purpose as to whether a file went through the placeholder procedure.--TRUCO 23:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete — Aitias//discussion 23:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This template has been the source of confusion, blocks, edit warring and remains very much prone to disputes (including one unfolding on the talk page at this present moment, which has rapidly devolved into a nationalistic argument unrelated to the template itself). Since it is currently unused (and the Russian version appears to have been deleted) I propose its deletion here at en:wiki too. We have learnt the hard way (just read over the talk) that Slavic linguistics cannot be compressed into a neat little timeline no matter how much we try and considering that the only way to satisfy everyone's nationalistic urges would be to complicate the template to the point of unusability I cannot see what benefit can arise from its continued existence. Hence, I say delete the bastard. +Hexagon1(t) 04:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let it burn in hell. BalkanFever 05:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another breeding ground for nationalism. Köbra☠ 05:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I was trying to discuss at length at that article's talkpage, Slavic languages cannot be represented in some clear-cut Stammbaum model. Slavic dialects are on the other hand entirely different category - but unfortunately for some the notion of e.g. Bulgarian and Macedonian being separated by 9th century isoglosses (reflexes of Common Slavic *t' and *d' etc.), or Serbo-Croatian not existing as a valid genetic-dialectological clade (Čakavian, Kajkavian, Štokavian and Torlakian not having one single exclusive common innovation) - introduces a cognitive dissonance with their patriotic or ideological sentiments. It would be the best choice IMHO to transfer this classificatory issue to the individual Slavic language articles, as each language has it's own peculiar problems with regards to its history, national awareness of its speakers and the standardisation efforts. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both the Macedonian and Serbian-Croatian/Serbo-Croatian concepts will always be proxies for tendentious political disputes. We have no way to resolve the external disputes that cause this problem so it's always going to be a problem. The only answer is not to present any simple chart as authoritative. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Per nom.--TRUCO 23:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke it Not being used in any articles, magnet for useless nationalistic fighting. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
