Template talk:AllMovie title/Archive 1

Category consolidation

Would an admin please change the category from Category:Film templates to Category:WikiProject Films templates. Thank you! SkierRMH (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone please change [[All Movie Guide]] to [[Allmovie]], following a page move to the correct website name? Thanks! PC78 (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please, add:

[[ru:Шаблон:Amg movie]]

-- redmond barry 23:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 04:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The ID number

All of the links to Allmovie have the ID number after the 1:, so why not put the 1: in the template, and just use the ID number after it? I am sure that a bot could be made to correct this once done. LA (T) @ 16:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Originally I did that encase AMG changed their numbering system... But I fully agree with your request, its something I've been thinking about for a while now. -- Phoenix (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you make it so and run a bot to fix the ones that need fixing? LA (T) @ 07:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Even though I created the template it is protected and only an admin can edit this now. So I'll just place the {{editprotected}} template here and ask for help :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that when this change is made you will break all existing uses of it, until the time comes when you can get a bot to fix them. If I might suggest an alternative. Add support for a new parameter id which, if defined, will add the 1:. If not defined, it will use {{{1}}} as now, without adding the 1:. Then you can, in your own time, get a bot or use WP:AWB to change the template calls over. Martin^msgj 10:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I see id is already being used by the current template. Is there an alternative parameter we could use that would be logical? Martin^msgj 20:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well AMG lists the reference number as:

AMG Video ID

V 4624

I don't know if that would help... maybe num? What do other templates use? -- Phoenix (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay I have a new idea. Template:AMG redirect to allmusicguide now but only has ~10 transclusions. So we edit those 10 and then hijack that template to use without the 1:. Martin^msgj 07:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I suggest that we cope with the brief breaking of the template and have a bot run to fix the break. It shouldn't take that long and hopefully will be a quick fix. -- Phoenix (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've created Template:AMG movie (note the capitals) which will include the 1: automatically. If you want to get all transclusions converted to this new form, we can then redirect Template:Amg movie to that one. Martin^msgj 09:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh :-( I've taken pride in creating a template used by so many pages. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it still is on a lot of pages. And as soon as those instances have been fixed, we can move {{AMG}} back to here. Martin^msgj 12:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Allmovie has changed their links!

I don't know how long the redirects will last, but it looks like my suggestion to remove the 1: from these templates may have been precognitive. Allmovie links now look like the following...

http://www.allmovie.com/work/51289

Looks like a lot of switching may have to be done across thousands of pages fast. LA (T) @ 17:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The only difference I see is that they removed the "1:" from the id number. The link still works. Worst comes to worst, we just issue a bot to remove the extraneous number from the template.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Old link

http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:51289

New link

http://www.allmovie.com/work/51289

Big difference

LA (T) @ 19:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just sent them an email to ask them. I'll let you know if/when I hear anything. But I doubt they would disable the old style links so I wouldn't worry too much! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Allmovie title, which redirects here, does not have that many links to it. I could change that one to have the new link style, and the conversions of the rest can happen over time. How does that sound? LA (T) @ 18:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you prefer that title to Template:AMG movie? That one has just one transclusion so far. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, AMG stands for All Media Guide which is an umbrella for Allmovie for motion pictures (films, television series, and television episodes), Allmusic, and Allgame. So, Allmovie is the more specific title. AMG could be used as a general template with more functionality that would work with all three sections. LA (T) @ 04:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

{{AMG|movie|(movie id)|(title if needed)}}

{{AMG|music|(music id)|(title if needed)}}

{{AMG|games|(games id)|(title if needed)}}

I did get a reply, but they didn't actually answer the question (which is whether they would continue to support the old style links forever):

Hi, We did change our allmovie links, but put into place code to map old URL's to the new. So if you hit the site with the old URL, you will still get a page. However if you linked to a particular TAB of a page, you'll be taken to the overview page. We migrated of old, inflexible, and very custom technology to a more current and standard technology base to make the site more supportable and flexible for any future needs. Thanks, D. Scott Brown

Do I have permission to appropriate {{Allmovie title}} for the new link format? LA (T) @ 06:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't need permission :) I've helped you by renaming instances of allmovie title so that it doesn't have any transclusions now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I know its vain of me to ask... but I would still like this template to be used. Why not just change the internal link (with a call to an admin) & use a bot to remove the lead-in 1: on the movie articles, no other changes need be made. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Martin...I have been bitten when being bold, so I am being cautious. Actually, I would prefer to use a template I just made a couple of weeks ago, but there are some that don't seem to like {{Movie title external links}}. LA (T) @ 15:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Allmovie title/doc

Hello ... Would someone please attach Template:Allmovie title/doc to this template as the new documentation? The instructions and examples on this discussion page are inoperative. Happy Editing! — 138.88.91.205 (talk · contribs) _{20:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)}

 Done — Never mind … the doc file was not protected, so I copied the up-to-date version. :-) — 138.88.91.205 (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

final cleanup

Fellow editors …

I'm glad to see that consensus was reached on {{Amg name}} and {{Amg movie}} for the allmovie templates … I've tried to make the two doc files look as if they were provided by a common resource, but that's about as much lipstick as I feel like putting on these pigs, so I guess it's time for me to Move On! :-)

Happy Editing! — 138.88.91.205 (talk · contribs) _{16:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)}

URL change

All links generated by the template are broken as Allmovie no longer recognizes the old links. Please change:

http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=

to:

http://www.allmovie.com/work/

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

it actually does recognize the old link... But can a bot be made to remove the 1: before the numbers? This would help a lot. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried it on Volcano (film) and it doesn't work, and I tried several variations on the ID. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The old links do still work. AnmaFinotera, I have fixed your example. However this situation is far from ideal and as it is still unresolved after lots of discussion, I think I'll take this task on myself. It probably will involve getting a bot to go round and replace instances of this template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Lady Aleena's proposal above makes the most sense. We can tidy up these AMG templates and have a central documentation. Please bring any comments to Template talk:AMG. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot request made. -- Phoenix (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix, I tried to explain earlier why this is not the best solution. I've commented on the request there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

URL change

Below message taken from here

Currently the movie templates are used like {{Amg movie |1:356351 |Quantum of Solace}}, which creates the link http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:356351 which redirects to http://www.allmovie.com/work/356351. Luckily the link http://www.allmovie.com/work/1:356351 also pulls up the page just fine (at the moment), so if you change the template to link to http://www.allmovie.com/work/{{{1}}} it shouldn't break any links. Then someone (I can do it) could run AWB to remove 1: and 2: from the templates. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin help change the link? -- Phoenix (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made the change, although I am still planning to merge these templates, as mentioned above. I must say I'm slightly dismayed at your actions here. You have already ackowledged that it's vanity, and I think this is getting in the way of collaborative editing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

First I would like to say thanks for the URL fix it really is appreciated. Really it is. I just hope that you wont take my next statement the wrong way. I'm slightly dismayed at your actions here??? I didn't realize that I wasn't supposed to try to get this template fixed. Is it wrong that I am proud of something I created being so accepted? I have waited for some time for someone to mend this link and as no one did anything I finally found out how to request a Bot fix. Is there something wrong in a quick and simple fix that is in line with other movie templates? Are you also planning to merge the IMDB templates also? Because what you propose is not the standard as found on wikipedia. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Going to reply on your talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add {{tfd-inline|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} to the template; I am nominating it for deletion. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion for deprecation

I propose a movement toward deprecating use of the external link template for AllMovie. I nominated the template for deletion, but judging from the consensus, the template will not be deleted. One editor preferred discussion to deprecate the template, so I am following that advice here. First, the template was created by Phoenix79 on April 13, 2006. The editor added a field to the {{Infobox film}} template alongside the |imdb_id= field, but it was since removed to avoid redundancy with the more proper incarnation in the "External links" section. In that section, the template is used across thousands of film articles; if anyone knows how to retrieve the specific number of articles in which it is used, your help is appreciated.

The purpose of an external link in a Wikipedia article is to provide further research to readers when said research cannot be included in the article body "for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy". WP:ELNO says of a link to be avoided: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." This means that external links are resources that cannot be incorporated into the article. The mentality at the recent TfD appears to be that AllMovie is a useful reference, so if this is the case, the argument should be against having it as an external link. Outright deletion is apparently not preferred, but this stance on referencing is a strong reason for deprecation of the external link template. To repeat: When determining the validity of an external link, we are weighing it against the ideal article, not the actual article. Even if a film has a Stub-Class article, the "External links" section cannot be considered a "References for future use" sandbox. The opposing argument is that most films will have Stub-Class articles, which is undoubtedly true but misses the point. The spirit of the external links guidelines is to add external links that supplement the topic, not the article. With this said, the question needs to be asked of AllMovie: "What information does a film's web page at AllMovie provide a reader that a film's Wikipedia article at its most ideal cannot provide?" Using the famous film Blade Runner as a case study, the elements of a film's web page are listed below:

• Left column: Year, Run Time, Work Rating, Attributes, Countries, MPAA Rating, Category, Color Type, AKA (Also Known As), Director, Genre, Type, Flags, Keywords, Themes, Tones, Cinematic Process, Different versions, From story, Set In (Setting), Sound by, Produced by (mostly complete list of fields)
• Overview: Plot Synopsis, Similar Works, Other Related Works
• Review: Self-explanatory
• Cast: Self-explanatory (Note: Not complete listing)
• Production credits: Self-explanatory (Note: Not complete listing).
• Awards: Self-explanatory

A Featured Article about a film will identify major cast and crew members, so "Cast" and "Production credits" sections are not sections that provide information that supplement the Wikipedia article. "Awards" will already be covered in a Featured Article. Also, while AllMovie has its own reviews on a portion of its web pages for films, a Featured Article about a film will already contain sample reviews. If desired, an AllMovie review can be referenced in the article body, but it does not adequately supplement the article through an external link. This leaves "Overview" and the left column fields. The "Overview" section has a plot synopsis, and a Featured Article will have one, too. (Editors consider AllMovie to be reliable, so this section could be referenced by editors who are unable to or do not want to see the film and want to contribute a synopsis anyway.) "Other Related Works" is also covered in a Featured Article; footer templates outline the director's filmography and/or related films in a series. "Similar Works" may have some merit, but when I sought to reference this section for Fight Club (film) in a "See also" section, talk page discussion seemed to reflect a preliminary consensus against the reliability of such detail.

This leaves the fields in the left column, which is metadata. Some fields will clearly be covered in a Featured Article about a film, including Year, Run Time, Attributes, Countries, Category, Color Type, AKA, Director, Genre, Type, Different versions, From story, Set In, Sound by, and Produced by. This leaves major metadata fields such as Keywords, Themes, and Tones. (MPAA Rating, Flags, and Cinematic Process seem much less relevant.) The remaining fields can be clicked through to see other films. While clicking through keywords displays an indiscriminate list of films, clicking through themes and tones displays a more discriminate list of "major works" with the same theme or tone. So at least, the Themes and Tones fields may have merit. Can readers discover this benefit so easily amidst all the other elements that are redundant to an ideal Featured Article about the same film?

I would like feedback about what elements of AllMovie supplement an ideal Featured Article about a film. Based on the feedback, a possible approach is to evaluate the presence of AllMovie as an external link at Good and Featured Articles under WikiProject Films. We also need to encourage AllMovie more as a reference because it provides information about basic elements to use in a Wikipedia article about a film. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This template is transcluded on 12686 pages in the main article space. This number was found using AWB. I suggest that, before this template is deleted, these pages be edited so that the template is not required. I would also suggest that adding {{tfd-inline}} is inappropriate when so many articles are involved. IMHO. –droll [chat] 02:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've noincluded the tfd template as you suggest. The discussion has enough people participating now anyway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you've made a pretty well reasoned argument for removing and deleting this template. I see no valid reason why it should be "deprecated" instead of removed. A bot can easily go remove it from all pages where its removed, same as any other deleted template. As you note, AWB does not really meet the EL guidelines for the greatest bulk of pages where it is included, instead having become an auto link. I know I myself have had some rather heated discussions on some articles where I didn't include the link as it had no new content that even the existing article had (much less what an FA would have), and people would continue to argue its "required" or "standard". Deleting the template goes a long way to removing this misconception and quickly cleaning up the overly excessive, overly useless links that have propagated though Wikipedia because of this template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that it would have been better to allow the tfd discussion to conclude before starting this new discussion here. Otherwise you risk splitting the discussion and confusing the issue. Just a suggestion for next time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Template:Amg movie → Template:Allmovie title — It's been a good few years now since "All Movie Guide" was rebranded as "Allmovie", and it's high time these templates were renamed accordingly. "Amg" is ambiguous since it could also refer to "All Media Guide" or "All Music Guide", and the rename would also bring these templates in line with {{Allmusic}} and {{Allgame}}, not to mention the Allmovie article. Furthermore, we should use "title" rather than "movie" and follow the standard set by other similar templates such as {{IMDB title}}, {{Tcmdb title}} and {{Mojo title}} (and not least because {{Allmovie movie}} would just be silly). PC78 (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Template:Amg name → Template:Allmovie name

 Done. Jafeluv (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does this template exist?

Allmovie links add little to no additional content, but they're omnipresent.

When did Allmovie become a standard link? Especially when the far more useful MetaCritic has been seemingly discontinued? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.188.68 (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request to fix URL redirect

Allmovie.com now redirects to Allrovi.com, and Allmovie redirects to Allrovi, so I am requesting to update the code of this template (and {{Allmovie name}}) to avoid the URL redirect. The name of this template should also be changed to {{Allrovi title}}.

[http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/v{{{1|{{{id}}}}}} ''{{{2|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}''] at [[Allmovie]]<noinclude> {{documentation}} </noinclude> –Dream out loud (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made the requested change. Instead of name and title which are not very clear (it could be the name of a person or the name of a movie), would it not be better to use person and movie? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think that's a good idea since I was confused by the same thing when I first used the template. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently {{allrovi movie}} already exists. I think the two templates should be merged. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, {{allrovi title}} and {{allrovi name}} would be more consistent with {{imdb title}}/{{imdb name}} and {{tcmdb title}}/{{tcmdb name}}, etc. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I don't really mind. Would you be willing to update the documentation for each template, because I've already done it once! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I can take care of it as soon as the templates are moved. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, I will move them shortly. It's a bit of a pain because of the number of redirects that need updating. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot about this. I've just re-read your proposed titles. I originally thought it was the slash in the title that you didn't like, but I now see you are proposing to move them back to name and title. I thought we had agreed that movie and person were clearer names? If anything we should move the others to match this one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be best to rename all the other ones, but I guess that would require a consensus first. As far as the slashes, I don't really like that either since slashes are never really used in templates. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay (again). So are we agreed that

• I will move the template to Template:Allrovi movie (and similarly to the other one)
• We start a discussion on moving other similar templates to clearer names
• We can create redirects from Template:Allrovi title, etc. just in case anyone gets confused.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As there was no response I have moved the template as proposed above. I haven't created the redirect yet, but if you think it would help then go ahead. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Tab

Can the review parameter please be catered for, similar to {{Allmusic}}? I have made a testcase and a test example. Thanks —Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and the first and last parameters, and perhaps accessdate. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

Following the page move from Allrovi to AllRovi, I suggest that the spelling in this template be changed, too. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

TfD request

The template is posted at TfD. Can the following code be added to the template? {{subst:Tfd|type=inline}} Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 22:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Erik (talk | contribs) 22:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Benefit of AllRovi as an external link?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film § Why is AllRovi listed?

AllRovi (formerly Allmovie) is an online film database, and many Wikipedia articles about films include a link to the respective database page in the "External links" section. The question is, is there a benefit of this website as an external link? If not, should its use as such should be deprecated? (Note: The website can still be used as an inline reference.) This external link template was up for TfD in 2009 (seen here), but the outcome was to keep. WP:ELNO #1 states: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Each database page provides an overview, a review, a cast and crew list, a list of release dates, and a list of showtimes. As an example, the page for The Terminator is seen here. Does the website provide "a unique resource" as an external link? The TfD and a more detailed case for deprecation after the TfD above can be reviewed. I would like to find out other editors' opinions about whether or not this website should be deprecated as an external link. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support removing such links. I don't see any additional value in these boilerplate summaries of basic factual information at all. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. No use in having it as an external link, but I still think it's useful citation for stubby articles with plot summaries and certain release dates for films, as here it provides the release date for both Italy and France for this film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment This template has 17,250 transclusions in case anybody is interested in such information. Cheers. 64.40.54.47 (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broken

This template seems to be broken. Could someone please take a look at it? 85.194.253.105 (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Template works fine. Looks like the site is down right now: http://isup.me/allrovi.com --Geniac (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I think they've once again changed the site from allrovi.com to allmovie.com, since the latter works just fine. 85.194.253.105 (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

In light of the above, please change

http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/v

to

http://www.allmovie.com/movie/v

-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Could someone update Template:AllRovi movie/doc? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Help please

• Richard Smith (silent film director)

This used to work for Richard Smith (silent film director), any idea on how to fix it and why it stopped working? — Cirt (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That article uses the template {{AllRovi person}} where a change similar to the above must also be made. The article for Richard "Dick" Smith is no longer at http://www.allrovi.com/name/p334226 but at http://www.allmovie.com/artist/p334226. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Michael Bednarek, can someone please make that change to fix it? — Cirt (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Title without disambig

Edit this templates:

• {{AllRovi person}}

Change {{{2|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}} by {{{2|{{{name|{{Title without disambig|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}} like in {{IMDb title}}.

Edit theses templates:

• {{AllRovi movie}}
• {{Rotten Tomatoes}}
• {{Metacritic film}}
• {{Mojo title}}

Change {{{2|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}} by {{{2|{{{title|{{Title without disambig|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}} like in {{IMDb title}}.

Vivaelcelta {talk  · contributions} 01:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that you meant "change ... to ...", Done for all five. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 January 2016

Could somebody update template to such code:

[http://www.allmovie.com/movie/v{{Trim|{{{1|{{{id}}}}}}}}{{#if: {{{tab|}}}
 |/{{{tab}}}
}} ''{{{2|{{{title|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}}}}}''] at [[AllMovie]]<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{#invoke:String|find|source= {{{1|{{{id|}}}}}} |target= %D|plain= false }}|0||[[Category:AllMovie titles with invalid value]]}}</includeonly><noinclude> 
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>

Added code checks, whether template contains valid value (only numbers), if it has also something else, then add category. Basic testcases looks fine. Need this change for this bot request. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Both the sandboxed version and the testcases include a typo, which doesn't appear above. The whole point to sandboxing is to test what's going live, not an artificial test-ready version (echoes of Volkswagen emissions scandal anybody?). I'm not going to forensically compare versions. Use the regular sandbox, Template:AllMovie title/sandbox so we can see if your changes break any of the other testcases. Reactivate the request when it's ready. Bazj (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

...and please tag Template:AllMovie title/sandbox2 with a {{db-g7}} when you've grabbed your code from it. Bazj (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: should be ready. If you preview testcases without last section ("Value validation"), then you'll see, that AllMovie titles with invalid value doesn't get added, as it should be (so every test from past is fine). The whole point of "sandbox2" subpage was to do simplier test, as the main idea of change was to add category, which can't be tested in very simple manner. That's why sandbox2 version had "maintaince" word in result, and "(nothing)" really means nothing. Is everything fine now? I will tag sandbox2 after this request is getting marked as done (or not done). --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Edgars2007, Thanks for the explanation. Like the request template says when it's waiting for an answer, I'm "an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter". Bazj (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: most probably I also would fail my first request, if I were in your position, so everything is fine :) Thanks. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 18:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 February 2016

Please sync with the sandbox, namely adding {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACENUMBER}}|0|...}} to limit the error checking to mainspace. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 11:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Add Wikidata property support

Please sync with sandbox to pull in support for Wikidata property: AllMovie title ID (P1562). Thank you. 50.53.1.33 (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Please update the documentation. Cabayi (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Review parameter

The review parameter needs to be removed from this external link template. Per WP:ELMAYBE #1, individual reviews should not be external links but instead sources in the article body. Otherwise, the template gives the false impression that it is appropriate to include a review as an EL. Pinging Adabow, Closedmouth. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the need to remove the parameter. Erik if the editors you pinged don't respond why don't you go ahead and file an "edit request" - Thanks for getting this started andd cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Support removal too. All other EL templates (that I know of) link to the main page on the site they link to, rather than a specfic tab or sub-page/section. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

MarnetteD, Lugnuts, I was going to add a {{editrequested}} template but looking at the code, there is nothing review-specific to remove. I suppose it is a question of if we want to remove the tab feature entirely. There's less a case against the other kinds of tabs, so perhaps the simplest answer here is to update the documentation to exclude "review" from the list of choices for parameters. Thoughts? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good Erik. The point that I was making is that, since the template is fully protected, we need to get an admin involved to perform the edit and an edit request might be the quickest way to get that to happen. Any other ideas that you have of how to get this done is fine by me. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

This discussion was recently brought to my attention. @Erik, Lugnuts, and MarnetteD: did anything ever come of this? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

No, nothing did, but it still goes against policy for a review to be added to the EL section. It should be removed across the board. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

9 July 2016: same question, opposite answer. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note: a) that wasn't really an opposite answer and b) even if it was WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE and this conversation would indicate that it has. It should be removed. MarnetteD|Talk 17:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course the consensus can change, but for now it has not yet changed and instead I was even banned 24 hours for believing in that answer. My compliments. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was going to be removed based on the EL policy but the discussion was just forgotten about. Time to remove it now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus here to remove support for directly linking to reviews via this template. This seems to be done through the "tab=review" parameter. Please remove this functionality. Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope, there's still no consensus at all. Since it's very common to find an "Allmovie rating" without any reviewer, then who does that rating? How can it be considered an "individual review" instead of an "aggregate rating"? --Mauro Lanari (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I came here to service the edit request, but find myself having an opinion for once... For context, |tab= is used about 80 times out of the 20k uses (0.4%), a substantial number of which contain "review" as the value. It might indeed be valuable to remove the tab-specific functionality, as a) citations should use the most-specific link anyway, b) non-citation uses of this template are likely in the vast majority, probably used as a generic external link template. I would support removal of the functionality entirely. --Izno (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

They're almost all mine after the answer I received from FleetCommand. Since he retired (sic), I was left alone and I prefer to keep the problem for me and not to put myself anymore in this kind of discussion.

Ps: once the review parameter has been removed, nothing has yet been said and decided about the "Allmovie rating", precisely since it's not related to any single, personal reviewer. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support removing the functionality and excluding it from documentation per WP:ELMAYBE #1 clearly indicating that review-based links should not be external links but rather incorporated in the article body where applicable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It should be easy enough to add a conditional statement to not allow "review" as a valid value for |tab=. I added a tracking category Category:AllMovie titles with a tab value of review, but it may take a day or so for it to be populated as pages are updated, and I'm going through and removing all the review links I can find in external link sections. Once the existing uses are cleared up, I can update the template per the consensus here so that tab=review will no longer function. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mauro Lanari:, please stop adding in review scores to the external link sections, even if they are "meta reviews" ([1][2][3][4]). There is clear consensus here and at WP:ELMAYBE that reviews should be included in the prose, not in the external link section. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

True for the reviews. False for the ratings. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done I updated the template so it no longer passes through a tab value of "review". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)