Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 October 18

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 17 October 19 >

October 18 edit

Template:WPRed 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) 04:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPRed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

inferior to typing {{WikiProject foo|class=redirect}}, since this template cannot take named parameters (see TfD of template:WPTem and template:WPCat). Frietjes (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete useless template that doesn't even work, since there are usually no anonymous parameters on WPBANNERMETA project banner templates. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2012 (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.

Template:WRReunited 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) 04:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WRReunited (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all redirects. Frietjes (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2012 (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.

Template:No Citation Needed 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) 04:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No Citation Needed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Just kidding (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

seems unnecessary. Frietjes (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Just kidding", it's misleading, since it doesn't say what the template name says. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is "no citation needed" supposed to indicate a WP:BLUE situation? -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Test edits by a new user. These obviously aren't useful. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; there's no context for how we'd use the first one, and these superscript inline templates are meant pretty much exclusively for mainspace, where a "just kidding" piece wouldn't be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2012 (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.

Template:GP3 Series teams 2013 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) 04:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GP3 Series teams 2013 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Per WP:MOTOR agreement templates shouldn't be created for every year, only one template {{GP3 Series teams}} should be updated. Cybervoron (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2012 (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.

Template:2008 Summer Olympics football convenience template navbox 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 What a mess This nomination is incomplete, containing only some of the roster templates (e.g. where's Template:2008 Summer Olympics Australia men's football team roster or the women's rosters?) and only some of the standings templates (what about groups A-D?). The arguments are full of poor reasoning (until told otherwise, don't worry about the minor difference in disk space required, and it's doubtful the difference in non-vandal editing traffic is at all significant for these 4-year-old events) and personal attacks. I see a consensus to merge and delete here, but given that only some of the templates that should be merged-and-deleted are nominated here it would be problematic to either merge-and-delete only those or to also merge-and-delete templates that haven't been nominated (and notified). What we really need is a centralized discussion of some sort that will result in a guideline for use of "standings", "roster", "results", and similar templates. Anomie⚔ 13:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point for these templates at all. The event finished four years ago, the artivles have survived with wikitables until then, so I don't see why they need to be replaced by templates now. One argument is to save space, but this is not the case. The Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics article was only 30,000 bytes anyway, so space does not need to be saved. NapHit (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008 Summer Olympics football convenience template navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 Summer Olympics Argentina men's football team roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 Summer Olympics Côte d'Ivoire men's football team roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 Summer Olympics Japan men's football team roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 Summer Olympics Nigeria men's football team roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 Summer Olympics United States men's football team roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 Summer Olympics Belgium men's football team roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 Summer Olympics Brazil men's football team roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 Summer Olympics Honduras men's football team roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 Summer Olympics women's football group E standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 Summer Olympics women's football group F standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 Summer Olympics women's football group G standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
You look only the Football page but if you look United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics (without template) has 300,000 bytes, but United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics has 200,000 bytes so I think that the templates are very useful also for the 2008 Olympics. Stigni (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are not useful, they are pointless. Why do we suddnly have a necessity for these templates? The event finished four years ago, these templates were not needed before and they are not now. A wikitable does the job perfectly well, yes that page may be long, but creating hundreds of templates is not the way to fix the issue, you're just moving the bytes elsewhere on the site. Correctly formatting the tables would save space. If saving space is the only reason these templates were created then they really are not needed. NapHit (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How will you prove that they are pointless? Even though the event finished for a long time, templates are still needed. Review the templates from this year again. Think of a solution. I strongly agree with Stigni. Raymarcbadz (Raymarcbadz) 11:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've just proved it yourself with saying the event finished a long time ago, so why do we now need templates when we have lasted four years without them and had no problems? Saving space is not a valid argument, the space saved on the articles is negligible. Plus you're not really saving space as it is just being moved elsewhere on the site. I don't know what you mean when you say review the templates from this year or think of a solution, but my solution is for them to be deleted. Wikitables serve the same purpose and served it for four years, you have still not provided a decent argument apart from saving negligible amounts of space. Also, please don't remove the templates from this discussion or the TFD tag from the page as they are to remain until this discussion is over. NapHit (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You also want to delete the team rosters as well? Please don't. All of these are appeared to the nations' articles. Sorry. User:Basement12 and User:HandsomeFella, can you explain these concerns? Thank you. You know what? I'm still currently improving on the nations' articles at the 2008 Summer Olympics, and I have to create team roster templates including football. Why can't you understand about saving space? Deleting them as a solution is still a problem, and not a good idea for maintaining the templates. I don't even think they violated the copyrights with Wikipedia. I don't know what you're thinking of. Think of basketball, and other sports. They have templates. And these are better solutions for saving spaces of a nation article. United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics (without template) has 300,000 bytes, if we added templates and other factors, the space has been decreased to less than 300,000. So do you still want them to bring back to their old form? (Meaning you want to copy the code from the template, and then paste them into the nation's article). That's not the right way to solve the problem. WikiProject Olympics improvised the plan of creating templates. You're not even understanding the documentation, and you think that they are pointless. I think you just disrespect the project, and other features. There are other templates with small amount of bytes apart from football. So please keep these templates okay? That's the end of the story. Raymarcbadz (Raymarcbadz) 11:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I've not made myself clear every template that is on that navbox should be deleted. You're not saving space, that is the problem, yes the space on the page will be reduced, but the bytes remain on the site, so the space is just moved elsewhere. If the page is too big perhaps it should be split into different pages such as United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics (athletics)? You're right I do think the templates are pointless, because they are just reproducing what could (and was) included in a wikitable on the main article. Its not about documentation or anything like that, the simple fact is they serve no purpose other than to save space, which is a ridiculous reason to create tonnes of templates. Like I said earlier, if saving space is such an issue then perhaps its time for the Olympics wikiproject to consider splitting these articles off into different sections, that would be a more logical solution than creating masses of templates, when they have not been needed for four years. NapHit (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So if you're thinking that the team roster templates will be deleted, how will I be able to display the team rosters again? Put them into the article? That's still a problem. If you want to talk about problems with templates, discuss with wikipedia administrators. And splitting into different pages for a particular nation is not the right suggestion. How about the templates (roster and otherwise) used at the 2012 London Olympics? Do you think they shall consider them for deletion if you think templates are pointless? If you're dealing with this issue, discuss with WikiProject Olympics. And please I'm just a member of the project, not the manager. Raymarcbadz (Raymarcbadz) 12:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the team roster templates are deleted you just go through the diffs before the templates were added and re add the tables. You that's a problem, but don't specify what the problem is. No, if I have a problem with a template I bring it to WP:Templates for discussion, so they can be discussed. Once this discussion is finished an administrator decides whether a consensus has been reached and will decided whether to delete the template or not. You should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's procedures if you're unsure about processes which it appears you are. There are no managers on wikiprojects, as there are no managers on wikipedia, things are done by consensus. There is no point nominating the 2012 templates until this discussion is finished, but yes I do think those templates are pointless as well and I have brought it up at WikiProject Olympics, here. NapHit (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if I felt enraged about the deletion process. I am still currently improving and working on the 2008 nation articles. I'll deal with this situation once I'm done fixing all of the nations' articles. I have more than 50 articles to be fixed, until I reached the host nation's article. Afterwards, I'll proceed to the team-based sports, to fix all the templates. **end of the story** Stigni, next time. Don't start working on the convenience template navbox okay? Just fix the templates first before assembling a navbox. You gave me a hard time to deal with the issue. Thank you. Raymarcbadz (Raymarcbadz) 13:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but you need to clarify something for me. You constantly mention an issue yet you don't specify what it is. What is the issue that you are fixing? What do you mean by fix all the templates? It would be helpful if you could clarify what the issue is to help this discussion. Also, wikilinking a user does not mean they are notified of a discussion on a page, you have to leave a message on their talk page to notify them of discussions. NapHit (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the issue that you are fixing? Fixing the results tables of every sport except team-based sports (e.g. athletics, swimming, canoeing, boxing, etc.). I created team roster templates for some cases. What do you mean by fix all the templates? I mean, replace the information from the team-based sports (e.g. basketball, football), and place them as a template. Field hockey and volleyball from the 2008 Summer Olympics already have templates, so there's no problem with them. Thank you. Raymarcbadz (Raymarcbadz) 16:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not fixing anything though thats the point. There was nothing wrong with the tables, they functioned perfectly well. For some reason, you and Stigni have taken it upon yourself to go make tonnes of pointless templates to solve a non-existent issue, which no one has complained about btw, because of saving space. It appears you have not read WP:ARTICLESIZE, which state that if an article is over 100,000 bytes then it should be split, as I suggested above. The solution is not to create loads of template in the vain hope of saving space. Plus as the majority of these templates are being created for articles that are under 100,000, they are pointless per the above guideline, as the page doesn't need to be trimmed down. I'm yet to see a coherent reason, why these templates should remain, which strengthens my belief they are pointless and should be removed. NapHit (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't create or work on these templates until you reach to some decision, because to create a template I spend a lot of time so if you don't found a use for this template I doesn't work on it. Of course I don't think these templates are completly useless for current competition, e.g. CL or EL, but in few month they became out of date so it is better that we think another solution. NapHit sorry but only now I realize your point. --Stigni (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would happily agree to merging as Frietjes suggests, would solve the problem. Merge NapHit (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the roster page is quite useless for Olympics because if some one go to that page is to look a particularly team so if we merge as Frietjes said there will be any problem. About standings template: one standings is about 300 bytes (if we use Template:Fb cl2 header navbar and Template:Fb cl2 team) and the standings template is 1200 bytes and can have at maximum 6 transclusion so we recover 600 bytes, that is very few; with the same argument for the matches we se that we recover 600*3-1500=300 bytes. So merge as Frietjes, delete the other Olympic template, merge the roster pages to the this section and change it to a section with the links to the NoC at the 20xx Summer Olympics#Football. Stigni (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how will this purpose of "merge" be applied to the templates. Frietjes and NapHit, can you provide us a wikilink example on the "merge"? I know that many of you did not understand about the template. Here's the excerpt. You always misunderstand the reason about the saving space, but you didn't think that it is to collect source text used in several articles placing in one area.
"The purpose of this template is to collect source text used in several articles in one place, in order to minimize maintenance and storage space." --HandsomeFella.
Prove that I'm not the only one who proposes this idea. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The meging is a simple concept to understand. The table from the template is moved to the corresponding article and the template deleted, simple. I agree with Stigni as well the standings templates should be deleted as they can easily be substituted by tables and save hardly any space, which is the primary reason for their existence. I read the bit about collecting source text in one place, that's just another way of saying space, it's unnecessary. Again, the competition finished four years ago, they don't need maintenance as none of the details will change. As for saving space, that is not a concern of wikipedia, if an article is too big split per our guideline on article size. Stigni's approach of using template headers is the way forward if you want to save space, not this mass proliferation of templates NapHit (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. User NapHit has a hard time understanding that these template do indeed save both space and edits, as well as further uniformity and avoid edit conflicts. How anyone can state the opposite of what's obvious and evident is beyond me. Considering this, it's more and more starting to look like NapHit has a personal agenda. The fact that some articles do not exceed 100 kB in size does not mean that there is no point in saving space. Sure, articles could be split if they grow too big, but that does not rule out the use of these templates. One thing does not rule out the other. There's absolutely no point in unnecessarily wasting kbytes, regardless of current article size. Have you really missed all those calls to donate money to wikipedia for more servers?
Let's call a spade a spade: your proposal is plain stupid. Not only would it A) add thousands and thousands of bytes to many articles that are already big and hard to edit, it would also B) generate more editing traffic to them (edits that otherwise would be done on the templates), which in itself means that more storage is consumed, C) it would cause inconsistencies between articles, as people tend to forget updating other articles were the same information is kept (or rather duplicated), D) it would cause articles that normally draw little attention from editors, such as small countries outside the English-speaking world, to be more incomplete, and E) it would cause more edit conflicts.
NapHit, this is the wrong place to discuss this matter. If you really really want to get rid of them, then start a centralized discussion somewhere instead of singling out templates with different authors, so you can argue with them one at a time, without them being aware of each other. The fact that there are several authors who have picked up the idea of templates should be reason enough for you to reconsider.
HandsomeFella (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a hard time understanding what the templates do at all, I just don't agree its beneficial to have them. Neither do I have a personal agenda either, I just believe these templates could easily be substituted by wikitables, which they can. In fact I find it hypocritical to suggest I have a personal agenda considering your position on them. Yes I have seen those call to donate money, but as the site is still up and running I'm going to assume the problem isn't urgent. If articles are "too big and hard to edit" then split them per WP:ARTICLESIZE can't you understand that? That is the logical thing to do if an article is too big to edit and is our guidelines, not create templates to save space. One point you seem incapable of understanding is that there will be no edit conflicts or issues of maintenance if these templates did not exist. Why? because the competition finished 4 years ago. Therefore, none of the details will change, so I don't understand your point about updating information, there is nothing to be updated. In this debate, I'm talking about these specific templates, that will not be updated, in case you don't follow. Also I did bring the issue up at here a few weeks ago, but there was little response, so stop accusing me of doing otherwise. I'm not going to reconsider just because others use them as well, that is a ridiculous notion. I'll reiterate a point I made above, Stigni's header template do have merit. As they will be used in a higher number of articles than these templates, perhaps that is the route to go down rather than substituting tables as templates. The problem is these templates are only used in a few articles, so the benefit is not that great. Those headers templates could be used in a lot more articles, therefore saving more space if you will. I think it would be better if you developed templates such as these in the future. NapHit (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit, CAN'T YOU READ THE MESSAGE BEFORE YOU REACT. YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FORMER SAID about the word "OBVIOUS KEEP", and the reasons about problems on the template. HandsomeFella clarified his case if these templates should be kept. I THINK THAT YOU BROUGHT SO MANY DISADVANTAGES TO OUR IDEAS. YOU STARTED THAT PROBLEM, and YOU KEPT ON REPEATING YOUR CASE AND REASON DURING THE DISCUSSION. (ARTICLE SIZE, NONSENSE, HEADER TEMPLATES). I THINK THAT YOU HAVE A PERSONAL AGENDA, AND YOUR PURPOSE IS TO AVOID CREATING TEMPLATES IN ALL ARTICLES RELATED TO OLYMPICS. STOP TRYING TO TELL US THAT TEMPLATES DO NOT SAVE SPACE, TEMPLATES ARE POINTLESS, RIDICULOUS. WE WILL STOP ACCUSING YOU, IF YOU PLEASE STOP THINKING OF AND TELLING US YOUR STUPID IDEAS. AS THE FORMER SAID, THIS IS THE WRONG PLACE TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER. CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

HandsomeFella, can we keep these templates please? We are so sick and tired of this problem. We kept on discussing on our cases all the time and NapHit is not even reading and understanding what we said. We are already fed up of these stupid ideas. Thank you. Sorry if it is personal, but we have to settle this dilemma.

Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit, why wait until the situation – that of wikipedia's servers – is urgent? Why actually worsen it by making the totally meaningless effort of disassembling the templates so that umpteen big pages get even bigger? That, if anything, is the very definition of pointlessness. Of course I understand the WP:ARTICLESIZE argument. In fact, I could use against your proposal: ever heard of WP:ARTICLESIZE? Why do you want to make pages that already exceed the guidelines limit even bigger?
I have said several time over that, by all means, split the articles. Feel free, just split away, I don't mind. One thing does not rule out the other, and saving space does not start at 100 kB – it can start anywhere.
Sure, by time, the number of edits will decrease, but they will never go away totally, nowhere near that, actually. If you'd care to look at the history of articles relating to previous Olympics/Paralympics, you'd find that very many pages, if not most of them, have been edited many times over long after the old Games were closed, and get editors' attention to a high degree again whenever new Games are held. That's strange, don't you think ... given the fact that "none of the details will change" ... ?
Even if the content of these specific templates are not updated very often, they will not be part of what's saved for every future edit of the articles they're in, thereby saving huge amounts of space, if you count all pages. Elementary, my dear Watson.
Yes, I have asked you to start a centralized discussion. I have now discovered that you have done exactly that, so I will stop making those "accusations". Oh, and thanks for the notification ...
Raymarcbadz, don't worry. This proposal is going nowhere.
HandsomeFella (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this proposal is going nowhere, I urged these templates to keep them although the competition had happened four years ago. Learn how to understand HISTORY. HandsomeFella, thanks for defending your case.

For other users involved in the discussion (Stigni, NapHit, and Frietjes). STOP THINKING OF STUPID IDEAS PLEASE, BECAUSE ALL OF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW TO SAVE SPACE, HOW TO MAINTAIN STORAGE SPACE, AND HOW TO AVOID EDIT TRAFFIC AND CONFLICTS, although you delivered your pros and cons about the topic. END OF THE STORY. KEEP THESE TEMPLATES PLEASE. Raymarcbadz (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete this template? Because the don't really save space, as you can see on my last answer the standings' templates save 300 each if they are insert in 5 articles (4 NoCs and tournament page) if there is a Group page is quite useless this template because you can use the <onlyinclude> on the standings on that page and you have just recreate your template, as I do for insert the league table on 2012–13 in Italian football. For the matches' templates save also here 300 bytes each, so we are talking about not so much great amount of byte; but if you split every NoC article in "NoC in <sport> at the <Olympics>" you fix also the problem of an edit-war on the main article. For the roster template you may have a reason if the Roster page is quite useful because it is almost 5k bytes each, but it is not because anyone is really interesting of looking all the 16 rosters of 23 player in one page; so that page can be deleted and so the template because it have only one translution.
Raymarcbadz why you close the discussion? Stigni (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is going round in circles so much that the talk of personal agendas is ridiculous, because its obvious everyone has one. Raymarcbadz, HandsomeFella does not decide if the templates remain or not, that is decided by a closing admin and consensus. Please stop removing the TFD from the page. Also try to remain civil, there's no need to go over over the top with capitals and start accusing m of having a personal agenda. I have read and understood your arguments I just don't agree with them, I am allowed to do that. I'm not obliged to follow your view, which you seem to believe I should. Your point about WP:ARTICLESIZE is invalid, it recommends splitting articles that are over 100,000 bytes, nowhere does it say anything about creating templates to save space. So yes I would say splitting a an article bigger than 100,000 does rule out the need for templates. If you desparately want to save space (and I'll say it for the third time) look at Stigni's ideas for header templates. They will be used in more articles, therefore being more useful and saving more space. I am aware the 2008 pages will be edited, obviously. My point is the the templates will not, the information is stable, that's what I meant by none of the details will change, I was not referring to the pages, but the templates to clarify. Frietjes idea is a good one as the table simply go back to the relevant nation article and then a section link is used in the Football at 2008 Summer Olympics. As for the game and standings templates, the bytes are so small, it hardly makes any difference, so there is no point in these existing. You would save more space using header templates, as these will be used in more articles and with the templates there will be less space as a result. Also the reason you were'nt notified about the discussion at WP:OLYMPICS (that went nowhere anyway) was because you weren't involved in the discussion at the time. I cannot be bothered going back and forth with this argument constantly, quite frankly, I have better things to do with my life. If this discussion is closed and the templates remain so be it, but i've had enough discussing this as you aren't interested in hearing my side of the discussion. I have actually suggested ways to go about saving space other than all these templates, such as header templates, but neither of you seem to have acknowledged that. Besides Wikipedia has over 4,000,000 articles on it creating templates for olympic pages is hardly going to solve the problem of 'saving space' new articles are created daily and articles are expanded constantly. These efforts are a drop in the ocean. NapHit (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC) Further point If I remember correctly you stated all versions of the article remain on wikipedia's servers? If so, this makes me question the inclusion of these templates even more, as you will not save space at all, as those previous versions are still in storage. So in theory, more space is taken up more space by creating these templates, as there is more space than their originally was as a whole. Anyway I look at it I can't see the validity in this method. NapHit (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, NapHit, but what you're saying is pure BS, and makes me think that the space saving effect has not really sunk in properly – or that you're just pretending to not understand. When you know that all previous versions are kept, how can you still maintain that these templates do not save space? Don't you realize that this means that all future versions will also be kept? And that the size of those future versions therefore do matter? From the version that had these templates installed and onwards, these templates are saving space by making these future versions smaller and less often edited. Answer this question: is adding 87 kB for each new version instead of 112 kB – from the previous example here – saving space, yes or no? Then multiply that saving by the number of articles where they are included, and you'll find that accumulated, these savings will be huge.
The only way your theory of the templates actually taking more space, instead of saving it, could be true, would be if only the latest versions all pages were kept, and if each template were used in only one page. Then the noinclude parts of the templates would account for the added space. However, none of these prerequisites are true; all versions are kept, and the templates are used in 2–7 articles. So there goes your theory.
I have indeed seen Stigni's proposal, and have no objection, which you obviously haven't noticed, in spite of the fact that I actually had some constructive feedback. I'm mentioning this just so you won't have to say it a fourth time.
You are right in that I don't decide the outcome. It was only a prognosis. You don't decide either, however you're entitled to your opinion.
To the closing admin: obviously no consensus. Furthermore, a decision on abandoning this system of templates would have such effects that it should not be decided here, but in a centralized discussion, as the system is spread over several Games, Summer and Winter, and Olympics as well as Paralympics.
HandsomeFella (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The clarification of who closes the discussion was for the benefit of User:Raymarcbadz, who didn't seem to understand that is closed by an admin. I take your point about the saving space, but I still don't agree. This is a drop in the ocean, the savings are so minimal when considering the sheer amount of data on wikipedia that I don't believe there is much point in these templates, especially as they are used on so few articles. If they were used on numerous ones fair enough, you'd have a point, but not when its one or two. The merging proposal is the best, the text in the roster templates is substituted into the relevant article and the rosters page is either deleted or reduced to a series of links. This discussion keeps circling and I can't be bothered continuing it, as quite frankly, I have better things to do and its starting to become personal rather than about the templates. I agree a centralised discussion of these templates should be started, so seeing as you keep stating this why not do it? NapHit (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to summarize my points to clarify this discussion. I'm not going to tell you in a personal matter, but this is a centralized discussion. Okay? We spent countless days of debate, argument, emotional appeals, and utterly stupid ideas whether the templates should remain or not. Let's make things clear. And for NapHit and I, let's stop accusing each other.
  • Avoid saying "templates are pointless" – Have you seen several templates at the Olympics and other articles throughout the Wikipedia site? These are entirely different from articles. (Define the word "template" and the word "article".) Have you really missed all those calls to donate money to Wikipedia for more servers? Do you think Wikipedia's creators have a crucial mistake of setting up this idea?
  • Saving space – HandsomeFella clarified the case about this dilemma. Some articles which do not exceed 100 kB in size does not mean that there is no point in saving space. Surely, articles could be split if they grow too big, but that does not rule out the use of these templates. One thing does not rule out the other. There's absolutely no point in unnecessarily wasting kbytes, regardless of current article size. Templates are purposefully created to collect source text used in several articles in one place, in order to minimize maintenance and storage space. User NapHit has a hard time understanding (or pretends not to understand) that these template do indeed save both space and edits, as well as further uniformity and avoid edit conflicts. Additionally, without templates in all articles would cause inconsistencies between articles, as people tend to forget updating other articles were the same information is kept (or rather duplicated). Don't you know that thousands of articles have templates already? Have you seen an article that has no template in any section? Second thing to mention. Saving space does not start at 100 kB – it can start anywhere. There is no mandatory size for an article to save or reduce space. For the templates, they don't have much guidelines about sizes.
  • The idea of "merging" – This is an utter mess. A user asked someone to provide a wikilink for this idea, and no one showed it. When you say merge, do you mean that you have to merge the rosters, standings, and matches with articles? This proposal is completely plain BS, and stupid. Why actually worsen it by making meaningless effort of disassembling the templates so that umpteen big pages get even bigger?
  • The purpose and theory of "template" – These roster and otherwise templates aim to collect source text used in several articles in one place, whether competitions take place recently or in the past. Of course, templates are just reproducing what could (and was) included in a wikitable or vice versa, because they can be found in more than a single article. Templates do not always imply saving space, but also consider a benefit for other articles as well, which would prevent any editing interferences. HandsomeFella already clarify his examples of saving space and the purpose of templates. If you have not seen them, consider here. He also asked a question as well.
  • Think of other approaches – Header templates are not only a solution. Think of other approaches that would limit the size of an article. Medals, IOC athlete, IOC team, team rosters, country infobox. Don't you know that these are templates? The wikitables, of course, always cover the bulk of an article, but they should be properly conformed with the manual of style. Header templates for wikitables, however, are not necessary. Assume that these articles and templates do not always remain subtle. They are always edited timelessly.
  • Keep them or not – Sorry if I make things more personal, and perhaps if I don't understand things that are closed by admin. It's just my opinion, and I'm not the one who will decide the final outcome. There is no obvious consensus, but this would depend on the decision by every user involved in this discussion.
Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want to continue this discussion its going nowhere, you've clarified the discussion, you've just clarified your argument. The merging proposal is not pure BS, as for a wikilink for the idea, I think you should read Friejtes proposal again, as he clearly states what would happen in this scenario. This whole idea of "saving space" is a crusade I don't agree with and think is futile. Wikipedia is constantly expanding, saving the minimal space in these articles is a drop in the ocean, the site gets bigger constantly, especially when you think of the multi-lingual wikis. There is no guideline requiring us to create template to achieve this non-existent goal, which is why I oppose the notion of these templates. As for saying header templates are not necessary, considering your position on saving space that is very stupid. These templates would save more space as they would be used in a lot of articles, so I don't understand why you say the are not necessary, when they are "saving space". Also Raymarcbadz, I think you do understand the process, as I've noticed you've removed tags from discussions before: [1],[2] and I told you a number of times previously the tag remains till the discussion is closed, so you shouldn't let personal feelings get in the way of the process. There's no point carrying this on if its going to circle like this, a centralised discussion need to take place so the issue can be discussed by parties who are not as heavily involved as us. NapHit (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've started a centralised discussion here. NapHit (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This nomination is problematic because it joins three completely different template types. So:
    • Keep/merge the roster templates per above.
    • Subst and delete the standings templates as single use.
    • Delete the convenience template as unnecessary and pointless. It is mostly redlinks and single use templates that should also be subst'ed and deleted. Resolute 23:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I shall stop the discussion anymore, and I started to be annoyed already because I have read so many counterarguments from several users who opposed their ideas about the convenience template navbox. NapHit, first and foremost, why did you nominate the roster and standings templates for deletion in the first place? I have not seen any warnings for them. Don't you know that I was improving on the 2008 Summer Olympics nations pages. Not only I'm fixing on the wikitables and vice versa, I am fully responsible for the team rosters, and other features related to team-based sports. Resolute, I think I have to complete everything first before it's too late in order to save all of these templates against deletion. Raymarcbadz (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are not responsible for any pages, see WP:OWN. The templates were already in the articles as tables for four years previously. All you have to do go to a diff which had the tables in and copy the code back into the article. So you're not going to lose anything. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, NapHit. Do I own tables? I created them, but I really don't own them. Stop judging me. I already fixed the tables, and you really want me to struggle again. What shall I do? I want the roster templates to be kept rather than their code to be brought back into their articles. You don't own the articles also, and you are not even a Wikipedia creator. Don't you know that the way you accuse my work with a misunderstanding approach is a LIBEL. How many times would I have to tell you to stop accusing me and the work that I've improved? Secondly, roster templates are already used in the articles. This is nth time. I don't want to discuss anything again. Do you think that I should not do the templates? Didn't I follow the guidelines of the template? Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Raymarcbadz, calm down. This is not personal. There are different opinions across wikipedia, and this is not directed at you, although an implementation would spoil some of your work (and some of mine), provided it goes through. That's life. You're doing a great job anyway. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, HandsomeFella for stating some personal stuff, but NapHit urges me to put back the code that I have done into their respective articles. Until now, this user did not understand how these work. Will the 2008 team-based roster templates be kept? I'll PM you by the way in a moment. Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Raymarcbadz keeps on removing templates that I have listed here, so I've added them back in. Preferably I like all templates in the navbox to deleted, but you can only list a certain number here, so I only listed a few. NapHit (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the two examples that I cited, {{2008 Summer Olympics women's football game A1}} and {{2008 Summer Olympics women's football game A2}}, are used in only one article: Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If that's the case then creating all these templates is just crazy. 86.171.43.215 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are used in just one article, the one you stated. I agree with your assessment. Raymarcbadz, look I don't agree with your view of these templates that's it. I'm not going to answer questions, when you're accusing me of libel, which is ridiculous. NapHit (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well unless I am missing some important aspect of all this, all those templates seem a clear delete to me. [stricken; see below] The information should just be put directly into the relevant article, in the normal way. 86.171.43.215 (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
86.171.43.215, each of the game reference templates is intended for use in three articles: the tournament article, and the articles involving the two countries' participation in the Games. The reason why they're not used in three places, is that nobody has had the time to put them there yet. The reason for the template: it can hold the same information used in three places, thereby saving space and maintenance effort, upholding consistency, uniformity and completeness, and – in times of "hot editing" – minimize the risk of edit conflicts. The navbox is intended for easy navigation between the various game reference, group standings and team rosters convenience templates within the same team sport in the same Games.
To get the whole picture, see for instance Category:2012 Summer Olympics football convenience templates, which is complete (as are the templates of the other team sports of the London Games). Many editors found this system beneficial during the London Games, which helped wikipedia to almost "live coverage" of the Games. The Paralympics unfortunately don't receive the same attention, neither from media, nor from editors, which is why it is not complete yet. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, in that case I have stricken my comment above. I think it is debatable whether three uses of data that is never going to change justifies the complication of these masses of templates, but it is not so completely crazy as I originally was led to believe. By the way, are the templates like {{2012 Summer Olympics football convenience template navbox}} intended for use in articles? 86.171.43.215 (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, their intended use is only for cross-navigation between the templates, thus that's the only place where they are used. But now that I think of it, they provide a fairly good overview of the tournament(s) that might be useful elsewhere. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, on some of the templates is the text "The purpose of this template is to collect source text used in several articles in one place, in order to minimize maintenance and storage space." In my opinion any storage space that might be saved by putting a few bytes in a template rather than replicating it three times is completely negligible and irrelevant. I don't think the templates could ever be justifed on those grounds, and most probably their mere existence places a much greater overhead on the database than any minuscule saving of bytes. The only justification is if they make maintenance easier to an extent that outweighs the disadvantages of the greater complexity. Therefore, if the templates survive, you may want to consider removing the mention of saving storage space to prevent future misunderstandings or objections on false grounds. 86.171.43.215 (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. The much called for centralized discussion has now started here. You're welcome to take part. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2012 (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.

Template:Uw-ilc 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-ilc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Proposing for deletion as there is a concern this no longer conforms with policy. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this is in line with policy, as far as I know. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2012 (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.

Template:Un-filemoved 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) 04:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Un-filemoved (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

User notification about a moved file. Discussion needed as I am not sure it's needed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:41, 18 October 2012 (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.

Template:Commons needs your info 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commons needs your info (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Although this template is meant be to subst, It original use was in connection with some files whose details got lost on Commons Transfer owing to a technical fault that has now been resolved. Commons Transfer are increasingly done automatically, including picking up 'relevant' details..

Bringing to TFD because I feel it's time for disscussion as to the need for this to remain.. 

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting information Are we 100% sure that this will never be needed again? If there are files on the commons that were moved when the bug was in effect AND whose the original uploader hasn't been notified and the information hasn't been recovered in some other way, having this template around will be handy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David; sometimes people move images manually and don't transfer all of the information properly, so this would be useful in those cases. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_18&oldid=1078569228"