Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 October 15

< October 14	October 16 >

October 15

Template:Nat

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) 03:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

problematic template (I already had to fix this transclusion) since nat does not mean nationality. in addition, it is redundant to {{nft}} which means "national football team". 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not the soccer encyclopedia. Soccer should not get plain names. If kept it should be called {{footynat}} or something. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused and redundant. The IP's comment regarding naming is a red herring. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris. Just not needed. — This, that, and the other (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:MonthRg

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) 03:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

redundant to working calendar templates. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:49, 15 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:Cpolo

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) 03:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Cpolo-rt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused canoe polo templates. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:46, 15 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:Holland OPV armament

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) 04:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Holland OPV armament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Holland OPV sensors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single use templates. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete boilerplate text -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:33, 16 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:Perk-gemeentegrenzen

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) 03:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Perk-gemeentegrenzen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single use template. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete boilerplate text -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:02, 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:GoldBookCheck

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) 03:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

it looks like this has been replaced by {{y}} and {{n}}. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:31, 15 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:Cite example

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 per G7. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite example (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

checking the corresponding discussion, this appears to be a failed experiment. working versions of this idea can be found from the links at template:template example bullet. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It's not abandoned — at least not yet — and if "working versions" of the idea already exist, please post an example on the templates talk page to prove it because I don't see how those templates duplicate what I was trying to do here. If you thought there were already templates that could accomplish this, why not say so on the talk page or ask me about it instead of trying to get it deleted? Lack of discussion or patience before deleting things is pet peeve of mine. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What I was trying to do does seem impossible. I think the experiment is failed. Can userfy future trials until they work as suggested. I stand by my comments that it's generally good practice for editors would talk to the user first before nomination for deletion like this. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy experiment in main template space. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:35, 16 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:TNA Hall of Fame

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) 03:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TNA Hall of Fame (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#TNA Hall of Fame template, not particularly useful with only one entry. RadioKAOS (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useful at all. Maybe next year. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. McPhail (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Totally unnecessary.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 15:00, 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:LayCool

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) 03:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#TNA Hall of Fame template, not particularly useful with only two entries. Also, I don't actively follow current wrestling product, but I'm guessing the "Miss Piggy" refers to a wrestling storyline involving Mickie James gaining weight, which could be construed as a possible BLP violation. RadioKAOS (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm to blame for that. The template was fine (as far as BLP goes) until I recommended it be desecrated before it dies. Not protocol, I know, but it kind of deserved it. So disregard that, and Delete solely for its uselessness. The three articles are sufficiently Wikilinked together. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete heh, I've restored the template to before my vandalism of it. Sorry! A three article navbox... no point since they are, as mentioned, Wiki-linked prominently already. Starship.paint (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. McPhail (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 15:00, 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:Ilusión track listing

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) 03:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ilusión track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't see a need for a track listing template when only two songs from the album have articles, and each one is linkable to the other through both the chronology section in the infobox and the artist's navbox template. Linking to the album's article is the best way for someone to get more info on the complete track list of that album. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 19:16, 16 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:Infobox itm cup season

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) 03:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox itm cup season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 16:50, 15 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:Indian classical dance

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) 03:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indian classical dance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Is this separate template really necessary when it is covered in Template:Dance in India? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Gryffindor (talk) 08:51, 15 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:Non-free with permission

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) 21:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free with permission (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is proposed for deletion in that ALL of the images tagged with it have other 'non-free' licenceses. The place to note that an image has 'permission' is in the NFUR. "Permission" should also clearly mean 'permission' under a 'free' license in my view. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the last three TFDs that ended in keep. There is no reason to not indicate that permission was given to Wikipedia for its use, whatever the need of Wikipedia to use NFCC guideline to judge its inclusion criteria. Permission clearly does not mean "free", since they are not synonyms. It is important to indicate we have had permission to use something, even if we use it only according to fair-use rules, because we've got actual legal permission, instead of thinking we may be legally in the clear with our interpretation of fair-use rules. -- 70.24.245.122 (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Old TFDs (all resulted in keep results): 2011 Oct, 2011 March, 2009 May -- 70.24.245.122 (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to address your assumption of everything with permission means "free", you should create a template for {{free with permission}} for those cases where files are available under a "free" license but which are not free enough for wikipedia to use without using fair-use guidelines (ie. free-no-derivatives, free-non-commercial) which would always be accompanied by a FUR template, and deleted when a free-no-FUR-required version is available. -- 70.24.245.122 (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those templates already exist :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then this template obviously serves the remainder of the files with permission, the non-free portion. -- 70.50.149.56 (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last TfD was a weak close which seems to have been inspired more by a head count than a reading of the discussion. If 70.24.245.122 would care to rebut the points made there then he can go ahead, but KEEP PER WAS KEPT BEFORE is by itself no argument at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What points? I've already rebutted the nominator's points. -- 70.50.149.56 (talk) 05:01, 8 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) 04:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - The only point you made was an assertion that we are better having explicit permission (but under non-free terms) than to rely on fair use alone. I'd argue that this is actually untrue, as this has all sorts of unwanted implications (we approve of non-free licensing; we do not trust editors to obey our fair-use guidelines; editors should be encouraged to ask for non-free licensing from content owners). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is better to have permission than to just rely on IANAL editor fairuse interpretations. While we will still rely on these interpretations, permission backstopping that interpretation is better than handwaving that it is acceptable under fairuse when we're not copyright lawyers. Indeed, why do we have free-use-with-permission templates if we also have to rely on fairuse interpretations to use those images? Those also rely on the free-use permissions given to backstop the fairuse editor interpretations, otherwise, those templates don't make any more sense than this one, since those aren't "free enough" for Wikipedia, meaning they are in the same boat as "non-free with permission". We are indicating that we have permission to use the image with those free-use templates for images that are not free enough for general use on Wikipedia, showing the same sort of permission information as here. Indeed, we may have good faith interpretations of what qualifies for fair use, but legal exposure is reduced if we have actual permission. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - NFCC is far tighter than actual fair use has historically allowed. If we stick to NFCC, we should always be fine: that is the whole point, as we never want to put ourselves in legal jeopardy. Encouraging editors to seek permission means encouraging them to think "I have permission for this, so it's okay to overstep NFCC", which is actively dangerous. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see how reducing our legal exposure would encourage users to overstep the bounds of the rules. Considering that our NFCC fairuse rules are applied even to some free-use images, the "free-use"dness of those images would also have the same "encouraging" effects. As we have IANAL editors judging fairuse, they are in effect dispensing legal advice, so it would be better to have some actual permissions to backstop some of our decisions to use some images. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is it with the people constantly targetting this template. Three TFDs have already considered it and consensus was 'keep'. It's clearly the case that the community finds this template useful, as it indicates when Wikipedia can safely use an image or other copyrighted material, even if the fair use assertion may be less than iron-clad. People sometimes put great effort into securing permission for use on Wikipedia for non-free items. Deleting this template demeans their efforts. LK (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting effort into securing Wikipedia-only permission is a bad, bad, bad idea. We should have exactly two tiers of content: content that is free and that anyone can re-use, and content that is non-free and that we are only using under the same fair-use terms available to anyone else. A third tier actively works against the long-term interests of promoting free content. The template is "constantly targeted" because multiple editors have come to the conclusion that it is a bad idea. The last TfD should have resulted in deletion anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have more tiers than that right now, since some of those free-reuse images have qualifications on their reuse (and have to have fairuse rationales attached to them under our file rules). Free-NC and Free-ND licenses particularly. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those can be tackled separately. Between them, those two have less than half the transclusions of this one, and so deleting this will resolve the majority of the problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It can be tackled with a unified {{use with permission}} template (by merging the various permission requiring NFCC-FUR use templates) which describes what kind of permission is available. This would give exactly three levels of permission -- free-open files compatible with Wikipedia policies ; files used under NFCC guidelines and interpreted to be fair-use by IANAL editors ; files used under NFCC guidelines that have some sort of permission for use specifically on Wikipedia or for use on websites like Wikipedia ; The merging of all these templates requires that this template exist so that the information can be transitioned into the new template format, so a new discussion can be opened to merge the Free-need-s-FUR and non-free-has-permission templates -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:15, 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:2012 Summer Paralympics Egypt men's volleyball team roster

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

The result of the discussion was Keep for now Note that all the discussion about "saving space" is entirely irrelevant; if Wikipedia ever gets to the point where a few kilobytes of extra revisions makes that much difference, we will be told about it. As for the rest, both sides made one important point: we should be having a discussion about all the templates in subcategories of Category:Convenience templates (and other templates that should be in that category tree), not trying to delete one at random while keeping all the rest. So I'm going to close this one as "Keep" without prejudice to that larger discussion happening elsewhere to decide what to do with all these templates as a class. Anomie ⚔ 04:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012 Summer Paralympics Egypt men's volleyball team roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

squad template without usefull links The Banner _talk 00:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This template is part of a system of convenience templates designed to save editing effort – including edit conflicts when pages are heavily edited, e.g. when the Games are ongoing – as the same information is (or soon will be) transcluded from more than one page. As a bonus, it will also save significant amounts of space on wikipedia's servers. The system also promotes uniformity and makes the pages covering the participation of countries that usually draw less attention from editors, such as Rwanda, more complete than would otherwise be the case, since it's much easier to just add the transclusion of a template than entering, and maintaining, the same more or less identical chunks of text on several pages.

During the recent 2012 Olympics, several editors soon realized that by just editing the game reference templates and the group standings templates (sister categories of the team roster templates category), the results and standings were more or less instantly "propagated" to the transcluding pages giving a near "live" coverage on wikipedia. This system, and the help of those editors, made that possible.

The fact that the players and the clubs mentioned here don't have own articles in wikipedia (yet), is of less relevance in this case. If you don't like the red links, then unlink them. Team rosters are notable in wikipedia, regardless of whether the players have own articles or not. This is only a way of being practical, and householding with editors' efforts and the storage space on wikipedia's servers, and it's not less practical just because the players and clubs mentioned therein don't have own articles.

In this case, the template is transcluded from Egypt's page, and it will be transcluded from the page covering all rosters of the tournament, which doesn't exist yet, but will be created anytime.

For a broader view of the usage of the templates in this system, please see for instance:
- Category:2012 Summer Olympics football convenience templates
- Category:2010 Winter Olympics ice hockey templates (this category so far lacks an intermediate category level, but that will be fixed)
  
  HandsomeFella (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has now occurred to me that you might have thought that this was some kind of expanded (informationwise) navbox between player articles. I agree that such a navbox would be utterly pointless, without any player articles to transclude it from. However, as described above, this is not a navbox template, it's a convenience template, intended for transclusion mainly from two articles: Egypt at the 2012 Games, and the all rosters article (currently non-existant) for the men's volleyball tournament. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly pointless template that could easily be included in said articles as a table. The fact the templates are used as a convenience is irrelevant as the event has finished. Therefore, they no longer solve a purpose. You can't claim they are saving space, when the template itself is on wikipedia's servers. NapHit (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I can. It's not just that the same info is stored in one place, rather than two, which pretty obviously saves space, although that is somewhat offset by the noinclude parts (the documentation, the navbox and the category). It's also that any future edit on the Egypt and the all-roster articles will create a not quite as big new version of the respective page as it would have created, had the template(s) not existed. In some cases, where a change specifically refers to the roster, there wouldn't be a new version at all, as the change is made to the template! Instead, another version of the template would be created. The Egypt page is currently at about 11500 bytes, with templates for volleyball roster, group standings and game reference. Without these templates, I'd guess we'd arrive at more than 20000 bytes. If you only skip the roster template, and put it into the article, it would add around 3000 bytes. Adding another 11500 bytes instead of 14500 bytes is obviously saving space. Adding another 3600 bytes – if the edit referred specifically to the roster – instead of 14500 is an even bigger save. And please observe that Egypt's page is a small one, just imagine the amount of saved space whenever the Great Britain or the Unitest States roster is edited. The GB article is currently 210 kB, with templates for football 5-a-side, football 7-a-side, goalball, volleyball, wheelchair basketball and wheelchair rugby. The US article is currently 165 kB, with templates for football 7-a-side, goalball, volleyball, wheelchair basketball and wheelchair rugby. Just imagine the amounts of storage saved there!

Also, the fact that the event has finished is irrelevant. There will always be more edits: vandalism, reverted vandalism, bots, disambiguations, etc, etc.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is that big in the first place then did it not occur to anyone to split the articles rather than create pointless templates. WP:ARTICLESIZE states that if an article is over 100,000 bytes then the article should be split. Nowhere does it say, create a load of templates, to try and save space. Yes, these articles are too big, but creating templates in attempt to reduce size is no the solution. The solution is splitting the articles appropriately per our guidelines. You may be saving space on an article, but the content remains on wiki's servers, its just moved elsewhere on the site, so you're not saving space at all. That would be removing content off the servers altogether, which is not the case. NapHit (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have to illustrate with an example.

It seems that there are either Very Big country-at-the-2012-paralympics articles – countries where English is the first language mostly, it seems, and quite naturally so in en.wiki – or kind of stub-like ones, such as Egypt (mentioned above) and Rwanda, but I found a suitable medium-sized one, Germany, which is currently at roundabout 87 kB.

Today, with this template concept in place, an edit to the Germany-at-the-2012-paralympics page, regardless where, would add 87 kB to wikipedia – right?

If the edit to the Germany page concerned the volleyball team roster, that edit would add 3.6 kB. I take it you realize that 3.6 kB is less than 87 kB.

Now, if the template concept weren't in place, firstly, the Germany page would be bigger. I have checked the sizes of the content portions of the templates, and I calculate this to around 25 kB, i.e. altogether circa 112 kB.

In other words, the same edit, which currently would add 87 kB to en-wiki, would now add 112 kB. Secondly, if the edit involved the volleyball team roster, an edit to the team roster article would also be required. That article is now at a mere 1.5 kB. With the team rosters at around 3 kB each, having them directly in the article would increase it to around 31.5 kB – which is the amount of data that would be added.

Summary:

A non-volleyball team roster edit to the Germany page would add 87 kB to en.wiki with the templates in place, 112 kB without them.
An edit relating to the German volleyball team roster would add 3.6 kB to en.wiki with the templates in place, 112 kB + 31.5 kB without them.
An edit to the team roster page, not related to a specific country, for instance the lede section or the categories, would add 1.5 kB with the templates in place, 31.5 kB without them.

Not only is one edit less than two, the amount of space saved is huge. The achieved uniformity and the avoided edit conflicts are merely bonuses.

I rest my case. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but all of that is absolute nonsense. The point is there is no guideline requiring us to create masses of templates just so we can space server space, this is absolutely ridiculous. Like I said above if the pages are too big our guidelines stipulate the place should be split to rectify. It is DOES NOT state create loads of templates to save space on the server. These templates might serve a purpose while the competition is ongoing, but once it is finished they are redundant. The rosters aren't going to change are they! You would have uniformity between articles anyway and there will be no edit conflicts, because they won't be changed. It's an absolute nonsense and I don't appreciate you wording either. Obviously, I am fully aware 3.6 kb is less than 87 kb, I don't appreciate being told that at all, its not civil. Let me be clear here, these templates serve no purpose. There is no need to serve space on wikipedia, the templates are redundant as the competition has finished and they could easily be substituted by wikitables. Your argument for keeping them revolves around saving space on articles, where our guidelines clearly state that articles of this nature should be split. That is the best way to go rather than flooding wikipedia with pointless templates. NapHit (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You alleged that there was no space saved, and I disproved you.

There are indeed no guidelines that say that we should create templates. There are no guidelines that say we shouldn't either. The rosters may not change much, but if they are in the articles, and not in the templates, they will be part of the amount of data that is added for every future edit, whether they were the object of the change or not, won't they? That fact that you specifically mention that the rosters will not change, suggests to me that you have not understood that. And, as I said above, 112 kB instead of 87 kB is a significant increase, almost 30%, of the amount of data that is to be added to en.wiki for every future edit of the Germany article.

Sure, the guidelines say that big articles should be split. So split them. One thing does not rule out the other, and the templates will save space, and edits, either way.

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't disprove me at all, you've proved nothing. Just because guidelines don't state anything about templates, is not justification in itself to creates loads en masse. I simply don't understand this nonsensical crusade to save space, it's absolutely ridiculous. This is not a concern for wikipedia, there a millions of articles on the servers including all those on the different languages projects, I'm sure the servers can cope. Creating these templates to solve a problem which does not exist, will solve nothing. I understand your point, but its just plain stupid. Wiki's servers can cope, if you got rid of all these nonsense templates then you would save space as well wouldn't you? So its just a ridiculous point, they add nothing and can easily be substituted by wikitables. When "saving space" is an issue, perhaps we should reconsider, but as it is not then there really is no point in these templates existing. NapHit (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience templates are actually supported by wikipedia, but they might not have been put to use in such a systematic way before. About creating templates "en masse": I was WP:BOLD, wasn't I? Regarding my "nonsensical crusade to save space" (and editing effort, not to forget), have you really missed all these calls to support wikipedia, to donate money for new servers?

The fact that you maintain that the templates do not save space, suggests to me that you still have not fully understood this. You are aware that wikipedia keeps all the historic versions of all articles, aren't you? Every version that used, or in the future will use, the templates, saves lots of space.

Sure, placing those 3000 bytes in a template does not mean that they are going away. They are still in wikipedia. And sure, if you take a snapshot of wikipedia, the templates are in fact a slight increase of space (the template documentation, the navbox and the category). But wikipedia is not standing still, and over time, the templates save huge amounts of space. In fact, they save space from the very first edit (in most cases) subsequent of that which replaced content with a template and onwards. I have not counted the number of country articles at the 2012 Paralympics that benefit from them, but at the 2012 Olympics, I think there were fifty-three (53) countries which participated in at least one of the various team sports (for which this concept if particularly fruitful). That means that 53, usually fairly big, articles are saving space for each edit, whether the edit touches what's being kept in the templates or not. The articles on the team sports themselves, alternatively the sub-articles – men's/women's tournaments/rosters – obviously also save space in the same way for each edit. These articles are still being edited fairly frequently, despite the fact that the Games were closed quite some time ago. I can see that, as I have them all on my watchlist. So don't try to tell me that the templates are not saving space.

HandsomeFella (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, but we should really be having a discussion about all of the templates in Category:2012 Summer Paralympics volleyball team roster templates. the way to avoid duplication is to realize that we don't need this template in more than one article. we should merge it with Egypt at the 2012 Summer Paralympics and then either delete the article Volleyball at the 2012 Summer Paralympics – Men's team rosters, or reduce that article to a list of links to the individual sections in the "Country at the 2012 Summer Paralympics" articles. the other incoming links should be redirected to the article sections as well. problem solved. Frietjes (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be a general discussion, not on this specific template, which is only one in a series of convenience templates, although I definitely don't agree with your conclusion. A proposal to actually take the trouble of duplicating the same info over several pages, thereby increasing both the storage consumption and the maintenance effort, definitely deserves a thorough discussion, and this is obviously the wrong place. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:20, 12 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) 04:19, 15 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:Ref web

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; deleted as G7 by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref web (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused experimental template that has been stale for over six months. Userfy if the author desires. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 04:06, 15 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.