Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 June 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:48f8:3004:fc4:d480:5fd5:9310:3ba4 (talk) at 05:17, 3 June 2023 (→‎Template:Annual readership: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< June 1
June 3 >

June 2

Template:Pakho Chau

connects three articles, which are already well-connected Frietjes (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Forest Stream

the three articles are already well-connected Frietjes (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Annual readership

TfD'd as part of an ongoing effort to reduce our excessive # of talk page banners. This template has nothing to do with article improvements.

Arguments at the 2018 TfD were: "it's useful". But that logic is what led us to have too many talk page banners in the first place. It takes seconds to type the first few letters of "pageviews.wmcloud.org" into a browser address bar, let it autocomplete, and press enter. Can we take advantage of graphs being disabled for at least the next few months and delete this? DFlhb (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"let it autocomplete"? It only autocompletes if you've been there before and haven't cleared your history since. Not all editors know pageviews.wmcloud.org even exists to begin with. – Scyrme (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It just needs to be fixed, or another tool used instead of the broken one. Maybe https://pageviews.wmcloud.org bar chart can be imported into the template. Or just linked from the template for now. With the link set up for this specific article or page. "This template has nothing to do with article improvements." Wrong. It helps determine which articles are more worthy of improvement. I have learned what type of articles readers are more interested in. I would say that this template is one of the more important talk page banners. I have noticed other talk page banners being put in show/hide boxes. That saves space. But I rarely see this template put in show/hide box. Because it is so useful to both readers and editors. Learn to add {{skip to talk}} to the top of the talk page banners. Helps people skip over it all if they want to. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DFlhb: Rather than delete it, why can't the banner link to the exact page on pageviews.wmcloud.org that the readership graph appears? Then one wouldn't need to type any letters the browser address bar; just click the link. Besides, the website link you suggest is just the home page. One still need to search and navigate to the page name of the article that one is reading, if it even exists. And, if your memory is like mine, sometimes I get distracted and forget exactly what I was looking for, with such a long-winded and complex process of finding the exact page, if it exists. Of all the banners on talk pages, I think this is the most important banner to have for assessing the "importance" of an article to Wikipedia. While the "quality"of an article is internally assessed by its class, which is catered for by a WikiProject banner, the readership of an article is a measure of how important it is to Wikipedia's audience. If an article is not being read much, or at all, why should it be improved, or even be retained? If one puts readers as the first and main reason to have an article about a subject, then this template is the most important one to have on an article talk page. Without it editors do not know if any of their efforts are useful, or even read by anyone, besides themselves. Since graphs have been disabled, I have sorely missed these little pieces of interactive analytical feedback. But providing a link to the source of the data would be the next best thing. Besides, the (collapsed) banner is small and consumes one line on the talk page, with a collapsed Wikiproject banner shell, which is equally as small, the two most important talk page banners for article improvement are dealt with, and leave plenty of screen real estate for the rest of the banners, if any others are ever needed. Remember, without readership, nothing else matters. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page views for articles you've contributed to are already highlighted on the Newcomer homepage, prominently on mobile and probably soon on desktop. Cluttering article talk pages with all sorts of "nice to have" cruft is exactly how we ended up with so many talk page banners. Every single banner has a high cost, since they add to banner blindness; on most pages, people don't read them. Ask anyone who edits Donald Trump whether the newbies read the banners meant to prevent dumb edit requests: they don't. The fraction-of-a-percent of editors who care about page views should bookmark the WMF's site.
A banner on the article's talk page is not useful for coordinating editing efforts towards highly-viewed pages, because by definition, you need to already be on the page to see this template.
I just came across 2022 FIFA World Cup, which had unreverted hours/days-old bad edits, yet it was the fourth most-viewed pages of 2022, and had {{Annual readership}} primonently featured on its talk page (placed far higher than it should have been). If it doesn't even help deal with bad edits with visibly broken formatting, it can't help with article improvements. Your hypothesis isn't borne out in practice. DFlhb (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect established editors to start using the newcomer homepage, especially when that's a relatively new feature intended for novice editors, and one that has to be intentionally enabled in the user preferences. (To be honest, I didn't even know enabling it was an option until I looked it up today.) – Scyrme (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is it? In your first reply you say newbies wouldn't know about pageviews.wmcloud.org (but it's among the first results on Google for "wikipedia pageviews", and is linked in "Page Info" and "View history" here), yet now we're talking about experienced editors, who can certainly take a second to Google for the site. And "Topviews" are far more useful for Cameron's purposes than individual pageviews. DFlhb (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You can get to the pageviews of any article from its revision history page. There's a "Pageviews" link to wmcloud right at the top of every page. Maybe a few extra clicks – the horror! Thrakkx (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, m:MoreMenu is a really good tool that adds tabs to the UI. There's a link in Page > Analysis > Traffic report that will take you there with one click. Far superior to navigating to the page history for that link or going onto the talk page and clicking 'expand'. The readership templates I don't use, and wouldn't mind them being removed. SWinxy (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Average readers and occasional editors only get as far as the talk page in many cases. Every step away is fewer having access to page views. The developers need to put a default link to page views in the sidebar links. A link seen whether one is logged in or not. In the meantime let's just put the link on the banner. Eliminate the show/hide part of the banner. It is no longer necessary. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The external tools (including the pageviews link) in the history tab are already displayed even if you're not logged in. You're right that readers and editors often don't notice them, since they don't always think to look for them in the history tab.
However, {{Annual readership}} also already links to the pageviews site and has done for ages. The link is in the title: "Daily pageviews of this page". The text "Daily pageviews" links directly to the preconfigured stats for the article. (Preconfigured not only meaning that it's set to display stats for the article, but also to provide the range for a whole year rather than the last 20 days which is the default if you click the link in the history tab.)
I don't see the point of removing the show/hide function of the banner, given that if the template isn't deleted it will, eventually, be needed again when graphs are restored. It's not doing any harm. Removing it is pointless extra work. – Scyrme (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I must have missed that since I never used it while the template graph was working. No need. That might be a good reason to temporarily remove the show/hide function, and change the banner link name to "Daily pageviews timeline" for this article (named).
By the way. I started this: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Can_a_page_views_link_be_put_in_sidebar_links? --Timeshifter (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The show/hide function is still helpful for hiding the explanation for why graphs aren't working from readers/editors who don't care or who already know. The explanation still needs to be there for readers/editors who do care, particularly those expecting a graph because that's how the template has worked for years. (It's also how it's still intended to work, it just can't until the technical issues with Wikipedia's graphs are fixed.)
Could amend the message to say something like:
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled.
Until they are enabled again, click on "daily pageviews" in the banner title for annual readership statistics.
That would ensure that anyone who doesn't notice the link and expands the template has a second chance to notice. The additional lines it would take up don't matter much since the content can be hidden. – Scyrme (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea. There is a ten-year editor who replied at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), who has never seen page views. Even for articles he has created! --Timeshifter (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking at the arguments in the last TfD, they were not simply "it's useful"; it was noted that the template provides (or, I suppose for now, provided) a clean, simple summary of the statistics without requiring leaving Wikipedia to go to another website. I agree that there's value in having a user-friendly tool that's accessible and uncluttered by unfamiliar settings/features, and located in a prominent place where it's easy to find. The template doesn't currently work that way, but that's not meant to be a permanent situation.
As others argued in the 2018 discussion, the template is intended to be used selectively. If a particular talk page has a serious clutter problem, then, sure, remove the template on that page. I don't think this is contributing to clutter enough to warrant deleting it entirely. In my experience, most clutter is caused by history related banners ({{Old merge}}, {{DYK talk}}, educational assignments, etc.), content addition requests ({{photo requested}}, {{need sky}}, etc.), and large uncollapsible notices ({{BLP}}, {{Controversial}}, {{Ticket confirmation}}, etc.). Any issues caused by this template are minor by comparison.
Is it the most important template? No. But plenty of editors seem to find this template helpful, and I'm not convinced that it's a big source of clutter. – Scyrme (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a sidenote regarding clutter concerns, I think a lot of it could be reduced by integrating many notices into {{talk header}} and having the messages displayed by the header be adjusted by parameters. Setting |calm=yes, for example, seems simpler than having a load of separate banners like {{calm}}. (This in particular is a good example, since much of it is redundant with what the talk header displays anyway, like linking Wikipedia:Civility.) The header already adapts contextually, displaying Find medical sources rather than generic links on relevant articles. Why not do more of that? Capabilities/parameters that {{talk header}} already has seem underutilised (like the integrated bot archiving parameters), and I suspect it's because editors are accustomed to copy/pasting templates across talk pages rather than setting (or pasting) parameters. Maybe this has all already been considered and rejected, idk. – Scyrme (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, but "small" sources of clutter add up. The best way to stick to a budget is to start by cutting out a bunch of small expenses. Everyone has their pet banner; so this thinking won't help solve the clutter issue. When I think about the purpose of talk page templates, on 99.9% of pages I'd only keep those that enable collaboration (WikiProjects) and those that nudge newbies to start editing (Talk header), with {{Article history}} a distant third. It's unwelcoming for beginners to be overwhelmed by the banners when they first visit a talk page; we're driving them away rather than helping them. DFlhb (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think {{annual readership}} is similar to {{section sizes}}, in that they are both tools that should be added to pages where the information provided is particularly relevant to ongoing or frequently recurring discussions. Ideally, they would be removed if they stop being relevant, but I'm sure that doesn't always happen. Still, most talk pages I see don't have either template so I don't think there's too much of an overuse problem.
I think the 3 broad categories of template I listed earlier are the most responsible for overall excess. If, after pruning/merging those there's still a problem, then maybe we should reconsider whether tools like {{annual readership}} are worth having. – Scyrme (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is always a useful detail to keep in mind during talk page discussions. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline of world economy

Single use mainspace template. WP:SUBST and delete. Izno (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't even provide any useful information about "world economy", it's just a vague timeline of human history generally. It's also very reductive; the iron age, for example, continued into the Common Era in many regions of the world. As a representation of "world" history, it's quite misleading. Honestly, I don't think it even needs to be substituted; it's not contributing much to Economic history of the world besides taking up space that could be better utilised. – Scyrme (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline of the Great Recession

Content template used on about a half dozen pages. I don't think it's appropriate for the whole content to be used on each of the pages its on, indicating this template is not fit for purpose in a different way than being a content focused template. WP:SUBST and delete. It's also an event that occurred 15 years ago, which means there is little chance or need to have something to update in one place. Izno (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts.... We document history here, so the events are part of history, even if the template is never updated. The problem of how it appears when displayed is another matter. Another factor that's relevant is whether this information is found in another place, such as an article. If it is, then the argument for preservation of the template loses strength. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ordinal vs. cardinal utility

Used on only 2 mainspace pages. Is basically content, and I generally don't expect this content to need to change. If it needs to, the local page authors should have that choice. WP:SUBST and delete. Izno (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Euro Stoxx 50 performance

Single mainspace use template. Subst and delete. Izno (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NWA World Women's Television Championship

Navigation template with only one entry. McPhail (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Used on two pages. Can be replaced with Template:Link one way and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Team Records on Hockey Day

Single-article content with no template parameters. A simple table. Subst into article and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1987–88 Ekstraklasa Season table

unused after being merged with the parent articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2022 AFA Senior Male League regular season table

unused after being merged with Draft:2022 AFA Senior Male League and Draft:2023 AFA Senior Male League. Frietjes (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused other than the creator's test sandbox from 2009. Gonnym (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Myanmar National League-2

This template is for teams in the 2016 MNL-2, but we don't generally create templates to link teams that competed in one season of an event (else we'd have way too many templates at the bottom of sports club articles). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPsock

Back in October 2022, I asked SPI clerks and fellow checkusers whether they use the {{IPsock}} template. See Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks/Archive 4#Template:IPsock. Almost everyone answered no.

As I stated back then, a sample of the transclusions of this template reveals that it was used a lot around 15 years ago, but nowadays, the idea of sock-tagging IP addresses has fallen completely out of favor. Unlike tagging accounts, the usefulness of tagging IP addresses decays with time: it is vanishingly unlikely that the person using a particular IP address today is the same person who used the IP in 2006–2010 (the time of transclusion for many instances of this template). Depending on the kind of network involved, an editor could switch between multiple IP addresses within a single day. In the worst case scenario, we are biting newcomers by incorrectly flagging them as potential socks on their user talk page.

The potential benefit of this template is in identifying the common IP address ranges that sockmasters could appear on. However, the modern approach is to document this information on WP:SPI subpages, not through tagging individuals IPs with this template. Checkusers have a private wiki that they can use to document common IP address ranges for sockmasters as well. Overall, this template confuses more than it helps, and it should be deleted. Mz7 (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I made an invitation to participate in this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks#Template:IPsock nominated for deletion. Mz7 (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here via the above invitation. Absolutely a delete for me, and is something I've wanted to get rid of for a while. It is not something we recommend using at SPI and isn't something SPI folks even look at, and as Mz7 said above its accuracy usually decays over time. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For those of us who aren't checkusers nor SPI clerks, this template has the advantage of automatically adding socks to suspected-sockpuppet categories where those exist. I still use it quite a bit. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_2&oldid=1158295800"