Template talk:Animal rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Animal rights (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Too big[edit]

The template is more of a topic outline that a footer template. It is WAY TO BIG. It should be culled down to the mare slient articles. And I dont think the images are needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoah. Yes. (1) Get rid of the images. (2) trim down to the basics. This sort of template should not be a catalogue of every entry - it should focus on the key ones. --KarlB (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes. eight years further on, and template creep continues the epic engorgement. There is nothing difficult about correcting this. It could be simply confined to its main topics, or split into four templates using the existing groups: Animal rights topics, Animal rights advocates, Animal rights movement and Animal rights media. In the meantime the template has become bigger than many of the articles it adorns (or do I mean overwhelms?). —Epipelagic (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Split decision (yes, pun intended)
Agreed, it's definitely too big. I support the idea of splitting it into four templates. — Throughthemind (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Psychologist Guy: what do you think?
Yeah I agree it's too big. One idea might be to create a new template "People in animal rights". On this template all the activists could be included in one section and in the other section all the academics and writers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I've made a start on splitting it into four new template. Here's the first two (I've made a few small changes which I will copy back to this template when I'm done with them all): Template:Animal rights media and Template:Animal rights movement Throughthemind (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Throughthemind: Nice! Can I help? If so, what do you need? Normal Op (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Normal Op: Thanks, sure! Basically the two other section of this template need splitting out: Topics and Advocates. I was also going to split the Advocate section down into Contemporary and Historical (similar to how I've done it for this template: Template:Animal rights movement), then it will be a case of going to all of the listed articles and replacing the original animal rights template with the respective new one. Throughthemind (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Throughthemind:, yeah but which task would you like me to work on? Making the two new templates? Or wait until you've done it and go into all the articles? Normal Op (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
(BTW, I've messed up creating the archives for this page. I'll go ask over at Village Pump how to fix it, unless you know how to fix it. The archive file is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:/Archive_1 rather than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Animal_rights/Archive_1.) Normal Op (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Normal Op: Oh I see, I'm happy to make them (might not be today) and if you could replace the templates in the articles, that would be great. I've not done any archiving before on here, so I'm not much help I'm afraid. Throughthemind (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Throughthemind: Phew, I figured it out AND fixed it (the archive). I'll create the two basic templates for you (by splitting a copy of the large template), and start changing them on the target pages. However, I am not the person to split them into a current/historic split; that requires evaluating all the topics. Maybe you can do that split within the template when you next get time to work on it. Normal Op (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Normal Op: Ok, sounds good! Let me know when you're ready and I'll evaluate the current/historic split Throughthemind (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The template can be broken down into four sections, many templates have several sections, and as long as each is coherent it meets the standard for templates. The problem with dividing the topics up into separate templates, which I think is mentioned in an essay and not at the guideline page, is that every page in Wikipedia's collection on the subject - the overall map - loses the majority of the topic's Wikipedia links. Much better to place it into collapsible sections than dilute the entire map. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: This makes more sense. I don't know how that is done. Do you have a link to a sample that uses that method (so I can reverse engineer how it is done)? As I was creating Template:Animal rights advocates, I started to wonder why we were going this route. @Throughthemind: Thoughts? Normal Op (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Found one! Template:Wikipedia essays This is a nested template. We could edit Template:Animal rights to be four nested sub-templates for topics, advocates, movement and media. What say you, Throughthemind? We're not too far into this project that we couldn't alter course. Normal Op (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
That was entirely too easy! I just changed the navigation template to have collapsible groups. I will now work on it a little bit to see if I can improve it. Normal Op (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Normal Op:@Randy Kryn: I didn't realise that it was an option to collapse template sections. That looks a lot better. I will re-add this template to the articles that I amended with the breakdown templates. I'll also update this one with the updated splits that I worked on yesterday (contemporary/historical) (publications -> magazines/journals) Throughthemind (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Once I'm done, what shall I do with those new templates that I created? Throughthemind (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I've added the option to uncollapse specific sections and added some documentation to reflect this Throughthemind (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The template lacks an option to autocollapse (like the regular navbox), which it means it will take up quite a large amount of space on pages with multiple templates, if it's not set as state=collapsed. The only compromise I've thought of is to set the default template state to be collapsed. Then on the specific pages if someone wants it opened and pointed to a specific subsection, they can do that. Throughthemind (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Throughthemind: Good job on figuring out (and documenting) the collapse states functionality. If you want to copy the contemporary/historic split that I'd worked out for advocates, see Template:Animal rights advocates. After that, I think we'll have to PROD or AfD the other three subtemplates. But that shouldn't be a problem since they were mistakenly created and not needed any more (i.e. abandoned). Normal Op (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Normal Op: Thanks, I've gone back and replaced all the templates with this one (with the specific relevant state uncollapsed), so none of the split out templates should be in use now Throughthemind (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Throughthemind: Excellent. I have blanked Template:Animal rights advocates and marked it for speedy deletion G7 (author requests deletion). You should do the same for your two (Template:Animal rights media and Template:Animal rights movement). Do you use Twinkle? If so, it's really simple. First, you should "blank" your two templates (since you're the creator and only author), then use Twinkle's CSD option and select G7 option. Piece o cake! Normal Op (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Normal Op: Thanks, done! Throughthemind (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Throughthemind: Yes, I see they are all deleted now. Yay! Normal Op (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I am going to declare the "split" SUBthread DONE! (But I'm leaving it there, collapsed, in case anyone wants to read it.) I do agree that there are still too many entries in the template. Normal Op (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The advocate section needs trimming; we're up to 119 people[edit]

Today, another editor added yet another 11 people to the template (advocates/historic). Already I was thinking that there were too many "people". We're now up to 119 people! Of the new 11, several of these I would easily label as animal welfare advocates, not animal rights (as is typically distinguished). First, I thought this template was for "rights", not "welfare", therefore several names should be trimmed from this template.

It's important to note that having this many on a list is "diluting" whatever help you're trying to give a reader. Someone new to the subject (or maybe not even new) will not know "who" they should be reading about. You're giving them 119 options and they all look like shades of gray. I strongly urge that we pick a few (a handful, a dozen, maybe twenty at most) of the more influential or important ones to leave in the template, and the remaining names/links should go into List of animal rights advocates. I see that many are not on List of animal rights advocates, mostly the historic ones (deceased people), but they can be added in as a simple bullet-point list underneath the table, which also gives you the option of putting a short sentence after each one to give a reader a sense of why they might want to read about one person over another.

Right now, readers are presented with a wall of text that is very, very difficult to read through. If a reader is seeking a particular name, it's so much easier to type it in the search bar! Therefore what's the point of the list of 119? None; it's just spam. This template doesn't have to be as brief as Template:Animal rights sidebar needs to be, but we can do a lot better than what's there now.

Please add your comments below on what you think of this proposal. If you agree that it should be trimmed to a short list, please consider mentioning who you would have remain on the list as key figures.

(Pinging the editors who have edited the advocates section during the last year: @Psychologist Guy, Throughthemind, Tassedethe, Barkeep49, J Milburn, Ojo del tigre, and C.J. Griffin: apologies if I've missed anyone.)

Thank you. — Normal Op (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I only edited this in an administrative capacity as I carried out an AfD close and so I will choose to stay uninvolved on content decisions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I personally do not have a problem with the figures nor do I find it difficult to read. The templates have all been split up so for me it actually looks good with loads of names on there in the advocates section, users can click through and have a bit of fun finding animal rights people, especially historical persons which are usually forgotten. This is a great educational resource as well as helping users find different animal rights articles. The whole idea of "contemporary" and "historical" also makes it even easier to read. There are plenty of sub-sections so it is not confusing for me. I look at the template and I am very impressed with all the work users have done on it. Go and have a look at other templates some of them have up to 400 names on them so what has been done here is not against any policy. I wouldn't go that far to 400, but I don't think 119 is excessive. Trimming the list down to only 20 people is not a good idea. Maybe if you wanted to compromise at 100 I would support but 20 seems to few. Psychologist Guy (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Animal Politics Foundation?[edit]

There seems to be a redlink in the template for Animal Politics Foundation. I don't recall there being any redlinks before. Maybe someone who knows what this is can debug it; either remove the redlink or fix a typo or... I dunno what. I'm just alerting to the redlink today. Normal Op (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like an undersourced article moved to draftspace. I think it should be removed from the template at least until it's published again, so I'm deleting it for now. Jmill1806 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)