Template talk:Animal rights
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Animal rights template.
|WikiProject Animal rights||(Rated Template-class)|
|This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 120 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
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)
@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)
@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)
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
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.)
- 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?
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)