This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nutshell template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days

I propose discontinuing the usage of this template and removing it from all pages as the phrase in a nutshell is a idiom. According to WP:IDIOM, idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions Additionally, this bars users who speak English as a second or foreign language who may not understand the idiom. Shooshosha (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shooshosha, if you wish to nominate the template for deletion, please follow the steps at WP:TFDHOWTO. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, due to the activity and its proliferation in the Wikipedia namespace, I consider it a better approach to gather a general consensus before nominating a frequently used template for deletion. I fear that this template was created to circumvent the necessity of the lead section of an article. I also believe simply being bold and renaming it the template to something like in as few words, tldr;, or simply speaking would address the idiom issue (save for the second example), but will undermine the MOS. I believe there are more problems with this template that need discussion first, before a nomination is put forward. Shooshosha (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. For the record, though, it is being used on zero articles at present. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shooshosha: I think this template is very useful, but that you make a good point about WP:IDIOM. How about changing the language from "in a nutshell" to just "in summary"? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 04:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shooshosha User:Primefac User:Sdkb
Would "Concise explanation of this page" work as replacement wording? Also, what image could be used instead of the current one? Perhaps simply the default information icon? Does anyone have any other suggestions? See my example below. DesertPipeline (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Example

Concise explanation of this page: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum consequat mi quis pretium semper. Proin luctus orci ac neque venenatis, quis commodo dolor posuere.

I find myself thinking two things: first, a change to a template that is used on 3600+ pages (2500 of which are WP-space) should have slightly more consensus than three editors. Second, I find nothing problematic with having an English idiom on the English Wikipedia. Maybe that makes me insensitive to the ESL speakers that edit here, but those are my thoughts. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Primefac: Because the manual of style recommends avoiding idiomatic language, do you think it would be fair to apply that to project-space too? Inconsistently applying it may cause problems and make people believe that idiomatic language is okay in articles because of its use in project-space. Of course, there are some cases where idiomatic language is fine in project-space, but it probably depends on the context – essays, for instance. What do you think? Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is for articles, excepting in the case of accessibility in which it should be followed site-wide. I also feel like this is one of the more well-known idioms (after all, there is an entire YouTube channel that uses the German version of "in a nutshell"). Again, I have zero issue in changing or removing the idiom if there is consensus to do so, but given the age and widespread use of the template the consensus is currently trending toward "is perfectly fine to use in the project space". Primefac (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Primefac: Would the best way to get wider input be to put an RFC on this page? DesertPipeline (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technically WP:TFD would be the first place to get input (the D is for "discussion" after all), and with Shooshosha's initial proposal it would not be unreasonable to say "we should delete this or change the message". An RFC for something like this would probably be option #3. Primefac (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Primefac: I don't think there's a case for deletion personally; but can templates be listed there specifically for the purpose of getting input on a change? DesertPipeline (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not done often, and the more I think about it the more I think that the nominator will get yelled at. A cross-post to one of the Village Pumps with a "hey we need more input" would probably help. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Primefac: Sorry for the slow reply. Which village pump page should it be posted to? Whenever I want to do so, I often can't really figure out which is suitable. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No. WP:IDIOM is a guideline concerning articles. This is not Simple Wikipedia and anyone who doesn't understand "in a nutshell" should regard it as an opportunity to do some searching and improve their English skills so they can better handle the English Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Johnuniq: While it is a guideline concerning articles, I think it is a good suggestion. Project pages are generally professional in tone; this template's wording, however, is not. Also, I don't feel that understanding idioms has anything to do with English skills. Essentially an idiom is something where people know what it means because it is often-used; even though they often make little sense, repetition in the correct context allows people to understand what they mean. However, I think that clear and literal writing is a positive thing, because it allows anyone who understands English to understand a sentence without having to determine the meaning of a non-literal phrase. DesertPipeline (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:IDIOM exists for articles and not project pages because our readership is much more diverse than our editor base; reading English (especially in the days of digital translation) is a more widespread skill than writing English. Project pages do not need to be to the same standards as articles because the audiences are very different. The proposal seems like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. The accessibility of our policies to global English speakers is a huge problem because of their number and complexity; changing "in a nutshell" will not make our policies any easier to understand. If a reader can neither understand nor be bothered to look up that idiom, it is unlikely that they will get much use out of the policy as a whole. That should be fixed, of course, but I seriously doubt the proposed change will have any measurable impact on either editor recruitment or policy compliance. That said, I'd be fine with changing the text to "Short summary" or just "Summary", but I'd prefer we spend our time on more important tasks. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree ; well put. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 00:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Wugapodes: I would be fine with "Summary"; or perhaps "Page summary". However, considering the low effort required to make this change, I don't think we should discount fixing it simply because we have other problems to solve; the best solution is to solve all our problems. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The effort is measured in opportunity cost, not lines of code. Changing a template used on thousands of pages takes considerable consensus which requires many editors spend time to read and write a response---time that could be spent fixing typos or reverting vandalism. The best solution is to improve the encyclopedia after all, and cosmetic changes to project pages rarely do that. Few people have commented probably because they don't think it's worth the time, and those who did think it's worth the time have generally fallen on the critical side. If you want to spend your time marshaling editors in support of this change, go for it, but imo the cost-benefit ratio just isn't worth it given the opposition above. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace the PNG with the SVG version. I have no idea why this requires consensus, given that this will not in the least change the way it works/looks/renders. SVG is clearly a better alternative for illustrations. 119.82.84.240 (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Multiple discussions in the archives have determined that the image currently in use is acceptable. See this and that (which was a request that never achieved consensus to implement, hence why I'm considering it as a "no consensus" result). Primefac (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that this image no longer works on pages (for instance, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith). Is there a reason and can it be fixed? The image shows up fine here. The Council of Seraphim | speak before the Council 01:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at a half-dozen pages and it seems to be working normally. Nothing's been changed recently wrt the involved templates/modules, so either it's a client-side issue (nothing we can do) or it's THURSDAY and the devs have done something to muck about with things on the mobile side. Primefac (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not just administrative articles, and if it isn’t a good idea, why? Kxeon (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should not be used for articles, because articles do not need a "nutshell" template; that is what the opening paragraph and lead are for. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add an (({image|))} parameter to allow custom images be used with this template. In other words,

Awesome Aasim 19:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((Edit template-protected)) template. There have been a lot of weird opinions about the nut, and I think rather than unilaterally changing it there should at least be some consensus that this is a desired change. Primefac (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac This doesn't change the nutshell. It just allows other icons other than the nutshell to be used on some pages. Some pages would actually benefit from a different icon. Awesome Aasim 19:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of my point - I am not sure if people are/would be okay with having a nutshell template that didn't use the nutshell. If people want to have it, great, I'll happily code it in, but I don't want to have to revert in an hour because someone disagreed with it. Primefac (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]