August 21
- 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).
The result of the discussion was keep. Nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The stated purpose of the Annual Readership and Graph:PageViews templates is to provide page view statistics on article talk pages in a graphical form. Although page views are a valuable statistic for Wikipedia editors, using a template to display this information is outdated and redundant to other tools. I am nominating these templates for deletion for the following reasons:
- Better and easier existing tool: Page views can be more easily viewed and analyzed using the WMF Labs page view tool. This can be easily viewed using the tool directly, or by turning on the XTools gadget (Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance > XTools) which displays page views on the article page.
- Quality of the template: The graph that is produced by this template is lacking. The data is hard to read and it is static, whereas the WMF Labs Tool is dynamic, you can sort, see exact totals, and pick date ranges.
- Talk page clutter: we surely do not need more talk page templates. One of the primary reasons that this template has been added is under the belief that Wikipedia editors are unaware of the WMF Labs Tool and that looking at talk pages is easier. However, the whole point of implementing gadgets is to reduce the need for mass templates or scripts. Also, talk page views are significantly less than article views. As an example, Abraham Lincoln has 430,000 page views over the last 30 days, but its talk page has only 509 page views over the same period. Adding this template to the talk page is surely not helping most Wikipedia editors, especially when a tool can be turned on that gives you this data and so much more linked directly on the article page. It also adds further clutter to talk page and is a rather large template when expanded (see Talk:Abraham Lincoln for an example).
For some background on this deletion request, please see this discussion. I also have a similar deletion request, but for a different reason here. Thank you for your time in reviewing this request. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Stop trying to control how other editors work. With e.g. an article on a subject that's sometimes in the news, it's useful to see when views spike as a clue to an uptick in vandalism. I do, however, have a concern about the indiscriminate addition of this template to talk pages, partly because of remote possibility that fetching the data behind these graphs is computationally expensive. Anyone know the answer to that? EEng 16:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi EEng, I appreciate your comments regarding the addition of this template to a lot of talk pages, however please understand that this was a good-faith request to see where community-consensus is regarding these templates. I don't think we have ever had any interaction before on-wiki, so I am unsure of the meaning behind your somewhat negative tone regarding your comment on me "trying to control how other editors work." My apologies if my nomination offended you in some manner. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be fooled by my gruff exterior – underneath I'm a pussycat. Also, I think you're right we haven't interacted on-wiki, but you seem to have forgotten about that time we interacted off-wiki. You remember... it was midnight in Paris... that little cafe near the Eiffel Tower... you were on the rebound...
- Anyway, what I meant by
trying to control how other editors work
is that some people just want to have the graph right there in front of them, without having to click on something. (See User:EEng#Sudden-unexplained-viewspike_detectors, though the fomatting is currently screwed up by the deletion-nomination template.) You shouldn't be deciding for others that it's better to do things another way. EEng 17:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I was drunk and try not to remember those nights in Paris...
- Either way, that argument could be made for any template deletion nomination. Deleting any template is deciding for others that it's better to do something another way. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The ((Graph:PageViews)) template provides a clean and simple interface and output. When placed on a talk page, it provides a useful summary of traffic without any effort. The WMF Labs Tool is more of a power tool – feature-rich but comparatively slow and complex to use. I use them both quite regularly and find them both to be interesting and useful in their place. There would be no benefit in restricting the choice. Editors should be free to use either, both or neither as they please. Andrew D. (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. It does not belong on every page, but on pages where there is interest in their viewership, such as when trying to determine a primary topic for disambiguation purposes, it can be useful to have the information on talk pages where it is more easily viewed and linked to. Other uses might be to highlight DYK views, or just curiosity as to how popular a page is. Adding it indiscriminately should be discouraged, perhaps with a note on the template, but that is not a reason for deletion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- JohnBlackburne, note that ((DYK talk)) already links to the WMF Labs Page Views Tool. I am curious as to what criteria you would use to restrict the usage of the template? High page views? Only pages with a purpose? Also, if someone adds the template to a talk page, can someone else remove it as unnecessary? It seems to me like a difficult thing to restrict. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- He didn't say it should be restricted, just that indiscriminate use should be discouraged e.g. by an annotation. We've got lots of stuff that, in principle, could be a problem if applied / added / invoked indiscriminately, but somehow we muddle through. EEng 17:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Useful talk page tool, where page stats are off interest but more high powered tools are not required.Blethering Scot 17:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Useful template. Davey2116 (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Davey2116, are you placing this template on every talk page that was in the news? This is the kind mass addition that I think is unnecessary. An example would be Talk:Peter Tapsell (British politician), that you recently just added. Sure, he got a ton of page views because he passed away, but before his passing he average only 20 page views a day. His article will mostly likely revert back to that activity level in a short period, and then after a year the huge blip in views won't be seen anymore. I am not sure how this template will then be useful. Was there any consensus to add this template to every ITN article? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So then remove the template from that page a year from now. Don't delete the template itself. (!) - dcljr (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Trying to replace a perfectly functional on-wiki tool (or two — even if they're merely convenience templates) with an off-wiki tool that users have to enable a gadget to use seems to me to be a huge step backwards for no good reason. BTW, full disclosure: I have used one of these templates in the past, in an RFC, as a possible aid in deciding when/whether to close the discussion. Not sure it was actually useful, but it did no harm, AFAIK. Should the template(s) link to the reportedly more functional WMF Labs Page Views Tool (and note the gadget that needs to be enabled)? Or would that be considered cruft? - dcljr (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn there seems to be strong consensus to keep these. I withdraw the nomination. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:37, 21 August 2018 (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).
Cricket World Cup squads
- 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).
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per previous consensus that only the wining team of a tournament should have a squad template. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I've only tagged up to and including 1999. I'll do the rest at a later time, unless someone wants to add them to this nom. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - please. Pretty please. Make them go away. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Why should only winning teams have a squad template, particularly for a World Cup? Being selected for your nation's World Cup squad is the highest honour a player can achieve in ODI cricket, and it stands to reason that readers would want to navigate between the different members of a squad. This isn't a problem in football (see here), so why is it a problem in cricket? – PeeJay 09:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per PeeJay, I think that World Cup squads deserve a navbox. Where is the consensus that they don't, as the one above is for Champions Trophy which is not as important a competition? Spike 'em (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per prior consensus. the squad membership for these competitions are generally covered by dedicated squad articles (e.g., 1975 Cricket World Cup squads), so the navboxes for non-championship-winning squads is excessive. Frietjes (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be plenty of consensus to keep FIFA World Cup squad navboxes, these are the cricketing equivalent.Spike 'em (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, apologies, I didn't spot that it was for the Champs Trophy for the other templates. However, I'll leave this open, and it should lead to a consensus one way or the other. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lugnuts: Considering one person !voted "delete" without giving any particular rationale and another basically just parroted back the faulty assumption that the consensus for Champions Trophy navboxes also applies to World Cups, I think you should just withdraw the nomination. – PeeJay 00:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's fine with me - happy to withdraw this. Thanks for the ping. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all for World Cups. Delete any that are not. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep world cups. Most of the prior discussions were about non-winning teams from minor tournaments. World cups are far more significant. --B (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable enough due to CWC. Störm (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2018 (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).
Template:Number of portals
- 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 August 31. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:57, 31 August 2018 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 September 3. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2018 (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).