Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 6

< July 5	July 7 >

July 6

Template:Print version

Template:Print version (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-functional template, not maintained in years. One mainspace transclusion. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Welcomeg2

Template:Welcomeg2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I do not see what distinguishes this welcome template from the many others. Seems redundant to me. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Senior Living

Template:Senior Living (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template to serve a non-existing subject. The Banner talk 11:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No parent article. Fails WP:NAVBOX. --wooden superman 14:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. it now has a parent article - Nolan Perry (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Even so, it is a poor template with a smell of advertising The Banner talk 19:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @The_Banner There is no advertising on it, it only links to the articles for the various aspects of Senior Living, and to the Major 5 Companies that Work in it Nolan Perry (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - To my opinion, most subjects in that template are drawn in as window dressing. It would be enough to make a list of those companies (as separate article). The Banner talk 17:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Television ratings graph

Template:Television ratings graph (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Television ratings graph (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 22#Template:Happy! ratings, the consensus there and across the Television WikiProject is to no longer to use this template in articles, as multiple deletion nominations for these templates continue. -- Alex^TW 08:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: Pinging as the nominator of the above discussion. -- Alex^TW 08:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete, excessive statistics. Frietjes (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So should the statistics be removed from the articles too? Christian75 (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent and nom. --wooden superman 14:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent and nomination. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: To me, these are highly beneficial as they provide a large amount of information that can be gleaned by just looking at a graph within a few seconds. That's the point of visuals like this, within two seconds, you can see the ratings trend of a series. That can't be done with basic text. For editors that claim WP:NOTSTATS or that it's repetitive, how about those ratings tables (like this) that duplicate information from the episode list and list exhaustive ratings stats info like various types of DVR numbers and 18-49 demo numbers; now that's WP:NOTSTATS. We also have ratings tables like these, which are completely repetitive as well. The graphs should stay and replace those types of tables. I see most people are saying delete, but I just wanted to put my opinion in. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to delete the module if this is done (which I added to the links above). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very verrrrrry strong delete, they are redundant, especially on pages with ratings tables anyways. Someone put one above a ratings table on the Barry TV series page and it looks so bad. Esuka323 (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While I find this template quite useful for many many series, unfortunately without clear guidelines on how and when to use it, the template has been completely abused. - Brojam (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural point. Do we need to nominate the individual templates that depend on this template, or is the assumption that if this gets deleted then they will also? --wooden superman 11:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as the articles has e.g. "U.S. viewers" for every single episode (like List_of_Teen_Wolf_episodes), its very nice to see it visualized, instead of going throug the whole list. Otherwise, remove all the number of viewers from the articles and delete the graph too. Christian75 (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't here for "very nice". -- Alex^TW 15:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexTheWhovian: So should we remove all mention of viewers from the articles? Christian75 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does that relate to Wikipedia not being here for "very nice"? -- Alex^TW 03:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the ratings for every episode is nice to have too. Christian75 (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. But they provide encyclopedic value, and they're not just there to be nice. -- Alex^TW 02:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a comprehensible way to display the ratings trend of a series, and determine its popularity over the years. -- Radiphus 15:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even when the ratings are steady with little change? How does a graph display popularity? There are so many more factors involved than how many people watch it. -- Alex^TW 15:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for others with great certainty, but i believe a reader will find steady and fluctuating ratings equally interesting. In the case of the general public, the Nielsen ratings determine the popularity of a show per MOS:TVRECEPTION and i think this graph is the best way to display it. Much better and more comprehensible than a ratings table or a column in the episode table. However, i agree with Brojam that there should be some guidelines regarding its use. -- Radiphus 15:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it just shows initial ratings numbers, that's it. No share/rating, no DVR ratings, nothing like that. That's what we have episode ratings templates for. There's no need for multiple ways to display the data, and we should go with the one that provides more information. -- Alex^TW 15:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, because you have pages with the ratings in the episodes table, ratings table and then a graph, that's frankly a bit too much. People can see the ratings on the episodes table and then scroll down if they want a bit more detail with DVR data. Graphs do little to improve on what's already on a page as people can see if the numbers have gone up or down compared to previous weeks. Esuka323 (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I think having a graph for each episode's live viewership on a series page is of value, because it shows the reader the trends in viewership better than any other format. It's clear, the seasons are colour-coded, and there are episode numbers. I think it works perfectly on a page like Empire, as it clearly shows an increase in viewers for the entire first season followed by a rapid decline. However, including it above a ratings table for a show that has 8 episodes is just redundant and dumb. I think that a viewership graph should only be created if the show has more than one season or actually has a trend that can be seen. If a series stayed at 10 million viewers an episode for 50 episodes, then I don't see a point in a viewership graph. But what do we define as a trend? Also, how would a graph fit and/or be readable in a series with 300+ episodes? Should one just not be added if there are too many episodes to fit? I think there are some questions that need to be addressed. If we're including the viewership graph template, which I think we should in some form, honestly the only thing that should be removed from the template is the ratings chart below the graph. Listing every episode's viewership on one chart is definitely excessive. These numbers are easily accessible on a season's ratings table and easier to follow there than a massive chart full of numbers. Keep the graph, remove the table! Heartfox (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this template was removed, would readers not construct their own using the Episode Table's Viewer column? 86.152.18.132 (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most pages have an episodes table with live ratings and a ratings table with live and dvr ratings. It would be simple enough to see how a show is trending without a graph triplicating information already on the page. Esuka323 (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The number of delete !votes in here is extremely concerning for the future of Wikipedia in general. This is exactly the type of visual template that readers would be most interested in. Most of the commenters in question are of the opinion that said readers should be forced to actually read as opposed to giving them a much more convenient source of information, which is so ludicrous it barely even deserves a response. Modernponderer (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you remain a bit more civil in your posts. Wikipedia is not here for interesting, it is here for encyclopedic. So, yes, the site is here for information to read. Do you suggest we delete the prose content? -- Alex^TW 07:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is here for the readers, and for absolutely no other reason. And no, I would be against deleting the prose as well, if only for maximum accessibility. By the way, "most interested in" means "I am looking for this information", not "I like this information". Modernponderer (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia is here to build an encyclopedia, we are not here for the readers, no matter what you personally believe. Quote: A major pillar of Wikipedia is that it is both an encyclopedia and a community of editors who build it, and The expression "here to build an encyclopedia" is a long-standing rule [...] It has been written at various times into the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. We are also not here to duplicate information unnecessarily, so if you're not against deleting the prose, then we are therefore duplicating information unnecessarily. -- Alex^TW 07:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are arguing for deleting all charts, diagrams, and other visual aids from Wikipedia, your argument makes absolutely zero sense. And by the way, that link does not contradict me: we are building an encyclopedia, yes – but for the readers, not ourselves! Modernponderer (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists" is not a valid reason. Simply because one article includes graphs, doesn't mean they all should. Hence, that argument makes zero sense. See the examples given in that link, and you'll see this is a textbook example. And even if nobody accessed or ever read Wikipedia at all, we would still be here to build an encyclopedia. Alongside that, can you reason the duplication of the information? -- Alex^TW 07:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHER is the worst essay (NOT policy or guideline, so it has zero actual validity) on Wikipedia. It has "allowed" clever editors to override global consensus on long-settled issues simply by claiming that the other, already discussed pages don't matter here. WP:CONLEVEL IS actual policy!

Really, deletion discussions like this one should be prohibited altogether. If you want to discuss what types of visual aids should be allowed on Wikipedia, go to the policy page for that and open an RfC. Modernponderer (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on the essay is noted, but it still remains quoted extremely often, and thus is valid. If you disagree with the essay, take it to their talk page. As for consensus, there is no consensus to use this template, so that applies just as much. Anyways, it seems you have nothing more to supply to this discussion, other than demands and complaints, correct? You've not stated anything further on why this should be kept. What should be prohibited are !votes like "STRONG keep" or "STRONG delete" - do you think it has more weight to the closing editor or something? It does not. -- Alex^TW 08:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you know quite well, starting a talk page discussion like that for an essay is futile – unlike policies or guidelines, essays are generally not deleted even if they do not receive the support of the community, by their very nature.

Put simply, my support for this template comes from the fact that it provides an objective method of comparing ratings across a show that is tedious to perform from the original tables, and cannot be done in article prose at all (because a less-detailed summary is more subjective). Modernponderer (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you could have just said that, instead of all the fluff. However, the template does not take into account any other form of ratings (share/rating, DVR ratings, etc), nor is there any requirement for such an objective method, especially when the data is already listed in other tables outside of the episode table in a much more detailed format. -- Alex^TW 09:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]