Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 June 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 1
June 3 >

June 2[edit]

Template:Pakho Chau[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 delete. Izno (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

connects three articles, which are already well-connected Frietjes (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2023 (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:Forest Stream[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 delete. Izno (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the three articles are already well-connected Frietjes (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2023 (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:Annual readership[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TfD'd as part of an ongoing effort to reduce our excessive # of talk page banners. This template has nothing to do with article improvements.

Arguments at the 2018 TfD were: "it's useful". But that logic is what led us to have too many talk page banners in the first place. It takes seconds to type the first few letters of "pageviews.wmcloud.org" into a browser address bar, let it autocomplete, and press enter. Can we take advantage of graphs being disabled for at least the next few months and delete this? DFlhb (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"let it autocomplete"? It only autocompletes if you've been there before and haven't cleared your history since. Not all editors know pageviews.wmcloud.org even exists to begin with. – Scyrme (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Change to: Add link to page bottom as at German Wikipedia). It just needs to be fixed, or another tool used instead of the broken one. Maybe https://pageviews.wmcloud.org bar chart can be imported into the template. Or just linked from the template for now. With the link set up for this specific article or page. "This template has nothing to do with article improvements." Wrong. It helps determine which articles are more worthy of improvement. I have learned what type of articles readers are more interested in. I would say that this template is one of the more important talk page banners. I have noticed other talk page banners being put in show/hide boxes. That saves space. But I rarely see this template put in show/hide box. Because it is so useful to both readers and editors. Learn to add {{skip to talk}} to the top of the talk page banners. Helps people skip over it all if they want to. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DFlhb: Rather than delete it, why can't the banner link to the exact page on pageviews.wmcloud.org that the readership graph appears? Then one wouldn't need to type any letters the browser address bar; just click the link. Besides, the website link you suggest is just the home page. One still need to search and navigate to the page name of the article that one is reading, if it even exists. And, if your memory is like mine, sometimes I get distracted and forget exactly what I was looking for, with such a long-winded and complex process of finding the exact page, if it exists. Of all the banners on talk pages, I think this is the most important banner to have for assessing the "importance" of an article to Wikipedia. While the "quality"of an article is internally assessed by its class, which is catered for by a WikiProject banner, the readership of an article is a measure of how important it is to Wikipedia's audience. If an article is not being read much, or at all, why should it be improved, or even be retained? If one puts readers as the first and main reason to have an article about a subject, then this template is the most important one to have on an article talk page. Without it editors do not know if any of their efforts are useful, or even read by anyone, besides themselves. Since graphs have been disabled, I have sorely missed these little pieces of interactive analytical feedback. But providing a link to the source of the data would be the next best thing. Besides, the (collapsed) banner is small and consumes one line on the talk page, with a collapsed Wikiproject banner shell, which is equally as small, the two most important talk page banners for article improvement are dealt with, and leave plenty of screen real estate for the rest of the banners, if any others are ever needed. Remember, without readership, nothing else matters. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page views for articles you've contributed to are already highlighted on the Newcomer homepage, prominently on mobile and probably soon on desktop. Cluttering article talk pages with all sorts of "nice to have" cruft is exactly how we ended up with so many talk page banners. Every single banner has a high cost, since they add to banner blindness; on most pages, people don't read them. Ask anyone who edits Donald Trump whether the newbies read the banners meant to prevent dumb edit requests: they don't. The fraction-of-a-percent of editors who care about page views should bookmark the WMF's site.
A banner on the article's talk page is not useful for coordinating editing efforts towards highly-viewed pages, because by definition, you need to already be on the page to see this template.
I just came across 2022 FIFA World Cup, which had unreverted hours/days-old bad edits, yet it was the fourth most-viewed pages of 2022, and had {{Annual readership}} primonently featured on its talk page (placed far higher than it should have been). If it doesn't even help deal with bad edits with visibly broken formatting, it can't help with article improvements. Your hypothesis isn't borne out in practice. DFlhb (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect established editors to start using the newcomer homepage, especially when that's a relatively new feature intended for novice editors, and one that has to be intentionally enabled in the user preferences. (To be honest, I didn't even know enabling it was an option until I looked it up today.) – Scyrme (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is it? In your first reply you say newbies wouldn't know about pageviews.wmcloud.org (but it's among the first results on Google for "wikipedia pageviews", and is linked in "Page Info" and "View history" here), yet now we're talking about experienced editors, who can certainly take a second to Google for the site. And "Topviews" are far more useful for Cameron's purposes than individual pageviews. DFlhb (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both? I wasn't just talking about newbies not knowing about pageviews.wmcloud.org. It took me ages to notice the pageviews link in the history tab, even after I had been editing for a while. "History" isn't the first place I'd think to look for page statistics. The other comments in this discussion demonstrate that it's not just me.
Also, "established" and "experienced" aren't necessarily the same thing. I'd called a long-time editor "established", but they aren't necessarily "experienced" in the sense of knowing about all the bots, widgets, and external tools used by power-users. You can spend a lot of time on Wikipedia dealing only with articles and talk pages. – Scyrme (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You can get to the pageviews of any article from its revision history page. There's a "Pageviews" link to wmcloud right at the top of every page. Maybe a few extra clicks – the horror! Thrakkx (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thrakkx: Thanks for pointing that out. I have learned something new after editing Wikipedia for 20+ years! I have never noticed that link before. The trouble is it is 3 clicks and two page loads away, and you have to know the link is there, first. Most readers, like me, are not even aware the link exists. The beauty of the Annual Readership banner is that it allows an editor to refer readers to the readership graph for an article of their choosing, not just the article for the given talk page. This is sometime important when a page has been moved recently, or articles have been split or merged. The alternative would be a non-standard plain text URL link. Having a banner encourages standardization. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, m:MoreMenu is a really good tool that adds tabs to the UI. There's a link in Page > Analysis > Traffic report that will take you there with one click. Far superior to navigating to the page history for that link or going onto the talk page and clicking 'expand'. The readership templates I don't use, and wouldn't mind them being removed. SWinxy (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Average readers and occasional editors only get as far as the talk page in many cases. Every step away is fewer having access to page views. The developers need to put a default link to page views in the sidebar links. A link seen whether one is logged in or not. In the meantime let's just put the link on the banner. Eliminate the show/hide part of the banner. It is no longer necessary. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The external tools (including the pageviews link) in the history tab are already displayed even if you're not logged in. You're right that readers and editors often don't notice them, since they don't always think to look for them in the history tab.
However, {{Annual readership}} also already links to the pageviews site and has done for ages. The link is in the title: "Daily pageviews of this page". The text "Daily pageviews" links directly to the preconfigured stats for the article. (Preconfigured not only meaning that it's set to display stats for the article, but also to provide the range for a whole year rather than the last 20 days which is the default if you click the link in the history tab.)
I don't see the point of removing the show/hide function of the banner, given that if the template isn't deleted it will, eventually, be needed again when graphs are restored. It's not doing any harm. Removing it is pointless extra work. – Scyrme (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I must have missed that since I never used it while the template graph was working. No need. That might be a good reason to temporarily remove the show/hide function, and change the banner link name to "Daily pageviews timeline" for this article (named).
By the way. I started this: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Can_a_page_views_link_be_put_in_sidebar_links? --Timeshifter (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The show/hide function is still helpful for hiding the explanation for why graphs aren't working from readers/editors who don't care or who already know. The explanation still needs to be there for readers/editors who do care, particularly those expecting a graph because that's how the template has worked for years. (It's also how it's still intended to work, it just can't until the technical issues with Wikipedia's graphs are fixed.)
Could amend the message to say something like:
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled.
Until they are enabled again, click on "daily pageviews" in the banner title for annual readership statistics.
That would ensure that anyone who doesn't notice the link and expands the template has a second chance to notice. The additional lines it would take up don't matter much since the content can be hidden. – Scyrme (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea. There is a ten-year editor who replied at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), who has never seen page views. Even for articles he has created! --Timeshifter (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking at the arguments in the last TfD, they were not simply "it's useful"; it was noted that the template provides (or, I suppose for now, provided) a clean, simple summary of the statistics without requiring leaving Wikipedia to go to another website. I agree that there's value in having a user-friendly tool that's accessible and uncluttered by unfamiliar settings/features, and located in a prominent place where it's easy to find. The template doesn't currently work that way, but that's not meant to be a permanent situation.
As others argued in the 2018 discussion, the template is intended to be used selectively. If a particular talk page has a serious clutter problem, then, sure, remove the template on that page. I don't think this is contributing to clutter enough to warrant deleting it entirely. In my experience, most clutter is caused by history related banners ({{Old merge}}, {{DYK talk}}, educational assignments, etc.), content addition requests ({{photo requested}}, {{need sky}}, etc.), and large uncollapsible notices ({{BLP}}, {{Controversial}}, {{Ticket confirmation}}, etc.). Any issues caused by this template are minor by comparison.
Is it the most important template? No. But plenty of editors seem to find this template helpful, and I'm not convinced that it's a big source of clutter. – Scyrme (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a sidenote regarding clutter concerns, I think a lot of it could be reduced by integrating many notices into {{talk header}} and having the messages displayed by the header be adjusted by parameters. Setting |calm=yes, for example, seems simpler than having a load of separate banners like {{calm}}. (This in particular is a good example, since much of it is redundant with what the talk header displays anyway, like linking Wikipedia:Civility.) The header already adapts contextually, displaying Find medical sources rather than generic links on relevant articles. Why not do more of that? Capabilities/parameters that {{talk header}} already has seem underutilised (like the integrated bot archiving parameters), and I suspect it's because editors are accustomed to copy/pasting templates across talk pages rather than setting (or pasting) parameters. Maybe this has all already been considered and rejected, idk. – Scyrme (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, but "small" sources of clutter add up. The best way to stick to a budget is to start by cutting out a bunch of small expenses. Everyone has their pet banner; so this thinking won't help solve the clutter issue. When I think about the purpose of talk page templates, on 99.9% of pages I'd only keep those that enable collaboration (WikiProjects) and those that nudge newbies to start editing (Talk header), with {{Article history}} a distant third. It's unwelcoming for beginners to be overwhelmed by the banners when they first visit a talk page; we're driving them away rather than helping them. DFlhb (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think {{annual readership}} is similar to {{section sizes}}, in that they are both tools that should be added to pages where the information provided is particularly relevant to ongoing or frequently recurring discussions. Ideally, they would be removed if they stop being relevant, but I'm sure that doesn't always happen. Still, most talk pages I see don't have either template so I don't think there's too much of an overuse problem. Admittedly, that's just anecdotal; I could be wrong.
I think the 3 broad categories of template I listed earlier are the most responsible for overall excess. If, after pruning/merging those there's still a problem, then maybe we should reconsider whether tools like {{annual readership}} are worth having. – Scyrme (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You added the budget metaphor after my initial reply. I don't think it works. This isn't a bunch of small expenses, it's a single small expense. "A bunch" implies a group of templates which are individually cheap but collectively expensive. {{Annual readership}} doesn't have much in common with other talk templates besides {{section sizes}}, besides being in a banner format, so it doesn't really belong to any "bunch". Focusing on the 3 groups I listed earlier would have more of an impact, and given they are categorically alike the metaphor of "a bunch of small expenses" is much more persuasive. – Scyrme (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added it half an hour before your initial reply, for the record; I always follow WP:TPO.
It is "a bunch of small expenses", because I can only TfD one template at a time unless I want to get snow-closed, and this is not the only one I plan to nominate. DFlhb (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't accusing you of anything, I was just indicating why I didn't respond to it earlier and why I was adding to my reply. I just didn't notice your revision until later, that's all I meant. You're right that you reivsed it before I posted my reply; I should've refresh the page earlier. My mistake. – Scyrme (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is always a useful detail to keep in mind during talk page discussions. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a very useful guide for readers (should almost be at the front top corner of the article). Readers don't know how to get to "pageviews". Don't agree that we have too many TP banners (i.e. WP:NOTPAPER). Most Wikipedia TPs are barren deserts with minimal TP banners/tags (and activity). Anything that engages the reader in the article - which this template does - is worthwhile in my view. Most social media sites are obsessed with metrics like page views (i.e. youtube, twitter, etc. etc.), so don't see why we are going in the opposite direction. Aszx5000 (talk)
  • Keep - no valid reason for deletion presented. Graphic is exceedingly useful to editors to gauge efforts required. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Engages readers, very useful. Not a particularly convincing deletion rationale either. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - graphic is helpful to editors and readers.BabbaQ (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Very useful template, and I don't see any benefit whatsoever in deleting it. I do not agree that we have a supposed "problem" of too many talk page banners. Davey2116 (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant with pageviews.wmcloud.org. If I want pageview data, I always go to wmcloud which has lots of ways to compare and display views from multiple pages, I never look at the template. The template provides a tiny amount of convenience (avoiding three clicks) for a small number of users interested in the data (but who don't want the features of wmcloud), adding clutter, increasing page size and load times, and demands on web browsers and users' attention. We should be streamlined and efficient, not feature-rich and bloated. Banners should follow the "less is more" rule that works for infoboxes (eg: MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). – Reidgreg (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any evidence that the impact on load times isn't negligible? Seems like a reach. – Scyrme (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the engagement factor + lack of evidence of the supposed impact on load times on servers. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is a tool for those who find it useful. Clutter can be reduced by putting all of the tools in a collapsible banner, and making it obvious that it contains tools and can be expanded. Notices/warnings to casual users may need to remain specifically visible, but can also be partly hidden.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if anyone above has looked at what this template displays today. Surely "it's useful" is not a very good response in that case. ;) On which note, these graphs are likely never to return to Wikipedia (and certainly they are unlikely ever to be able to query a foreign API like Toolforge ever again), leaving this template actual and clear clutter without current use. It would be prudent simply to blank the template for now while we wait (likely forever) for a replacement (well, let's put "likely forever" at some reasonable upper bound so that we can move on to removing the template at some point). Adding a link to Toolforge is simply unnecessary and clutter as well, as in the clutter at the top of page history you have this same link. Separately, even when it was available, you could also view recent page views at the "page information" link in the sidebar of a page. I find the claims of engagement more or less laughable; they are fun to look at and I'm sure some editors use them, but any serious claim that you're getting arbitrary readers to look at page views and then engaging when talk pages get somewhere in the realm of 1% of all page views is a claim that needs serious reconsideration. Izno (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty dismissive remark from you. Those viewing talk pages do a lot of editing of Wikipedia. And the link on the top of the banner works still works. Though many of us never used it, or thought is was a general info link, since we went straight to the timeline graph inside the show/hide box. See: Template talk:Annual readership#Edit request 4 June 2023. And it seems you didn't read, or ignored, what many here have said about never noticing the page views links buried more steps away. And average readers who never edit would be much more interested in a direct page views link in the sidebar versus a lot of the other arcane links there. And I believe it would draw a few of them into editing knowing that editing some pages actually would reach a lot of people. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Readers will not see it on the talk page (especially since it's often collapsed in the {{banner holder}}). You're right that they might see it if it's in the sidebar, and that it might motivate them to join. You can start a discussion at WP:VPR if you want it put in the sidebar, and if it gains consensus among editors, the community will ask the WMF to implement
That sidebar link doesn't need to be titled "Page views", it could be titled for example "1,034,000 page views" and lead to the page views site when clicked; that way the number is always visible. Wouldn't that be much better than the talk page, where no one will see it? DFlhb (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely see the page views banner buried in the {{banner holder}}, or other show/hide box.
I like your idea of the number always being visible. We should do it on the talk page banner for now. And if the page views link ends up also in the article sidebar, then we can delete the talk page banner. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Scyrme. I cherish the tiny ego boost from seeing the pageviews of my articles, and it's certainly simpler for the casual reader who might be curious about the populariy of our site and might be motivated to contribute, yet not be so technically versed as us. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning delete I used to add this to talk pages all the time, but pageviews.wmcloud.org probably does the same job better (although it's less accessible for the average reader and new editor). If there is a serious loading issue, I'm not opposed to deletion, but I see many people saying it doesn't seem to make much of a difference. On the other hand, I did notice slow loading times and graphics not working properly in recent weeks as nom says, so even without having the tech knowledge to know why that is happening, I trust that there are good reasons for deleting excessive templates which cause loading problems. Finally, a lot of the Keepers say little more than 'It's WP:USEFUL', but that cannot be a sufficient reason. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Recent weeks? The graphs have been disabled for over a month. If you've been experiencing slow load times, it's probably not related to this template (or any other graphs-related templates). – Scyrme (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am for keeping things that help article creators and readers. Bruxton (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put page views link at page bottom as at German Wikipedia, on all pages whether logged in or not. It doesn't use any of the sidebar's prime real estate. Over time I think it would be seen by the most readers and editors compared to any other location other than the sidebar. Since it would be seen my more readers, I think I would help draw a few of them into editing. The other locations are seen mostly by editors. It would be very easy to add the link to MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright as at w:de:MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank until graphs return, no need to clutter the talk page banners with something that doesn't work. Changing the template banner into a link to pageviews.wmcloud or moving a link down to the bottom as in German Wikipedia (or just on the sidebar) are options as well; I'd prefer the moving the link, that way we have it on all pages and don't have to selectively add it to talk pages. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, about time, a complete waste of talk page space and major contributor to clutter. This information is available in History tab. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepper above. Template is very useful to readers and editors. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I can see, their arguments for deletion are based mostly on the unusability of templates. However, I feel that templates provide a live view of a page's visitors without making it difficult for readers (and maybe reviewers?) to know visitor statistics for a page. My suggestion is that instead of displaying the number of visitors, it would be more helpful to add a display regarding editing statistics. So that we know how many editors have edited the page (this is optional and my suggestion should not be taken seriously). In terms of usability, maybe we can add vandalism statistics to the article, so we know whether the article is vulnerable or not? Salam alaykum, ▪︎ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 09:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I understand that there are numerous editors who believe that Talk pages should be reserved exclusively for article content discussion and that all TP templates are but clutter and a distraction, template {{Annual readership}} has been around since 2017, and the idea of having banner templates on article Talk pages for much longer. (The Wikipedia:Talk page templates page has had substantive content, and been named either as an editing guideline (currently) or as part of the Manual of Style (originally) since 2005.) I believe that TP banners generally, and the page views graph in particular are helpful, and have helped me in my editing. That said, I'm sympathetic to the former group, and I understand the problem of scroll-fingeritis, but other solutions are available for that such as rapid-nav features like {{skip to bottom}} and others. Data servers are large and modems are fast, and banners should not be, and are not a barrier to quickly getting to the desired talk page content. Mathglot (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just found this from the notice on the template. I think the graph provides useful information and it can also be interesting to see when/how much an event increases the views of the relevant article. I don't think it's redundant since going to an external site is a lot more time-consuming than looking at the template (and a lot of people might only be finding out about the website or even the existence of the view counts through the template). It's also collapsed by default so it's usually one of the smallest templates on a talk page. 91.129.109.187 (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepbut remove for the time it doesn't work. Putting up something that doesn't work is not good for the reputation of Wikipedia. But the Annual Readership seems to be important to some, is mostly collapsed anyway together with the many other banners.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete but add to tools. How hard would it be to add https://pageviews.wmcloud.org (or whatever) to the tools menu or even better as an item within Page information? Dpleibovitz (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actualy, its already there as "Page view statistics" so delete Dpleibovitz (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2023 (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:Timeline of world economy[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single use mainspace template. WP:SUBST and delete. Izno (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't even provide any useful information about "world economy", it's just a vague timeline of human history generally. It's also very reductive; the iron age, for example, continued into the Common Era in many regions of the world. As a representation of "world" history, it's quite misleading. Honestly, I don't think it even needs to be substituted; it's not contributing much to Economic history of the world besides taking up space that could be better utilised. – Scyrme (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2023 (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:Timeline of the Great Recession[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 delete. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 04:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content template used on about a half dozen pages. I don't think it's appropriate for the whole content to be used on each of the pages its on, indicating this template is not fit for purpose in a different way than being a content focused template. WP:SUBST and delete. It's also an event that occurred 15 years ago, which means there is little chance or need to have something to update in one place. Izno (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts.... We document history here, so the events are part of history, even if the template is never updated. The problem of how it appears when displayed is another matter. Another factor that's relevant is whether this information is found in another place, such as an article. If it is, then the argument for preservation of the template loses strength. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:29, 3 June 2023 (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:Ordinal vs. cardinal utility[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Used on only 2 mainspace pages. Is basically content, and I generally don't expect this content to need to change. If it needs to, the local page authors should have that choice. WP:SUBST and delete. Izno (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is used only in two pages, it can be copied into these pages and deleted. --Erel Segal (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2023 (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:Euro Stoxx 50 performance[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single mainspace use template. Subst and delete. Izno (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2023 (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:NWA World Women's Television Championship[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 delete. Izno (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation template with only one entry. McPhail (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2023 (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:Nonwikilink[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 delete. Izno (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Used on two pages. Can be replaced with Template:Link one way and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2023 (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:Team Records on Hockey Day[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 delete. Izno (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single-article content with no template parameters. A simple table. Subst into article and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2023 (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:1987–88 Ekstraklasa Season table[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 delete. Izno (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2023 (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:2022 AFA Senior Male League regular season table[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 delete. Izno (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with Draft:2022 AFA Senior Male League and Draft:2023 AFA Senior Male League. Frietjes (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2023 (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:NoBackLink[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 delete. ✗plicit 15:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused other than the creator's test sandbox from 2009. Gonnym (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2023 (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:Myanmar National League-2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This template is for teams in the 2016 MNL-2, but we don't generally create templates to link teams that competed in one season of an event (else we'd have way too many templates at the bottom of sports club articles). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2023 (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:IPsock[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back in October 2022, I asked SPI clerks and fellow checkusers whether they use the {{IPsock}} template. See Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks/Archive 4#Template:IPsock. Almost everyone answered no.

As I stated back then, a sample of the transclusions of this template reveals that it was used a lot around 15 years ago, but nowadays, the idea of sock-tagging IP addresses has fallen completely out of favor. Unlike tagging accounts, the usefulness of tagging IP addresses decays with time: it is vanishingly unlikely that the person using a particular IP address today is the same person who used the IP in 2006–2010 (the time of transclusion for many instances of this template). Depending on the kind of network involved, an editor could switch between multiple IP addresses within a single day. In the worst case scenario, we are biting newcomers by incorrectly flagging them as potential socks on their user talk page.

The potential benefit of this template is in identifying the common IP address ranges that sockmasters could appear on. However, the modern approach is to document this information on WP:SPI subpages, not through tagging individuals IPs with this template. Checkusers have a private wiki that they can use to document common IP address ranges for sockmasters as well. Overall, this template confuses more than it helps, and it should be deleted. Mz7 (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I made an invitation to participate in this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks#Template:IPsock nominated for deletion. Mz7 (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here via the above invitation. Absolutely a delete for me, and is something I've wanted to get rid of for a while. It is not something we recommend using at SPI and isn't something SPI folks even look at, and as Mz7 said above its accuracy usually decays over time. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For those of us who aren't checkusers nor SPI clerks, this template has the advantage of automatically adding socks to suspected-sockpuppet categories where those exist. I still use it quite a bit. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to delete, on the basic principle that IP addresses are used by different people and innocent anonymous users may be confused as to why they are a blocked user where in fact they are not. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could also just automatically remove the template from pages for IPs from which there have been no edits for a particular length of time. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it looks like this template is mostly a relic of the past, and most IPs that have been blocked no longer are, so it might confuse users who think are blocked, when in reality they aren't. - Yitzhak | זה לא יצחק (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From years reviewing unblock requests, I can assure you that plays no role whatsoever, at least from that. I really doubt most, if any, IP users look at the IP user page before editing; in fact I think the vast majority don't even know that IP user pages even exist. In any event, most IP users learn of blocks on the address or range from the message that appears when they try to edit. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As IPs are becoming increasingly dynamic, this usefulness of this tag has decreased substantially. As a sidenote, would it even be feasible to use it at all once IP masking is launched?-- Ponyobons mots 23:03, 8 June 2023 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_2&oldid=1159502564"