Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 20 July 22 >

July 21

[edit]

Cyprus football templates

[edit]
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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Each of these only link two articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the rule? To link at least three articles? Xaris333 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NENAN, five is a good rule of thumb. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really Frietjes? Most still only have links to one or two relevant articles, a couple now have three at most. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They all will have at least three articles. I am creating them. Xaris333 (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
my threshold for a navbox is lower than the number provided in the NENAN essay, and the removal of the related European competitions is controversial per the discussion at 1958–59 in Cypriot football. Frietjes (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is at all controversial. These are incredibly tangential inclusions. See my comments below.  :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was the actual template before User:Robsinden change it. Xaris333 (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of nomination, 1969–70 Cypriot Cup had not been created. Also, note that 1969–70 European Cup and 1969–70 European Cup Winners' Cup are tangential to Cypriot football and should not be included in navboxes of this kind. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is your opinion, not a rule. For example, 1969–70 European Cup also is at Template:1969–70 in English football, Template:1969–70 in Spanish football, Template:1969–70 in Scottish football. We can have a discussion about all the templates with this "problem" and not just to delete it for Cypriot template while all the other templates still can have it. Xaris333 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a rule not to have tangentially related articles linked in navboxes. It's not even the national team, it's a club side that was knocked out in the first round. 1969–70 European Cup wouldn't even belong in the template {{Olympiakos Nicosia}} although an article such as Olympiakos Nicosia at the 1969–70 European Cup would. An article such as Cyprus at the 1970 World Cup would belong here, but anything else is clearly too tangential. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the same opinion about Template:1969–70 in English football, Template:1969–70 in Spanish football, Template:1969–70 in Scottish football. Because you didn't remove the links of them. You only remove it from Cypriot templates! We need a discussion about it. Not here. Somewhere were many users, familiar with sports articles and users familiar with templates to say their opinion. Meanwhile, pls stop remove the links. Xaris333 (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely I have the same opinion about these navboxes too. The links should be removed from these also. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And why your and not doing it? I am sure you will only remove them from Cypriot template. Xaris333 (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is so much wrong with those other navboxes, it's difficult to know where to start! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said, you will not do it... Xaris333 (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European competitions links must be in these templates. And to the templates about football season in every European country templates. There are Cypriot clubs involved, hence they are part of the Cypriot football season. User:Robsinden have removed the links only from Cypriot templates. So, two things may be occurs:

1) He is not really believe that European competitions links must be remove from the templates. He just removed them so everyone will vote for deletion since there will be less than five (that the number he gave) links in each number. He just want to delete Cypriot templates.

2) He may think that European competition links must be remove, but he know this is may not correct. So he is afraid to remove them from templates for countries like England, Spain etc because other users will stop him. And he is afraid to start a conversation about that (maybe in WikiProject Football) so everyone who want to say his/her opinion. I don't think users know that we are discussed that issue here.

Xaris333 (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2017 (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).
[edit]
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 no consensus. The discussion is also a bit of a mess since a large number of templates were joined to the discussion in the middle of the discussion. Hence, it's difficult to tell if the early comments can be applied to the templates which were joined to the discussion later. I would suggest continuing the discussion, perhaps on the talk page of one of the WikiProjects, if you would still like to see all (or some) of these templates deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Full list of templates

Per these two discussions in June and April, these templates are unrepresentative, repetition and get easily crammed. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 00:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally. The above editor opposes anything Game of Thrones-related that's listed for deletion, and apparently has not read any of the previous discussions linked. Also, another discussion. -- AlexTW 08:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's the other way around for you. I mean, what's the point with deleting such a good template that gives these informations to the readers? I'm not just talking about Game of Thrones, but all of the shows mentioned above. - AffeL (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. If something important got GoT was requested for deletion, I would oppose it. Again, you've clearly not read the discussions. All of this information is available in the episode tables, especially ones where the season articles are transcluded and they're all in a nice unbroken line. It has the GoT template in it, that's why you're opposed. Something crowded like {{The Walking Dead ratings}} is more detrimental to an article than it is helpful, especially with a full season coming up, and possibly more in the future. -- AlexTW 08:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's why you where the only person that was for the deleting of the article of Carly Wray. But moving past that, i'm not talking about the season articles, but the main articles of these shows. So if these templates get deleted, will it instead be used just once in the main page of these shows? - AffeL (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't important. Nice you remember old our dates, though. These templates aren't typically used on the main articles of series', but rather on the list-of-episodes articles, where the information already exists. -- AlexTW 09:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But for many they are, for Game of Thrones it is used in the Viewer numbers section. I do not care if it gets removed from the other Game of Thrones pages, But it should still be on the main page, where it's not repetitive. - AffeL (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The basis argument for not requiring any of these templates applies to all articles. But now that you are WP:HOUNDing me, I'm sure that no valid contribution will come out of this. -- AlexTW 09:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop accusing me of something you are doing. - AffeL (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not related to discussion. -- AlexTW 10:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just replying to the comment you made. I still think a template like this is good to have for some shows. - AffeL (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I think a template is good" is not an argument and has no basis or support. -- AlexTW 11:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am reiterating Alex's above comment. AffeL, please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 21:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said, try to read the comments I have made above. - AffeL (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And then read the guideline and see how it applies to your situation. It's exactly what you're saying. -- AlexTW 22:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's exactly what you said. It's written right in the WP:IDONTLIKEIT#It's useful section: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it should include useful encyclopedic content. But many useful things do not belong in an encyclopedia and are excluded. Just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. You need to say why content is useful or useless; this way other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies." Callmemirela 🍁 talk 22:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not what I said, I believe that graphics like this a useful and important to see how TV shows popularity changes over time. - AffeL (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery:  Done I am the one who added most of them and i forgot to do that, sorry. -- Radiphus 00:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Radiphus: Except that you put them in noinclude tags. Tfd tags for templates of this size shouldn't be noincluded. Pppery 00:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: Does it matter? I am really asking. Should i remove 'noinclude', and why? -- Radiphus 00:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Radiphus: So people who don't happen to look at the template page notice it has been proposed for deletion. See Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 23. In that case, the argument was primarily about small inline formatting templates like {{braket}}. For larger templates, the disadvantages pointed out there don't apply as much whereas the advantages still do. Pppery 00:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow this discussion very much. I just noticed more templates were added. Also, I included noinclide tags because Twinkle said that the tags don't interfere with the article, so that's what I did. Should they be removed? Callmemirela 🍁 talk 00:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for the reasons I stated in my previous post. <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags should only be used for substed templates (per Wp:Tfd#Listing a template step 1, or (in practice) for templates that produce output that isn't interpreted as wikicode (for example {{CURRENTSECOND}}) or displays something very small (like {{braket}}). None of the above properties apply to any of the nominated templates. Pppery 00:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I probably didn't properly read what Twinkle said. I've removed all of the noinclude tags. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 14:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: Thanks for letting me know of this discussion, though i see no consensus was reached on this issue. I personally believe the tfd tags would be disruptive to all those "List of ... episodes" articles. The 'noinclude' tags have been removed. I thought that big red box would be placed inside the articles, but the notification that was added is quite discreet. -- Radiphus 14:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that too, but it's not showing up. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 14:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Radiphus and Callmemirela. One large set of templates struck off User:Pppery/noinclude list ... Pppery 14:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a reason for deletion. Ratings information is important to assess the popularity of a TV series, and the template format is just a convenient method of keeping data consistent across articles.  Sandstein  14:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly recommend reading the three previous discussions. Ratings information is already available through the episode list, and the graphical format of it has gotten way out of hands for series with too many episodes, and given that there's no guidelines to curb this, it has become more detrimental than useful. -- AlexTW 14:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What are the reasons to delete it, ratings is a huge part of television.

Judor92 (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most important reason why these templates should be deleted or replaced is that they do not fit the needs of all the TV series in which they are used. A typical example is the series The Office (a template i created myself) consisting of 201 episodes. In order for all the episodes' ratings to fit into the graph, I had to position the bars right next to each other, being limited by the maximum allowed width of 1600px. If the series consisted of more episodes, I would not have been able to do even that. And if the graph can not be used everywhere in a way that fulfills its purpose, then it is better not to be used anywhere. A graph like this could be a design alternative, provided that it will not contain data for a single season, but for all seasons of a TV series, but it does not solve the problem of data repetition. -- Radiphus 14:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why not usong these template french wikipedia [1]? Judor92 (talk) 11:23 am, Today (UTC−4)
  • Keep (especially template:television ratings graph) as useful and informational for readers.

    Nominator claims that each and every template nominated here is "unrepresentative, repetition and get easily crammed." However, she provides no explanation for these claims. How are they unrepresentative? Are they using unsourced data? Are they inherently incorrect in some way? That the graphs use data from elsewhere in the article doesn't make them repetitive; seeing easily in one place the relational highs and lows over the course of seasons is more beneficial to readers' understanding than trying to remember an entire season's (or series') ratings as they scroll by and mentally do what these graphs are doing for them. As for "getting easily crammed", that would depend on a lot of individual articles' factors and cannot be used to paint all these templates equally (especially the originating template). — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I quote myself again. I strongly recommend reading the three previous discussions. Ratings information is already available through the episode list, and the graphical format of it has gotten way out of hands for series with too many episodes, and given that there's no guidelines to curb this, it has become more detrimental than useful. -- AlexTW 08:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ratings information is already available through the episode list" I addressed that in my comment.

    "the graphical format of it has gotten way out of hands for series with too many episodes" I don't know what you mean by "gotten way out of hand", and I don't know how many episodes is "too many" for you, but {{Mr. Robot ratings}} doesn't look "out of hand" nor does 22 episodes seem like it should be "too many".

    "given that there's no guidelines to curb this" Given there are no guidelines curbing this, it doesn't strike me as needing curbing.

    "it has become more detrimental than useful." I addressed these templates' usefulness in my comment, and I do not see any evidence of them having detrimental effects on readers. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fourthords: Please take a look at the graphs I've created below: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 10/TV Graphs Examples

    As you can see, attempting to create a graph containing anything more than 200 episodes produces a mess. There are examples of shows with that many episodes, like The Office (201), Law & Order (456), The Simpsons (618) and most late-night talk shows like Conan (1053). So, i believe we agree that this graph can not be used in every television series article on Wikipedia. However, as Alex said, there are no guidelines to curb the excessive use of this template. Therefore, there should be a discussion on how to deal with this potentially harmful template. Users like me, who think that a graph showing the ratings and trends of a TV show is not redundant, are likely to suggest the replacement of the template or the imposition of restrictions in its use. Users who think that this is a case of data repetition and that the episodes table is sufficient, are likely to suggest the deletion of the template. What you can't do, is say that everything is fine and no action should be taken. -- Radiphus 22:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, please don't take offense to my minor reformatting of your comment. I couldn't find any possible way to keep your reply (and mine, and all below ours) in line with MOS:LISTGAP while keeping the subpage transcluded here. So I turned the transclusion into a basic link and brought everything into a single bullet (I could've prefixed your second paragraph with a "*:::" too, but I didn't know which you'd prefer, so I used my own default).

    You said that graphing "more than 200 episodes produces a mess." Obviously, a "mess" is subjective, but with the browser and monitor I'm using right now, all of your examples below "4 seasons - 100 episodes - 800 width" simply add a horizontal scrollbar for the content that can't be seen initially. Are you saying that such a scrollbar is inherently "messy", or are you seeing something else?

    "So, i believe we agree that this graph can not be used in every television series article on Wikipedia." I don't know whether a 1053-episode-wide graph would be beneficial to readers of a given article; that would be up to the editors of that article to decide. Can these graphs be used for every TV series with an article? Since they obviously can be (given I've seen no limitations to the template design, and I assume the resulting horizontal scrollbar would be functional), I don't agree with this claim.

    "[T]here are no guidelines to curb the excessive use of this template. Therefore, there should be a discussion on how to deal with this potentially harmful template." Define excessive use in this instance. I'd define it as implementing it without regards for its pertinence and relevance to the specific article at hand—a decision to be determined by the editors of that article. Whether {{Prison Break ratings}} (to choose one at random) is "excessive" for the article its in (apparently Prison Break) is up to the readers and editors at Talk:Prison Break. As for "harmful", that definitely needs an explanation as for how it actually harms the wiki or the reader.

    "What you can't do, is say that everything is fine and no action should be taken." There is no systematic or conceptual problem with these graphs that warrants deleting all 45–47 of them, and that's what's being discussed. I haven't looked at every single one of these templates' implementation (and I'd wager most editors discussing them haven't either) to know whether "everything is fine", but the fact of the matter is that "everything isn't wrong", and that's the premise from which this discussion is based. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. They're not really "ratings", just a regurgitation of the viewership columns in episode list tables above them. There was a time in multi-season main television articles that an overview table contained premiere and finale viewership columns with an additional "average" column. This was much more effective and simpler. Another thing to factor in are the screenload times. While I'm all for a nice bar graph, these tables at the bottoms of list articles add to their loadtimes, while also extending past the margins for some series pages, shrinking some tables above them, and stretching the pages on some devices. — Wyliepedia 19:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having read the previous discussions, I will say I still have no idea what Alex means when they say that these templates are "unrepresentative" of the show, but I nevertheless can see the other substantial issues here. To begin with, I question their basic utility. For the most part, the ratings info contained within them is only going to be truly germane to one article (the main article for the show), and those details can (and almost certainly will) be included in that article already. Sshoehorning the ratings info for the entire run of a show (via the template) into the auxiliary articles (be they for a given season, episode, or subtopic) is almost always going to be excessive and inappropriate. When you combine this lack of realistic function with the clutter and other technical and pragmatic complications inherent in these templates, the matter approaches a WP:SNOW determination with regard to how obvious the call is here. Snow let's rap 23:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all excessive statistics. Abequinn14 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - They are one of the main reasons I visit the episode pages. Probably for some others as well. - seismologist76 (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a reason to keep them. It's essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 03:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep {{Television ratings graph}} and establish guidelines such as:
  1. Only for multi-season programs (should not be used for programs with only one season)
  2. Only used for programs with less than 20 episodes per season
  3. Only used for programs with less than 100 total episodes (after which should be converted to alternative graph)
  4. Should only be included in parent television series articles (not in list of episodes or season articles)
While I do agree that the majority of these templates are detrimental and that another graphical representation should be created for the series that do not fit some established guidelines (along the lines of this [2], possibly using something like Wikimedia SVG Chart), I personally feel this is an amazing and a very useful template for TV series. There is no reason to delete something like {{Game of Thrones ratings}}, which we know for a fact will have a total of 73 episodes and the graph helps visually show the growth of the series, which is in itself rare since the majority of series decrease in ratings and not grow. A graph like this is far more effective than writing in prose the season premieres, finales and spikes in ratings to explain the growth/decline in viewership for a series. However, something like {{The Walking Dead ratings}} will become far more detrimental to an article than helpful, especially with the showrunners having confirmed their desire to have 20 seasons. - Brojam (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put aside the idiosyncratic nature of your proposed guidelines and the fact that many of the editors who would want to implement these templates would disagree on where you want to draw the line. Even if you could get these editors all on the same page, it would be virtually impossible to constrain templates to these standards thereafter; per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:Advice pages, the editors of each individual template would not be compelled to follow suit. Are you going to use the WP:PROPOSAL process to create a WP:Guideline on this incredibly niche issue? Seems unlikely.
You say that a simple graphical representation of the ebb and flow of ratings can be much more effective in representing that aspect of a shows popularity than a long section of prose, and that's fair enough. I personally don't know that it does much for examination of a show as an encyclopedic topic, but no doubt some readers will value it. Which is why any graphic that might appear in one of these templates is probably a reasonable addition to a show's main article. But crammed into every article remotely connected to the show, it becomes a kind of WP:FANCRUFT, and one that creates potential technical and viewing issues for readers on certain platforms (see WP:CHOKING), which are not justified by the return they give to our readers.
If a reader really wants this highly particular data, it will always be available to them in the main article (I don't know of an article for a single major television series of the last couple of decades that doesn't have a ratings section, and if these graphs can be created for a template, they can be created in those sections, and in most cases already have been). But the templates themselves are an ill-conceived means of trying to plaster a detail that a niche group of viewers fixate on across a mass of articles where they are not particularly germane or useful, creating clutter and headaches. Snow let's rap 20:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, Brojam, when I wrote the above, I had somehow missed the last qualifier on your list, of only adding these templates to the main articles for a series. But I am now confused: if you want these details only in those main articles, why not just add said content into such articles? (Or more accurately, I think you will find they are already there, in the vast majority of cases). The entire point of this discussion is that the duplication of this content into a template inevitably leads to it being plastered across scores of articles where it doesn't really belong. So why have the template at all, if you're in agreement that this should only be in the main article for a show? Snow let's rap 20:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise: The same could be said for {{Television Rotten Tomatoes scores}} that only goes on season articles like Game of Thrones (season 7). I've since added a bar_width parameter to the template to make it less of a "mess" and made it possible to display more than 20 columns of episodes in the table. This would eliminate many of the restrictions that I had originally proposed. See here for examples using it. - Brojam (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments don't really address the question I was asking: Why have the template at all, if you're in agreement that this content should only be in the main article for a show, and it can be added into the main article (and in almost every imaginable case, already is int he main body of the article)? And yeah sure, there's WP:OTHERSTUFF that also get shoved into questionable templates, but that's not an argument for retaining the particular content in question here. Snow let's rap 16:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you're fine with keeping {{Television ratings graph}} and deleting the rest, just to recreate them in each specific article? While I don't have a big issue with that, having them in separate templates will help reduce the vandalism that often occurs with ratings data. - Brojam (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, yes, that would be the solution I think works best. Though again, I don't think there will be many cases where that material has not already been added to the main articles (ratings sections, complete with infographics, have become pretty ubiquitous in the main articles for television shows made in recent decades). I'm not sure what might be your reasoning for assuming that there will be less vandalism if these graphs are presented in the main body of the text, rather than in a template. I'm not sure there is a whole lot of vandalism in this area at all, but (if anything) the content is safer from vandalism in the articles than in the templates, by virtue of the fact that more regular editors work on the articles (and thus will notice the vandalism quicker) than on templates. Snow let's rap 20:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can see advantages of having individual template for each show. For example, some people are concerned about sources, but if you include a large number of sources for the figures of the graph that may give excess bulk for an article that is already big. But if you put all the references in the template (but references not transcluded), then you have a way of showing sourced data in a simple graphical form without adding excessive bulk to the article. As for the vandalism issue, most casual editors won't know where to go to edit the template, and vandals are often casual editors, and people randomly changing numbers is a problem with many articles (I'm not specifically talking about TV ratings, it an issue I've seen with many other pages). Hzh (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The graph is the easiest and most convenient way of providing useful information to readers. Readers can understand in a simple glance the trajectory and extent of the show popularity all through the entire series. Rating is an important part of the TV shows and is of interest to many readers, therefore an easy to read format should be kept. Hzh (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I quote myself again. I strongly recommend reading the three previous discussions. Ratings information is already available through the episode list, and the graphical format of it has gotten way out of hands for series with too many episodes, and given that there's no guidelines to curb this, it has become more detrimental than useful. And also the rest of this discussion - all of your pointers have already been addressed. -- AlexTW 09:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do understand the issue with too many episodes (I mentioned it myself in the Walking Dead template here), but that is a problem with how to represent data rather than the graph itself. For example you have graphs like these - [3] (a few thousand data points), now the issue would be how to implement something like this in Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If people are so insistent on these types of graph, it is best to start from scratch, no? There are obviously issues with the templates per the last two discussions. If Grey's Anatomy, Criminal Minds, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, etc., we're looking at a large template because of their overall episodes. It's best if we establish consensus first (following a deletion, if you ask me) and then implementing the templates as the community has requested. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 15:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like adding a bar width parameter may resolve some of the issues - with narrower bars you can add more episodes, 2-300 episodes may well fit a single graph. I don't know how easy it is do to that since I have only ever made minor adjustments to template, but if that can be done, there is no need to start anything anew. Hzh (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The more narrower the bars, the more difficult it is too read. At that point, it wouldn't even be a bar chart anymore. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 20:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really sure if I understand the argument. I can certainly make them out even if the bars touch each other. If you look at The Office (U.S. TV series) ratings with over 200 episode, if I reduce it to 67% (by zooming out) it is still perfectly readable (that'll be the equivalent of around 300 episodes), it's only when you get to 33% when you think it might be difficult. Appearing as discrete bars in any case should not be an issue, it would simply be like the example I gave above (that solved the problem by giving info when you hover over the data point, but I should think implementing it would require quite a bit of rewriting). Alternatively you can split the graph or simply scroll it, which requires no rewriting of template at all. Hzh (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzh: I've added a bar_width parameter to the template as suggested. See here for examples using it. - Brojam (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. The Office ratings template actually now looks much better. I think for those who complained about excessive data in a page, the simple solution is to have a collapsible option for the data table since the graph itself should give most of what you need to know (but you can see that actual data by clicking show on the data table), and a single graph does not really take that much space and should not be an issue. A graph is a simple and elegant way of presenting large amount of data. Hzh (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree; changing the size of the bar widths and keeping the same number of bars still makes it excessive data, as proven by the other examples of such graphs that were previously given. The large amounts of data are already presented in a simply format, and that's through the episode lists. If they were to be included, they would need to be on the list of episodes article; anywhere else, and it would be unsourced and allowed to be deleted. -- AlexTW 14:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is really no such idea that data found in one page cannot be presented elsewhere, for example in the case of the main article, in a summary form (and you can see the graph as an easy-to-read summary). A summary is never excessive. The numbers in the episode page in any case is not easy to read, since you have to look through the entire article to get an idea how a series performs overall in its entire run, even then it is not as clear as a graph that can tell you how a show performs from a simple glance. Hzh (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is, as if it's included on an episode without the sources for the viewer counts, then the content is unsourced and cannot be backed up on that article. Simply because we can have a summary, doesn't mean we should. Why do we not have graphs for the ratings of a series and its episode, why only viewers? A series' performance is not solely on its viewer count. -- AlexTW 15:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is an entirely different issue, and should not be discussed here. The Office ratings for example appear to be entirely sourced, so how is that relevant? You haven't presented a case for why they shouldn't be included. TV ratings are important, certainly to TV companies (certainly more important to them than critical reception - many well-received series were cancelled because of low ratings), and to readers as can be shown by the websites dedicated entirely to TV ratings and the frequency they are reported in the media. Hzh (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why only viewers? Well because it is the only data included in {{Episode list}} and not ratings. - Brojam (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It should if it directly affects where the content should be added. If it's anywhere but the list-of-episodes articles, then it's unsourced and should not be included in the first place. I have present many a reason as to why they shouldn't be included, having actually read and participated in the multiple discussions related to and links in this discussion, and I support the reasons given by those who have proposed the deletion of the templates. Ratings and viewers are different - why do we have a graph for one and not for the other? It seems to be original research that ratings and viewers are the sole reason for cancellations; however, this does not a sufficient explanation for the graphs of viewers - do the heads of television companies visit Wikipedia to look at them? Very highly doubtful. And ratings are typically also included in an episodes or season article - why can we only use information from the episode table? If you look at List of Doctor Who serials, you'll see the Appreciation Index values - you don't see a graph for those, because having graphs to display already-available data is unnecessary. -- AlexTW 16:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised at the presence of appreciation index, it has little merit and should not be present in any article. IMDb ratings are probably more useful and we don't include those. You should call for that to be deleted. What we do include in many articles are aggregate review ratings by professional reviewers (e.g. Rotten Tomatoes). The Doctor Who article in fact shows how messy the ratings look without a graph. I'm not even sure what you are arguing at the moment, who is arguing that TV company heads visit Wikipedia for ratings? I said it as an example why ratings are important. I'm also surprise that you question the importance of ratings to a show survival (I didn't say sole reason though, you added that), given that this is the received wisdom of websites like TVByTheNumbers that use ratings to predict which shows would get cancelled, e.g. here. I don't think you'd find many people in the TV industry who would question the importance of ratings, it's almost like questioning the important of sales for any commercial products. Hzh (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I most certainly will not call for them to be deleted, given the importance of those ratings, how they have been included for several years, and how I have absolutely no issue with them. Messy? I completely disagree, they are lined up in a perfectly neat fashion, making the information available for comparison with a quick scroll down the page. If you don't like it, that's your job. If IMDb ratings are more useful, then why don't we have a graph for those to? Because it's not necessary. And I quote you when I say I'm not even sure what you are arguing at the moment. I never said they weren't important at all, I said that they aren't the sole reason. And I've primarily been talking about viewers, not ratings, so the importance of those ratings is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Now, shall we get back on track about viewers? -- AlexTW 16:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are different meanings of ratings. Look in BARB you will see that what they refer to as ratings are in fact viewer numbers. The American rating system is more complex, because they use a number of different ways of measuring viewing figures - by individuals, households, age groups, etc., and present them as shares, ratings, and absolute numbers. The media tend to report different kinds of figures at different periods, but the total number of individuals has been the most common one for many years, even when they use the term "ratings" in the headlines - e.g. [4] and no rating figure is given. Rating is pretty much synonymous with viewing number in the popular media (the actual rating figures are usually only found in specialist websites). Also I did not said that it was the sole reason, and as you went off on a tangent about something I never said, so excuse my confusion. Hzh (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the point of the sourcing since it never occurred to me but is an important issue. If the graph is in the list of episodes, then no sources are required but if the graph is on the main series article then couldn't we use TV Series Finale for many of the series? Example: Scandal S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6. - Brojam (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think sourcing is essentially a how-to-do-this issue rather than anything directly relevant to whether a template should be kept or deleted. The numbers are sourced, so it's about how to include references when transcluding a template, there are probably instructions or guidelines on this. Hzh (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Brojam for your attempted fix at the sourcing issue, but personally, I think that just dropping in "Viewers for each episode in the series according to Nielsen Media Research" as a random new line and a whole line of sources is probably far more disruptive than it is helpful. -- AlexTW 23:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted it to not be disruptive. - Brojam (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Honestly? This isn't even worthy to be a vote. You need solid reasoning, not just "I like it, I want it there" - this site does not serve to the benefit of you, you need to present reasons as to why keeping it would benefit the readers and site as a whole. -- AlexTW 02:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For professional use. I work in television (outside the US) and these graphs especially save a lot of time and effort for us. Yes, the content might be redundant because the ratings are already listed elsewhere, but having the visual really helps when we are making presentations when we are considering purchasing formats. Without these graphs it literally takes me hours sometimes to put together the same information on a chart. Even if the show doesn't have it's own graph the template allows us to mock a chart ourselves (without actually putting it on the page) and really saves us from grunt work. No offence, but it really seems like the majority of pro-delete users are coming to this from an engineering viewpoint and generally engineers are notoriously bad at UX. Camilleopard (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to serve at the purpose of people who work in the field, which, I would note to the admin, would seem to be a major conflict of interest. Nor do we keep redundant material for a use that is not related to Wikipedia - this site comes first. -- AlexTW 13:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, that is not remotely what WP:Conflict of interest means on this project. Camilleopard was just making a utility argument based on their insight to the value they see in this content as a particular sort of reader. They weren't involved in the origin of this content, nor trying to promote some kind of material for a company they work for. That would be a conflict of interest; saying "readers of type X, find content of type Y useful" is not COI, not by even the most generous reasonable reading of our policies on the topic.
Now, there are pragmatic arguments to counter the one presented (for example, I would point out that the ratings graphs can and will still be included at the main articles for the show, which is really the only place that they have the WP:WEIGHT to belong and the templates are therefore by definition excessive. I !voted delete and I think it's problematic that the discussion is starting to lean keep, but I can tell you from many years of involvement in deletion discussions that this strategy that you and Callmemirela are employing of responding to almost every keep !vote with an attempt to disqualify their perspectives is likely to have the opposite of the impact upon the "Admin" (by which I assume you mean the closer) than the one you are hoping for. Pick your battles, restricting them to areas where you know you are on solid ground (the above "COI" argument should not be one such example) and even when you are absolutely certain you are "in the right", repeat your objection to a specific argument against one (maybe two) editors at most. Anything more just makes it look like you are trying to chase down everyone who disagrees with you, which doesn't enhance your position when the consensus is moving against you. Snow let's rap 16:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not responding to every keep !votes for one. Most of the comments I have made relate to IDONTLIEKIT. Very few keeps have actual arguments and make good points, whether I agree or not. Two replies I have written were in relation to keep certain templates and delete if the rest (somewhere in those lines) and replying to a user, who wrote to Alex, about IDONTLIKEIT. That's about all I have done. I haven't gone out to "disqualify" votes like you say. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 16:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that between you and Alex, you've replied to nearly every keep !vote here. But you've raised the issue of your frequent reference to WP:IDONTLIKEIT--that's something I had thought to add to my previous post, but I omitted for the sake of brevity in an already crowded discussion. But since you're leaning in to it again, let me say this: you're absolutely right, there's a huge amount of IDONTLIKE-style arguments going on in this discussion. And guess what, that includes every last argument you have made here. I've been watching this discussion since the beginning and I haven't see you, or Alex, or any other editor support their position to delete with so much as a single reference to one word from a policy or guideline. Your arguments have been entirely off-the-cuff and pragmatic, which makes them no more or less IDONTLIKEIT than most of the editors who have !voted to keep the templates. If anything, your burden of proof on a pragmatic rationale is higher, because you are asking the community to delete a large number of items simultaneously, on grounds without explicit reference to policy/broader community consensus.
I happen to think the position to delete has the better pragmatic arguments here (which is why I !voted to delete along with you and Alex and numerous others), but it doesn't change the fact that the debate is being conducted entirely along those lines. So I think you need to keep some perspective before throwing that particular link at others here. If this were an AfD discussion and you nominated more than fifty items for deletion without mentioning a single policy or piece of concrete community-wide consensus which those items violated, your proposal would almost certainly be closed immediately as a WP:SPEEDYKEEP. But this is TfD, and I would defend your decision to launch this proposal by saying that such moves are sometimes made here, based entirely on new pragmatic arguments, because we don't have the same body of guidelines for what makes an acceptable template as we do for articles. I support your nominations and I've !voted in support of them, but I do think you need to chill out with the IDONTLIKEIT comments, because your own arguments are common sense (not guideline) arguments, and thus no more or less enshrined by policy than the utility arguments being made by most of the keep !votes. Again, you have the better array of practical arguments working for you, imo, but you can't pretend you are coming at this from a stronger position of broad community consensus, because you aren't.
Also, even if you did benefit from IDONTLIKEIT here, I'd still be advising that you guys scale back the number of !votes you respond; even when you are right on the nose with policy, there is a point of diminishing returns on the number of times you can make even the right argument in a content discussion before it starts to back fire and do more harm than good to the position you are advocating for. Just my two cents from experience though--take it or leave it as you will! Snow let's rap 18:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Any kind of discussion, whether it may an RfC, deletion, move, etc., should not involve personal and/or professional reasons as to why you want this to keep. We are not here to make your lives easier by "sav[ing] a lot of time and effort for" you. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 14:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have simply stated my personal reasons for wanting the template kept. I didn't want to repeat anyone else just to receive the same cookie cutter counter-arguments. And I truly think that the charts are not redundant because they provide a striking visual for many people who can't just go from numbers listed on the right side of tables which are too many and too spread out from episode descriptions to actually comprehend the data. Can you honestly tell me that you can understand in one read-through that which episode was the highest and lowest in a season and how the ratings for each season compared to each other (such as a rising or falling trend)? Because that is exactly what the chart provides, it translates a bunch of numbers (which are too spread out on the page to be actually seen together) to a simple\ easy to understand graphic. Now you haven't really given any other reason for removing them other than they are "redundant" I mean do they actually demand a lot of server space that makes this a costly expense? Honestly at least the chart takes up such a small space in one section of a whole bunch of pages connected to a show that just being redundant doesn't make it a good reason for many of us to remove all of them. I do agree with you on that some aspects of the chart could use some work especially when used with shows that have a lot of episodes and seasons, but at this stage where only a certain amount of cable shows' episode lists use this template how redundant is this? Does it require you to spend your free time putting together all of these charts or do volunteers willing to do them make them? Honestly I just can't necessarily understand your vendetta against them really.
[Also Wikipedia by design is literally there to make life easier for anyone trying to access information. That is the whole point of this site. I remember before Wikipedia and the Internet in general that I had to rely on outdated encyclopaedias for information and more often than not I would turn up empty handed. I don't know why you decided to become a contributor (I can't say I contribute all that much), but the website itself is an inclusive learning medium that is there to assist people. So saying something like "we're not here to make your lives easier" might be true for you and others personally, but that does defeat the whole purpose of this website. Honestly I don't want to continue writing about this because I might offend you or others who feel this way and I don't want that to take away from my point about the templates.]Camilleopard (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I don't see how these are "excessive" at all. They all exist below the episode table, they are neat, concise, and very easy for readers to understand. When I hear the term "excessive", I interpret that as meaning "too much information"; I don't see how these charts could be considered "too much information". There isn't any additional sourced information being included here, its very simply just taking the information that's already in the article (via the episode tables), and synthesizing it into a clear, easy-to-understand format - which in itself provides encyclopedic insight that the episode tables themselves cannot. While on the surface it could be seem as "repetitive", there actually is additional information in these charts that is unique from the episode tables. Looking at American Horror Story for instance, there is a clear pattern of high ratings for the premiere and a drop off in the subsequent episodes - this clear patten is visible in the last 5 seasons, yet the impact cannot be as seen as easily when just looking at the episode tables. We allow tables for DVR ratings, and we allow similar tables for Metacritic ratings, and those are apparently not considered to be "excessive", so I'm not sure what it is about this table specifically that's crosses the line. If anything, this discussion should be about putting guidelines in place for how these should and should not be used. Maybe for shows with 200+ episodes, we use the season averages rather than individual episode ratings in order to "curb" any potential excessiveness? Or maybe we only use them for cable shows whom all have shorter seasons? Rswallis10 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Callmemirela: Basically, you want to make sure all of those search results have been listed. I just checked and the only one missing was Template:Pretty Little Liars ratings, which was created today. -- Radiphus 00:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are in the articles, and all the data are already present in the list articles. Christian75 (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not if it resides on a series' parent article, where no sources for the viewer numbers exist. And if all of the data exists, as you say, why duplicate it? -- AlexTW 09:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The question of sourcing can be resolved in a number of ways, for example, you may placed it in the template itself, you can choose to, or not if that is preferred, transclude the references. Sourcing is not an issue here. Hzh (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is spoken like someone who never has to deal with IP vandalism of things like ratings at various TV series articles. Sourcing is 100% the issue. The current versions of these templates are a vandal's paradise as they are likely to be little watched, and easily subject to malicious changes to ratings figures with no oversight. And let's be honest – no one is ever going to source the ratings figures for most of these. As long as they are unsourced, I will be a "delete" !vote. I also am unconvinced that these need to be templates at all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what I mean. This is a matter of where you source the content - it is possible to put in the template or in the article itself, how you do it is a different discussion. Because the template is not easy to find for the casual IP editor, it is in fact less prone to vandalism. Hzh (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - visualize information which is spread out over several screen pages, e.g. it summarize a lot of infomation into one graph. The data should (of course) be sourced. And of course its some kind of a "ILIKEIT" argument, but thats the nature of the problem, and apparently MOS hasn't any "solution". Its like discussing the colour of an infobox, you can't find any external sources dictating which colour to choice. Problems with individual articles should be discussed on that articles talk page. Christian75 (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's already a consensus on how to pick an infobox's colour in the WikiProject Television. We could summarize everything number-based with a graph, but we only seem to do it with viewers. Why not Nielsen ratings as well? Because it's too much. The Doctor Who serials article doesn't require a graph for the AIs. Including them should not be based on "some kind of a "ILIKEIT" argument", it should be based on facts as to why they are necessary, nor liked or wanted. -- AlexTW 09:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Using Doctor Who as an example doesn't help your case, it is probably the worst-looking article on episodes I have ever seen. The appreciation index is rarely reported in the media, and it is completely irrelevant to most casual readers. Viewers numbers in contrast however are widely reported in the media. You should not compare something relatively unknown to another that is well-known and well-used. AI should be deleted. Hzh (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion on the topic has been noted; however, we digress, and should actually get back on topic by giving valid reasons on why these templates should or should not be kept, not just what one editor wants. -- AlexTW 14:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine that the group has consensus on the colours. Which external references did you use to decide the colours (except that the colours should be readable - which btw. can be checked with external references). Christian75 (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Home media art, and the most prominent colour of it (using something like TinEye), as long as it is AAA compliant per WP:COLOR. However, we digress - shall we get back onto the topic about the templates? -- AlexTW 01:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per policy objections raised by delete votes. Excessive ratings cruft, pure statistical data without the necessary context to make these charts relevant. Unsourced. Visualized data is not necessary to be standardized. Per the outcome of the other ratings template discussion. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - these graphics provide useful information how a series' viewership changes over time. I.e. I just saw the Game of Thrones#Viewer numbers chart and that is an excellent chart showing in one easy to understand graph how the show's popularity has increased over time. And I found such a chart no-where else, so deleting it would deprive readers of a useful and unique feature. noclador (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another "keep" !vote with an ILIKEIT-based reasoning... I wonder when they will end. One can easily do that through the episode tables, since you can just scroll through the viewer numbers at List of Game of Thrones episodes. A vote should be given with a technical reason, not just because "they look good". -- AlexTW 07:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't read my comment, and you went for an ad-hominem attack. I said: "provide useful information". And scrolling through the viewer numbers as you suggest is again a sign you did not read my comment. I said "showing in one easy to understand graph how the show's popularity has increased over time", this you cannot see if you scroll through the list you linked. In short, your attitude and rudeness, and your refusal to read my comment properly, show that you're unfit to contribute to this discussion in a professional manner. I said and I will repeat "Strong Keep" for the usefulness to get an overview in one glance, which is a thousand times better than scrolling through a list. noclador (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming that it's nothing more than an "ILIKEIT" argument to provide a colourful diagram on content that can be read elsewhere. Given that I've been a major contributor to this discussion, I think I'll let myself decide on whether I'm unfit, professional or not. Cheers. -- AlexTW 15:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you are harassing every "Keep" voter with a comment, and as you are patrolling this discussion, you are clearly diametral to this discussion. I wanted to comment and move on, but your rude attitude and crusade to have this discussion end your way are a sign that you need to step back from this discussion now. Also: again, I did not say I like the graphs, but I find them useful. Many other editors have argued the same way, that these graphs are useful, yet you dismiss all of them as "ILIKEIT". This is not how it works. noclador (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be due to the fact that I have had to deal with the issues that have come with this template through new and unknowledgable editors, and edit-warring editors, who decided that it was best to use this template for every Tom, Dick and Harry series that they thought of, even when it wasn't compatible to do so. I didn't come to here because I saw the deletion notice on one of my pretty graphs, and I am not the only editor sick of seeing "keep" !votes stating that it's useful with nothing solid or technical to back this up. -- AlexTW 15:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you have to deal with issues with "new and unknowledgable editors" etc, then the solution ins't to just delete all templates. I have never edited one of these templates and came because for all wikipedia users a graphic representation of data is always much easier to comprehend than a list. Your dismissal of the argument that these graphs are useful shows you're acting in bad faith. Go to List of Game of Thrones episodes and make an experiment: see how much time it takes you to find out through the list which episode is the most watched and then compare that to the time to find the same information by looking at the graph. The latter takes a 20th of the time. Therefore deleting these graphs is a making it more difficult for wikipedia users to find and comprehend data, and it's reduces the quality of the articles. And that is my final word. noclador (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"As you are harassing every "Keep" vote with a comment", so far from the truth. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 17:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Invaluable for seeing, at a glance, the popularity of a TV show over time. 184.64.110.38 (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – Repetitive, not WP:ACCESS-friendly, unnecessary for each and every show to have its own template... excessive statistics of dubious value. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep Graphic representations work nicely and show better than the numbers what is happening. Some editing may be in place, as the "viewers" title is misleading as it concerns only viewers from a single country. For those series where things get a bit clogged, the template can be edited to give a better representation. and the consensus in some series articles may of course be that there is no need for the template. But that all gives no reason for generic deletion... L.tak (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's because we only add viewer ratings for the country of the series' origin. No Australian viewers for a British series, and no U.S. viewers for a Canadian series.
that's fully understandable, but my point is that the word "viewers" on top of these templates doesn't reflect that... L.tak (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There actually exists a parameter in the parent template to indicate the country and add it in front of "viewers" in the title. I've added it to all the templates so they correctly reflect for which country the viewer ratings are for. - Brojam (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of those recent edits focuses on the actual reasons that this template is nominated, however. For example, the accessibility issues. The unnecessarity of repeating already-available data. -- AlexTW 00:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the heading of the image was an off topic discussion. that discussion doesn't change the value of these templates as useful graphical representations of data which help the user of the encyclopedia see trends that by just showing numbers in the table are hard to see.
I was answering on L.tak's issue with the title, which is now fixed. And as for my recent edits to the template, sourcing was a reason for many delete !votes and it is no longer an issue. As for your accessibility issues, the new bar_width parameter can now be used to adjust the graph to fit properly and if you find that the information is repeated (which I disagree), you can simply hide the table for long running series like done with the Pretty Little Liars and Scandal ratings templates. The information that these graphs provide is invaluable and cannot be compared to simply scrolling through each episode's row to see its rating. Not to mention the number of readers that benefit from these templates. - Brojam (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine surface fleet

[edit]
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 delete. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 15:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation. Per recent discussion at Notability:People: Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross recipients, the awarding of the Knight's Cross was deemed not to confer notability on the recipients, and the template thus does not serve a useful navigational purpose and is indiscriminate. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:52, 21 July 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 26th PD

[edit]
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 delete. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 15:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation -- only two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:52, 21 July 2017 (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:Jim Stafford

[edit]
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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and the three singles are already connected through the succession links in the infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • While the template may not be essential at this point, not even half of this artist's singles have articles so far. However, interest in the artist's work continues to mount, as reflected in the view counts of all existing articles. Therefore, other song articles may follow, as well as at least one album. The template should be left in place for this reason, as the work to create it would only have to be repeated later as more is written. - JGabbard (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:44, 21 July 2017 (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:NI21

[edit]
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 2017 July 29. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:00, 29 July 2017 (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:19th-century English photographers

[edit]
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 2017 July 29. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 16:00, 29 July 2017 (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:Victorian children's literature

[edit]
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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 16:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective list of children's authors from the Victorian era. Not a suitable for a navbox, better left for categories or lists (List of 19th-century British children's literature authors, List of 19th-century British children's literature illustrators). ~~Rob Sinden (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox isn't here to be a tool to edit articles, it is for navigating related articles. The relationship here is purely tangential and fails the majority of the points at WP:NAVBOX --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And clearly your interpretation is totally wrong, sorry...Modernist (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:NAVBOX. It is clearly your interpretation that is wrong if you think it is a tool to benefit editors, not readers. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Use WP:UCS please, clearly I have spoken as an editor and yes, it absolutely helps our readers to have access to the template...Modernist (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2017 (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:Erika Messner W65 Weight Pentathlon

[edit]
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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and it appears this record has been surpassed per the US records article. Frietjes (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2017 (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:Modernism

[edit]
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) Winged Blades Godric 16:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like so many of these kinds of navboxes it is problematic, as it is selective and subjective with no defined inclusion criteria. Who chooses who should be included here? Best left for categories. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the concerns I raise above. What you are saying here is little more than WP:ITSIMPORTANT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a helpful response. As an example, by which criteria was it decided that Ingmar Bergman should be included here, and not, say, Robert Altman, etc, etc? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is with navboxes which do not adhere to the guidelines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to have a read of WP:CANVAS. "It appears that the visual arts is under attack..." is hardly neutral. I see you're canvassing a few other editors who are not involved and are likely to take your side too... --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And please read WP:THREAD too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Navboxes shouldn't be selective, as this gives WP:UNDUE weight to certain individuals or artworks over others that aren't included. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is useful. Editors can discuss on the talk page what to include. SarahSV (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Within a very short timeframe Templates associated with the visual arts have become virtually useless and uninformative. I motion that they all be restored to their original useful and informative splendor (i.e., before Robsinden's good faith edits). Coldcreation (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful. If a specific entry is questioned or should be added that can be discussed on the talk, - no need to throw this tender baby out ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bloated, but can be fixed. Ewulp (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We are talking about the humanities. There are no absolute inclusion and exclusion criteria. Consensus holds sway. The reader knows that. The reader is not stupid. The value in the collection of articles found at Template:Modernism is that it gives the reader options. A reader can peruse the suggestions found there and reject some based on their own criteria. The assembled collection of articles found there can jog a knowledgeable reader's mind concerning other articles and subjects that might not be included there. Obviously editors exercise judgement in assembling such a collection of articles, but editorial discretion is of value. When there is disagreement, there can be discussion. Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the template is similar to this in terms of dealing with a cultural era by summing up some "prominant figures" in a single template but as mentioned above, it should be turned into a more "basic box" by choosing the most important figures of this era according to an agreed-upon standards (for exemple nobel winners in literature section) --Exmak (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2017 (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:N-VR

[edit]
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 2017 July 29. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:10, 29 July 2017 (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:Comparison electric car efficiency

[edit]
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 merge. with Electric car operating cost. There seems to be no objections to the suggestions to merge it with an article, and transclude it using LST or other transclusion methods. So, I have merged it with Electric car operating cost. Feel free to move it elsewhere if there is a more appropriate place. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have several articles that go in to extreme detail on the costs of electric cars, often repeating the same arguments several times. This is fine to a point, especially when it is focused on generalities, with one or (at most!) two carefully chosen examples. But we do not list a catalog of the street prices of every single product in a market. This table is nothing but a shopper's price comparison guide.

The policy WP:NOTSALES says: "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention... Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products"

This was discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Operating costs for electric cars? and the consensus is to remove these prices. We could remove the columns with the dollar values alone and keep the EPA economy estimates, but it would remain a thinly veiled shopper's guide. Sketching out the trends in total cost of ownership is more than sufficient, and Electric car does that in extreme and repetitive detail. Electric-vehicle battery rehashes the same arguments, and then many more articles like Tesla Powerwall, Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles, Plug-in electric vehicles in the United States, Plug-in electric vehicle, Chevrolet Volt, Tesla Model S, etc. beat away at the same dead horse with near-identical cost-benefit comparisons.

There has to be a limit to this, and it needs to stop addressing the reader as a prospective car buyer. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete price info - I participated in that discussion and it is pretty much unanimous that price info should be removed, instead providing only efficiency information (ie: km/kw), same as we do for gasoline vehicles. Adding costs per year is definitely against our guidelines. As for why, I will just say per nom, who covers the details well enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete running costs See below It's not strictly against the guidelines so far as I can tell, but it's against the spirit, also the table becomes unduly US-specific when you do that. Not sure why you went down this procedural route, you could have just done it.GliderMaven (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was already consensus to remove the price columns, and I understand the thinking behind that. But now I am seeking consensus to go beyond that because the efficiency and fuel economy comparison columns also constitute a shopping guide. This is why the Chevrolet Volt was removed and replaced with the Chevrolet Volt (second generation). The focus is on stuff you can buy today. An encyclopedic goal would be to aggregate or average the kW·h/km efficiency of all cars by year and illustrate the change over time from the 1990s (or earlier) to the present year. A data point in isolation changes when you turn it into big data. It is both interesting and encyclopedic to compare how the technology has improved and become cheaper. Fuel economy in automobiles does this, as well as making comparisons between countries and other factors. But not a comparison across the latest car models. It's fine to include mpg or km/kw on an individual car model's article, but whether or how you aggregate that data can run afoul of WP:SYNTH, WP:FRANKIE, WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTSALES. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the whole thing is fine. I"m just saying I'm not against a template that did something else useful that didn't estimate costs or look like a shopping guide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Templates for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 09:34, 21 July 2017 (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:Broke with Expensive Taste tracks

[edit]
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 2017 July 29. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:00, 29 July 2017 (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/2017_July_21&oldid=1142508950"