Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 6



Template:Print version

 * 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Non-functional template, not maintained in years. One mainspace transclusion. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Print version
 * Make that zero mainspace transclusions . EEng 22:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 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:Welcomeg2

 * 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 to Template:Welcomeg. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC) I do not see what distinguishes this welcome template from the many others. Seems redundant to me. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 01:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcomeg2
 * Merge to Welcomeg, as per nom. '''[[User:TomasTomasTomas|⠀TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁS ]]⠀[[User talk:TomasTomasTomas|TALK⠀ ]] ''' 16:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 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:Senior Living

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 July 15. Primefac (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Eldercare
 * 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:Television ratings graph

 * 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 as there is no obvious discussion at WT:TV or its archives concerning this template, no major policy reasons for deletion, and with the discussion here being a back-and-forth of "we shouldn't have X" and "but we should have X!" with no single opinion has a majority of support. Primefac (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Per Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 22, the consensus there and across the Television WikiProject is to no longer to use this template in articles, as multiple deletion nominations for these templates continue. --  Alex TW 08:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Television ratings graph
 * Television ratings graph
 * Pinging as the nominator of the above discussion. --  Alex TW 08:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * delete, excessive statistics. Frietjes (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So should the statistics be removed from the articles too? Christian75 (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per precedent and nom. -- wooden  superman  14:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent and nomination. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: To me, these are highly beneficial as they provide a large amount of information that can be gleaned by just looking at a graph within a few seconds. That's the point of visuals like this, within two seconds, you can see the ratings trend of a series. That can't be done with basic text. For editors that claim WP:NOTSTATS or that it's repetitive, how about those ratings tables (like this) that duplicate information from the episode list and list exhaustive ratings stats info like various types of DVR numbers and 18-49 demo numbers; now that's WP:NOTSTATS. We also have ratings tables like these, which are completely repetitive as well. The graphs should stay and replace those types of tables. I see most people are saying delete, but I just wanted to put my opinion in. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Remember to delete the module if this is done (which I added to the links above). &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Very verrrrrry strong delete, they are redundant, especially on pages with ratings tables anyways. Someone put one above a ratings table on the Barry TV series page and it looks so bad. Esuka323 (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. While I find this template quite useful for many many series, unfortunately without clear guidelines on how and when to use it, the template has been completely abused. - Brojam (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Procedural point. Do we need to nominate the individual templates that depend on this template, or is the assumption that if this gets deleted then they will also?  -- wooden  superman  11:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as the articles has e.g. "U.S. viewers" for every single episode (like List_of_Teen_Wolf_episodes), its very nice to see it visualized, instead of going throug the whole list. Otherwise, remove all the number of viewers from the articles and delete the graph too. Christian75 (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't here for "very nice". --  Alex TW 15:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So should we remove all mention of viewers from the articles? Christian75 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How does that relate to Wikipedia not being here for "very nice"? --  Alex TW 03:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Because the ratings for every episode is nice to have too. Christian75 (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are. But they provide encyclopedic value, and they're not just there to be nice. --  Alex TW 02:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: It is a comprehensible way to display the ratings trend of a series, and determine its popularity over the years. -- Radiphus  15:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Even when the ratings are steady with little change? How does a graph display popularity? There are so many more factors involved than how many people watch it. --  Alex TW 15:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for others with great certainty, but i believe a reader will find steady and fluctuating ratings equally interesting. In the case of the general public, the Nielsen ratings determine the popularity of a show per MOS:TVRECEPTION and i think this graph is the best way to display it. Much better and more comprehensible than a ratings table or a column in the episode table. However, i agree with Brojam that there should be some guidelines regarding its use. -- Radiphus  15:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it just shows initial ratings numbers, that's it. No share/rating, no DVR ratings, nothing like that. That's what we have episode ratings templates for. There's no need for multiple ways to display the data, and we should go with the one that provides more information. --  Alex TW 15:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, because you have pages with the ratings in the episodes table, ratings table and then a graph, that's frankly a bit too much. People can see the ratings on the episodes table and then scroll down if they want a bit more detail with DVR data. Graphs do little to improve on what's already on a page as people can see if the numbers have gone up or down compared to previous weeks. Esuka323 (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: I think having a graph for each episode's live viewership on a series page is of value, because it shows the reader the trends in viewership better than any other format. It's clear, the seasons are colour-coded, and there are episode numbers. I think it works perfectly on a page like Empire, as it clearly shows an increase in viewers for the entire first season followed by a rapid decline. However, including it above a ratings table for a show that has 8 episodes is just redundant and dumb. I think that a viewership graph should only be created if the show has more than one season or actually has a trend that can be seen. If a series stayed at 10 million viewers an episode for 50 episodes, then I don't see a point in a viewership graph. But what do we define as a trend? Also, how would a graph fit and/or be readable in a series with 300+ episodes? Should one just not be added if there are too many episodes to fit? I think there are some questions that need to be addressed. If we're including the viewership graph template, which I think we should in some form, honestly the only thing that should be removed from the template is the ratings chart below the graph. Listing every episode's viewership on one chart is definitely excessive. These numbers are easily accessible on a season's ratings table and easier to follow there than a massive chart full of numbers. Keep the graph, remove the table! Heartfox (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: If this template was removed, would readers not construct their own using the Episode Table's Viewer column? 86.152.18.132 (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Most pages have an episodes table with live ratings and a ratings table with live and dvr ratings. It would be simple enough to see how a show is trending without a graph triplicating information already on the page. Esuka323 (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: The number of delete !votes in here is extremely concerning for the future of Wikipedia in general. This is exactly the type of visual template that readers would be most interested in. Most of the commenters in question are of the opinion that said readers should be forced to actually read as opposed to giving them a much more convenient source of information, which is so ludicrous it barely even deserves a response. Modernponderer (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I recommend you remain a bit more civil in your posts. Wikipedia is not here for interesting, it is here for encyclopedic. So, yes, the site is here for information to read. Do you suggest we delete the prose content? --  Alex TW 07:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is here for the readers, and for absolutely no other reason. And no, I would be against deleting the prose as well, if only for maximum accessibility. By the way, "most interested in" means "I am looking for this information", not "I like this information". Modernponderer (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia is here to build an encyclopedia, we are not here for the readers, no matter what you personally believe. Quote: A major pillar of Wikipedia is that it is both an encyclopedia and a community of editors who build it, and The expression "here to build an encyclopedia" is a long-standing rule [...] It has been written at various times into the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. We are also not here to duplicate information unnecessarily, so if you're not against deleting the prose, then we are therefore duplicating information unnecessarily. --  Alex TW 07:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless you are arguing for deleting all charts, diagrams, and other visual aids from Wikipedia, your argument makes absolutely zero sense. And by the way, that link does not contradict me: we are building an encyclopedia, yes – but for the readers, not ourselves! Modernponderer (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Other stuff exists" is not a valid reason. Simply because one article includes graphs, doesn't mean they all should. Hence, that argument makes zero sense. See the examples given in that link, and you'll see this is a textbook example. And even if nobody accessed or ever read Wikipedia at all, we would still be here to build an encyclopedia. Alongside that, can you reason the duplication of the information? --  Alex TW 07:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHER is the worst essay (NOT policy or guideline, so it has zero actual validity) on Wikipedia. It has "allowed" clever editors to override global consensus on long-settled issues simply by claiming that the other, already discussed pages don't matter here. WP:CONLEVEL IS actual policy!
 * Really, deletion discussions like this one should be prohibited altogether. If you want to discuss what types of visual aids should be allowed on Wikipedia, go to the policy page for that and open an RfC. Modernponderer (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your opinion on the essay is noted, but it still remains quoted extremely often, and thus is valid. If you disagree with the essay, take it to their talk page. As for consensus, there is no consensus to use this template, so that applies just as much. Anyways, it seems you have nothing more to supply to this discussion, other than demands and complaints, correct? You've not stated anything further on why this should be kept. What should be prohibited are !votes like "STRONG keep" or "STRONG delete" - do you think it has more weight to the closing editor or something? It does not. --  Alex TW 08:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you know quite well, starting a talk page discussion like that for an essay is futile – unlike policies or guidelines, essays are generally not deleted even if they do not receive the support of the community, by their very nature.
 * Put simply, my support for this template comes from the fact that it provides an objective method of comparing ratings across a show that is tedious to perform from the original tables, and cannot be done in article prose at all (because a less-detailed summary is more subjective). Modernponderer (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Now, you could have just said that, instead of all the fluff. However, the template does not take into account any other form of ratings (share/rating, DVR ratings, etc), nor is there any requirement for such an objective method, especially when the data is already listed in other tables outside of the episode table in a much more detailed format. --  Alex TW 09:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Template:Episode table is to blame for that. The only column for ratings there has a default heading of "Viewers (millions)", and the adjacent Template:Episode list reflects this in its instructions as well. In my view, the encyclopedia would be better served if you directed your attention there instead of trying to delete this.
 * (Though DVR ratings are generally counted in overall ratings, at least from the sources I've seen for various shows.) Modernponderer (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, personally, I'm not a fan of the viewers on the episode table either, as that too displays only one set of viewer information. So, we have the viewers in the episode table, the viewers in the graph, and the viewers in Television episode ratings that includes the shares and DVR ratings; the latter is the only one we really need to list viewers, as there's way too much duplication going on. However, that's a discussion for somewhere else that would require an extremely solid consensus, as it would require a mass change to almost every transclusion of Episode table (6,400+) (and Episode list (10,400+)), rather than the fewer transclusions of this template (~220). Luckily for me, I'm able to do that thing where I can focus on multiple things at once; i.e. that and this. --  Alex TW 10:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not even aware of the other template. There is definitely an argument to be made that either one or the other tabular form should be used – probably that specific one as it has so much more info. But none of this is an argument for deleting the only visual template! Modernponderer (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you do, and it's used in pretty much every US television article. Furthermore, we also have Television season ratings to duplicate viewers a fourth time! And yes, it does have more information, which is why it should be used over this one, if we're trying to avoid duplication. A visual template is nice, sure, but it's not necessary to understand the series or to list information. If a visual graph is actually required to display trends, EasyTimeline is still available, which is what this template/module actually uses. --  Alex TW 12:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hold on, so you're suggesting that editors recreate the template (no doubt poorly) in each individual article where it is "needed"? Do you not realize this goes against the entire purpose of having templates in the first place? Modernponderer (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you know that the graphs were originally displayed with EasyTimeline? I guess not. It was either that or SVG files. You've learnt something new today. The template was simply created to have some easy-of-access in which to display the graphs. However, as per other editor's agreements here: 1) it's gotten out of control with no guidelines, and hence the template needs to be deleted, and 2) they should only be recreated/implemented if there's WP:CONSENSUS to use them. For example, Game of Thrones is known for its constant breaking of its own viewer records every(/most) premiere and finale, so a graph using the original format might be beneficial to backup this claim, if other editors agreed. However, a typical fall show, not so much, very little consensus would be gained for such a series. Make sense? --  Alex TW 13:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * How has this specific template "gotten out of control" exactly? You haven't provided any evidence of this. And the consensus should be for using the template, not for the template itself existing – that should be a given, for the reasons I've already explained. Modernponderer (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the past posts in this discussions and you'll see. It's generally been agreed, both in this discussion and past ones that you may not have seen, that visual displays for viewers are not necessary, especially not for 1) generic shows with little trend in the viewers, 2) for single-season series, and 3) especially when so many have been created in the template namespace then deliberately never implemented, and thus exist just for editor satisfaction and not reader use. The exact same content can be displayed without the template if consensus determines that it's necessary. The general agreement, however, is that it's not necessary, and thus the template is not necessary. --  Alex TW 13:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This discussion was just relisted, so you're clearly wrong – there is no consensus here at the moment. As for past discussions, I don't know of any. The ones you "cited" are for a different issue and not directly relevant.
 * You're still basing your entire argument on your ideological stance that these visuals aren't "needed", despite what quite a few people in this discussion have told you. But you haven't presented any proof that this specific template is problematic.
 * (In fact you have done the opposite, with your statement about it having only ~220 transclusions. That number sounds like this template is being used appropriately, and only in those articles where it is "needed", however you define that word here. No action necessary.) Modernponderer (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why I said agreement, not consensus. I would kindly ask you to stop putting words in my mouth, do you think you'd be able to do that? You don't know of any, then go on to talk about the ones I mentioned, thus making you aware of them? I'm confused. As for the second paragraph, you seemed to have forgotten about this bit: so many have been created in the template namespace then deliberately never implemented, and thus exist just for editor satisfaction and not reader use. You seem to think they're required for reader use, but they're not being used for such. --  Alex TW 14:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant that I'm not aware of any relevant discussions. Not sure what your distinction between "agreement" and "consensus" is, but neither is present. And the templates you're referring to have already been deleted themselves, so there is no need for further action. Modernponderer (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your opinion on the agreement is noted, but that's probably because you're in the minority, so it's not really noted. Also, don't SHOUT; we remember your last shouting escapade. There have been multiple relevant discussions, regarding the deletion of both this template itself and other templates using this template. All have had the general agreement of deletion. Anyways - this has degenerated into a generic back-and-forth of "no you, no you, no you", so unless, as the original !voter, you've something new to add... --  Alex TW 15:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really, I'm done here too. But I will mention one thing first: that I am not merely shouting, but pointing out things I consider highly relevant to the eventual debate closer – to be interpreted at their discretion of course. Modernponderer (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: Graphs like this are useful for seeing how a TV programme has performed over time. And before anyone tells me I can't use "It's useful" in a debate, I suggest you actually read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. I'm frankly stunned someone has said Wikipedia is not here for the readers. Who else are we here for, then? Prawn Skewers (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See my previous comments. It's not useful for the majority of series, only those that have been noted by RS's to have a particular trend (show went awful and had a lot less, show was amazing and kept increasing). We're not here for anyone, we're here for the purpose of building. I note that you have not commented on the duplication of viewer information four times. --  Alex TW 07:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh? How can I not do something four times? (legit don't know what you're saying here sorry) You just gave a reason to keep, btw - seems to me showing a trend is a damn good reason to keep it. I get what you're saying, there's room for improvement, but deleting the template just seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Prawn Skewers (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that with this template, the viewer information is duplicated four times: Television episode ratings, Television season ratings, Episode table and here. I'm not sure why we're throwing babies out. --  Alex TW 09:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The thing is that this template really should only be used with Television season ratings on the series main article. No where else and not if there are still Television episode ratings tables on the main page. - Brojam (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand now. Like I said, I see your point, the template could be improved, but deleting it entirely is too much IMO. Work to improve rather than delete as the template is useful, that's what I'm saying. (Throwing babies out with bathwater is an expression btw, means to completely get rid of something that has issues rather than fix those issues). A quick skim through the comments here gives me the impression you're the only one who's really pushing for this Alex, maybe it's time to step back and give up the crusade, eh? Prawn Skewers (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me how you would suggest it be improved? i.e. Not duplicate information a fourth time but still keep the information? And now you're saying I cannot post in this discussion? Are you trying to WP:OWN this discussion? I think it's you who needs to step back and look at your comment. --  Alex TW 08:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. Especially since first-air ratings aren't nearly as important as they used to be, neutering the argument these graphs are so "useful" to readers.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think ownership plays a greater role for renewal than ever these days. Plenty of low rated but reportedly profitable shows have been renewed lately. Esuka323 (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Whether and how to display ratings data in TV-related articles is a decision to make by editors in each individual article, and this template provides one possible way to do so. One could just as well delete the "table" feature. I don't see any actual reason for deletion proposed here.  Sandstein   15:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any actual reason for deletion proposed here. You !voted without reading any of the discussion? Is there any actual reason for that? --  Alex TW 15:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read the discussion, but I don't see a policy-based reason for deletion in it.  Sandstein   16:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What policy states that templates can only be deleted based on policy? Can you provide proof that every template deletion ever has been policy-based? --  Alex TW 02:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: the template is useful for providing information on the magnitude of ratings and their fluctuation by season on many articles. Visual elements are supposed to repeat information in the article. Not saying the article should be used in all cases, but it is highly useful to readers in some articles and this is good enough to avoid deletion. I don’t believe that OP points to a valid precedent, as that TfD was more about the conduct of one specific editor. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 06:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Strong" !votes don't have more weight to the closing editor or something. This has been a PA. Also, overnight viewers are more and more deprecated, but that's already been raised and discussed, so. --  Alex TW 10:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Although there are countless examples out there to support this argument, I like the Dynasty one. Dynasty is 100 percent owned by CBS and as reported by Les Moonves they had licensed it through Netflix in 188 countries which made it profitable before it hit the air. Despite the awful live ratings the CW renewed it for a second season. The live ratings in general for the CW aren't that important as it's more about syndication than anything for Warner Brothers and CBS who co-own the network. They'll happily give their DC shows at least 6-8 seasons because they make money from them. Esuka323 (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 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).