Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 August 25

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< August 24
August 26 >

August 25

edit

Template:Unpaid

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This template was created by a now-blocked editor and is only being used on their User page. It's a nice sentiment but I don't see it being widely adopted. Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Heydar Latifiyan sidebar

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails the major criteria of WP:NAVBOX; there is no main article about the subject (it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heydar Latifiyan last year) and most of the articles linked only mention his name in passing (Middle Eastern theatre of World War I#Battle of Robat Karim includes some detail but no sources). Belbury (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds justified for the reasons stated. Cheers! Johnson524 18:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Annual readership

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 but noinclude. There is a reasonable consensus to keep this template, but within that there is a majority feeling that noincluding the template until a solution can be found is the best idea. A couple of dates have been thrown around regarding when this hypothetical solution can be found, but knowing software development schedules it is always easier to double or triple those expected timeframes. I see NPASR in six months or so if a solution/workaround/new implementation has not been found. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 18 months since graphs have been made unavailable, with no solution in sight. At present, this template is merely talk page clutter that provides little benefit to readers or editors.

An important thing to remember: talk pages receive a fraction of views as the article page. Take Abraham Lincoln, who has ~400k views the past 30 days. His talk page has ~500 views. That is just 0.125% Based on our general knowledge of Wikipedia, it is safe to assume that most, if not all of those are editors, who likely have a grasp of the other tools that can be utilized to easily link to pageviews.wmcloud.org on every page on Wikipedia.

If consensus does not form to delete, I ask anyone participating in the discussion to comment on whether they support wrapping the template in noinclude tags indefinitely until a solution is found. This would be a compromise that would hide the template from talk pages until a solution is developed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can this template be made to just not render at all, pending someone figuring out how to fix it? I feel like deleting it, creating a big red "this template does not exist" eyesore, and then having bots rush around trying to hastily remove it everywhere would be more disruptive than just making the template invisible. –jacobolus (t) 17:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is clear benefit to this template, in that it provides a working link to the page views graph without even having to expand the template. There is no other solution available right now that I am aware of that gives one-click access to a page views graph from an article Talk page, other than this template, and imho it would be a very strong disservice to the community to delete it. I am guessing that either no one is aware of the working page views link that is there now, or that the objection is mostly due to the language inside the expanded message. If the desire to delete the template based on the wording, "A graph should have been displayed here, but ..." then I get that. I see no problem deleting or changing that verbiage to something else. (For a concrete example, please see the Discussion below.) But deleting the template entirely based on poor wording, makes no sense to me at all without a much wider consensus from the community at large, for a working tool which has no easy replacement. Mathglot (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this banner is never intended to be anything more than a link to pageviews.wmcloud.org, it should just be deleted. Such a link is already provided in the "External tools" section of the "Page information" for every article, and people didn't add this banner for the sake of such a link. If you think it is important to make such links easier to access, that should be done universally rather than on arbitrary particular articles; perhaps a direct link could be added directly to the "tools" sidebar/menu.
    If this banner continues to display as it currently does, I will continue my current practice of deleting it from every talk page where I come across it organically. –jacobolus (t) 23:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Xtools gadget is readily available to editors, it way more powerful and useful. That was point, we are catering to such a small number of people with this template, people who are way more likely to be editors (not just readers) who have access to the pageviews Xtool. The wording isn't the problem. Its just a template with no use. I mean heck, just added a link in {{talk header}} if that's all that people want. An extra template at this point serves no purpose without the graph. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template is not "extra", it is the way you get a page views graph. If there is consensus to include the link to the {{Talk header}} (that would require consensus there as well), that would be better than nothing, as at least there would be a way for some users to use it there, but that would not include the people who now use it at Talk:Veganism, for example, which has the graphs template but not the Talk header template, so even if you place a link in the {{Talk header}} template, it won't do them any good. There are another 28,232 pages articles that have the graph template but not the Talk header template on their Talk page. What happens with those? Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I feel {{Talk header}} is already packed with quite a few things, and page history doesn't really fit with the rest of its content (beginner oriented, while page history is probably used more by experienced users). If it is to be retained, it'd be preferable as a separate template. ― novov (t c) 09:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The user interface already includes menu links to page view statistics (as discussed below). A template with the sole purpose of linking to the same is redundant. If there is a solution in the future that allows the display of the actual statistics in the template, a new template can easily be created. --Bsherr (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or noinclude per redundancy. Like others, I always use "Page information"'s wmcloud link.
This is hogging space like uncollapsed WikiProject banners. It's hidable in {{talk header}} per Mathglot for a few editors needing it (who should just use m:MoreMenu). Yes, it failed if no one is aware of the working page views link. The community did fine without the graphs, and would've fixed the code already, had it valued this feature. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Graphs have been gone for such a long time and by how fast Wikimedia works, they are probably never coming back. This is currently just a giant banner bloat. If the link is needed, then it should be added to the talk header template. Gonnym (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but noinclude. This is clearly a useful template, especially in terms of election articles or other high traffic or current event articles, yet is currently useless. There is no need to fully delete it, only to then have to remake it when the new graph extension is complete (BTW, the template will have to be rewritten as its using a completely new graph system from the ground up) MarkiPoli (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and noinclude per above.—Alalch E. 10:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but noinclude No need to have a banner with no use cluttering up talk pages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but noinclude as per above. Bluethricecreamman (talk)
  • Keep, with no preference on noinclude, per above. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whilst views of talk pages may be low compared to article pages, I suspect that use of the "Page information" tool is even lower. Therefore there will be more users getting to pageviews.wmcloud.org from this template on talk pages than through "Page information". If a solution is ever found to re-instate the graph facility then we will have to re-insert a new template in talk pages from scratch.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template in its prior form is not coming back: the new graph extension is not expected to support data the way this template did. There exists the multiple alternatives identified above (gadget and separate link per Bsherr). And so it is at this point simply talk page clutter. Izno (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I am aware, there has not been any announcement of WMF permanently giving up on fixing graphs; on the contrary, a replacement appears to (finally!) be in development and is apparently planned to be ready to use by editors by the end of September 2024.[1] As (kind of) mentioned by Jacobolus above, removing the template from all pages via a bot would, once graphs are usable again, likely result in a request to add it back, ending up with more than 107 000 pointless edits for zero actual change in the end.
While the "noinclude" option is preferable to deleting it outright, the template being visible helps users discover the workaround of going to the external pageviews site (and probably it even being possible to view the pageviews in the first place) a lot better than expecting them to randomly open the "Page information" link, scroll past a bunch of technical data and notice the "Page view statistics" link near the bottom. 2A00:807:B1:1166:BD0D:66A2:45C1:FC4E (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ mw:Extension:Chart/Project#FAQ
  • Keep but noinclude per all above. The Kip (contribs) 09:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Like Izno correctly states, WMF’s new graph solution is predicated on hosting data files in Commons, so it won’t work with this. And even if they add a way to use page statistics instead, this graph does not belong on talk pages IMO. Talk pages, as the name suggests, are for talking. The addition of stuff like this is highly unintuitive for new users and makes the discussion harder to get to for experienced ones.
And anecdotally, when I was a new user, I found the statistics on the link in Page information, not the talk page header. Note that as well as the link at the bottom, there’s also a link in the “Basic information” section at the top, so the user doesn’t have to scroll very far. Not the most intuitive, but the solution is giving (this very handy, in fact) page a UI spruce-up, not keeping more visual noise on the Talk page. ― novov (t c) 13:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Page views are not very useful to have for a talk page imo, and adds another banner to what can be a very long list of reading material. There are alternatives to navigate to the pageviews tool: there is a link on the edit history page; there is a link on the page's Page information, below the image; and what I recommend: m:More Menu's Page > Analysis > Traffic report. I just don't think it's necessary as a banner. Izno says that the new graph tool won't work the same way, meaning that, to have accessible graphs on any given page, Commons will have to mirror this data for every single page. SWinxy (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but noinclude per above. --ZZZ'S 00:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or noinclude per 142.113.140.146. Useless clutter. C F A 💬 14:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but noinclude per above. AKK700 01:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless clutter. If a given talk page has consistently high traffic, a banner to that effect like "Caution: this article is one of Wikipedia's most-visited" would be not only clearer but easier to interpret at a glance. Even if the template worked, a graph of pageviews lacks that important context and just serves as clutter. Dan • ✉ 21:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That depends on whether you want someone else telling you what they consider high traffic, or you'd rather see for yourself. Plus, the minute they add a banner like that, it's outdated, because the numbers may change. Also, it isn't just about high traffic. Low traffic can be a signal that the article may need to be better integrated into the encyclopedia. Spikes in traffic tell a different story, and may be one of the first signals that a discussion or Rfc is generating interest from social media, and alerts users to watch out for possible canvassing. Not something that should be suppressed or hidden by a static banner. And if the spike happens reliably year after year around the same date, it might be a national holiday or commemoration somewhere, and if that isn't covered in the article, that's a possible indicator of insufficient global coverage. So regardless if numbers are high, low, or variable, there are all sorts of benefits to it. Mathglot (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until there is a link on the article page to "Page views" seen by IP users in the tools menu. Right now only logged-in users see that link in the tools menu on article pages. (Oops. It's just me. It's from here: User:Timeshifter/common.js). I am NOT talking about the "Page information" link. It is ridiculous for IP users to only be able to see the page views link at the bottom of the "Page information" page. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A link also exists at the top of said page. ― novov (t c) 09:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but that "Page views" link is still buried, since it is at the bottom of the "Basic information" box at the top of the "Page information" page. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the "Daily pageviews" link/byline/icon; temporarily deprecate the rest until--and only until--the new "Chart" extension is introduced. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 14:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The template provides options to link to a graph of a different page than the title of the article. This is important if a page title has been recently changed and a graph of the page views of the historic title is more applicable. Also, readers have to know where to find the link to the page-view tool on the article history page. The page views available on the talk page history are the page views for the talk page, not the article. Having this template also provides a convenient way to alert readers who are not familiar with Wikipedia's full range of tools to the page view statistics. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but noinclude per above. BilledMammal (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form or fashion (probably via noinclude). It's not the template's fault the graph extension hasn't worked in so long. Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate and noinclude, or else Delete, unless the graphics are re-enabled. There's no point in having this template with just a link in it. - Manifestation (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are so many talkpage banners that even if this were working i'd be tempted to delete and maybe provide a link elsewhere, or at least make it smaller. It's not even working. That it's been broken for 18 months clearly reveals its value, Tom B (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate and noinclude, already adding to talk page clutter before, and pure clutter now that graphs don't work. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but noinclude, it maybe useful for user page. Veracious ^(•‿•)^ 02:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template only barely made sense in the first place - what pages included it or not was arbitrary and the same information can be gotten via the "page information" link and the external tool it points to. Now that it has been broken for years it's even more useless. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually a good point. The template is currently used on 53,510 talk pages. But according to the {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} magic word, there are currently 6,879,730 articles. - Manifestation (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – let's not delete the template just because of some software bug that will be fixed eventually. The bug isn't even in this template (it's a software component that this template depends on). Plus, this banner isn't entirely useless! There's a convenient little link in there that points you to the page views counter on Wikimedia Toolforge! — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with the above !voters that this should be kept pending a resolution. Would support making it blank until the issue is resolved, but there's little reason to remove the template today and then have a resolution next month and have to re-add the template when it gets fixed. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I admittedly never fully understood the purpose of this template even when it did work. If the concern is making the pageviews tool more visible, there are better ways to do that that don't clutter up the talk page, which isn't where users expect to go to see article views (and only when someone else has already decided to include this template.) EoRdE6(Talk) 01:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete – this is not what talk pages are for. A more detailed and much better tool is easily available to editors on the history page; this tool is merely clutter that one does not need to see to help an improve an article (the use of a talk page). It has a weak scope and was frequently broken/glitched years before graphs went down. – Aza24 (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (annual readership)
edit

Here is a sandboxed example using modified language in the expanded template message. The example is for the article World War I:

Obviously, we can choose any alternative wording that makes sense. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This misses the point. The wording isn't the issue, its the lack of the graph, which is the entire purpose of the template. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you click the link? The graph works. Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This template used to produce a graph within the template box. Past arguments focused on the fact that this was quicker, more accessible and simpler than other tools. Without the actual graph, this template is a massive, glorified link that is more easily accessed through other means. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the more easily accessed method? Easier than one click off the Talk page? If you scroll up a bit to the brown box and click 'Daily pageviews', you get a graph. If you've got something easier, please tell me. Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From "Tools", "Page information", then "Page view statistics". Same two clicks, no? --Bsherr (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. If you scroll up to a bit and click 'Daily pageviews', it is easy to find, and the result is an immediate page view graph that is one click away, after a very short (1-second?) search. Following your instructions makes you search three times: first for "Tools", then for "Page information" (I wouldn't have realized to search for "Page information" in order to get Daily pageviews, I only knew because you told me), and then assuming you do click that, there is quite a bit of searching to find page views on that page, near the bottom, as it turns out. (That's two clicks, three searches.) How long will that typically take a user, assuming they even try? Do you truly think the template and your method are equivalent? I find the latter method far more difficult, and takes far longer, assuming I keep searching long enough to find the right link. Other users who don't have the benefit of your prior advice, won't know that the link even exists, so how long do they keep searching for something that might not exist, before they give up? It will certainly be harder for them, and I suspect most will just give up, and do without. That would be unhelpful to readers and editors, imho, and therefore I think the template still provides a valuable service. Mathglot (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're defining a "search" as the act of looking for the menu choice to select? So, to publish this reply to you, I did two searches and two clicks, right? That doesn't seem especially burdensome. And for unfamiliar users, there is a helpful page describing just those instructions: Wikipedia:Pageview statistics. --Bsherr (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another alternative:
The hidden content wording isn't the issue, but can the header wording compensate to make people click? 142.113.140.146 (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, but if we are going that route, I'm not sure I would link 'on Toolforge', partly because it fails to separate the 'what' and the 'where' sufficiently, it seems like it should be one or the other, or if both, set the article title apart somehow. Mathglot (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stopgap replacement
edit

If consensus is to delete, I would request that the closer request that if a bot removes all transcliusions of it, that a record be kept of the list of pages where it was removed. I am planning a stopgap replacement which I hope to introduce at VPT in a week or two, and the easiest would be to just redirect current transclusions to the new proposal (if it works). But if they are all removed, it would require a second bot to restore them, and we would need the list, in order to do that. Mathglot (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that sounds interesting. What kind of stopgap measure do you have in mind? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of a template to pull data from a Talk subpage containing pageviews data, and generate a graph from that as proof of concept. There would be some limitations, such as 3- or 6-month max (instead of unlimited), bar graphs only (no line graphs), and the bars might be horizontal instead of vertical, but if the concept works as I expect, then it could be rewritten in Lua which would be faster and less limited. Mathglot (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a method to delete it and then restore it on the same pages when a new template is created with the new graphs extension, I would support that. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: So are you proposing a bot that posts daily page views data on Talk sub-subpages? Like this:
-- Talk:Example article/pageviews/2024

--[[
Page views for "Example article"
--]]

local page_views = {
 ["2024-01-01"] = 500,
 ["2024-01-02"] = 750,
 ["2024-01-03"] = 1000,
 ["2024-01-04"] = 500
}
Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to respond, but I feel a bit sensitive about hijacking an Afd thread where this may be somewhat o/t. So I'll do just this one reply and collapse it, and if you or anyone would like to continue this, let's find another venue for it.
Reply to page views data question

As far as your data structure suggestion it could be something like that. I've been thinking of various data structures, and they might be different for the mockup and the module, at least the envelope for it. Some structures I've been thinking of are month based. One, following your general design for example, might be

["2024-01"] = 500, 750, 1000,500, -, 650, ..., 850, 900, ...     (up to 31 data points)

but in the end, if/when it is designed as a bot it would be up to the bot writer as far as what the best structure would be (although I would like to be part of that discussion).

However, for the mockup, rather than building my own parsing to analyze a lua structure (which I could do) I plan to reuse off-the-shelf stuff as much as possible, since the mockup would be a throwaway, so I thought that an easy data structure for a mockup could be simply a template written as a big #switch: whose parameters I could grab, either by month, or whatever way. Following the previous example, one would grab January like this:

{{pageviews get|year=2024|month=1}}

and the page data structure would either have a csv structure similar to the one above, and grab the items with {{Array}}. Another way, is that the data page itself would be coded as template calls (to a template that needn't even exist) and we could grab the values of them using {{template parameter value}}:

Example of using Tmpv to grab page data
See User:Mathglot/sandbox#Tmpv test
  • {{Tmpv|User:Mathglot/sandbox|void|1|month}} → January
  • {{Tmpv|User:Mathglot/sandbox|void|1|data}} → 1500, 1750, 1000, 1500
  • {{Tmpv|User:Mathglot/sandbox|void|2|data}} → 2500, 2750, 2000, 2500
  • {{Tmpv|User:Mathglot/sandbox|void|3|data}} → 3500, 3750, 3000, 3500
  • {{Tmpv|User:Mathglot/sandbox|void|3|month}} → March


The "template" here is just an easily accessible data repository; it need not exist (i.e., Template:Nonesuch does not):
  • {{Tmpv|User:Mathglot/sandbox|nonesuch|1|a}} →
  • {{Tmpv|User:Mathglot/sandbox|nonesuch|1|c}} →
  • {{Tmpv|User:Mathglot/sandbox|nonesuch|2|a}} →
  • {{Tmpv|User:Mathglot/sandbox|nonesuch|2|c}} →

At the outset, the bot would emit the data in mockup style, but have hooks to switch easily to Lua style. (Or possibly it could emit both styles on the page from the start: the mockup would see only what it needs, and likewise for the module, making the transition seamless.)

As far as bot frequency, whether it is daily, weekly, or something else will depend, I imagine, on performance considerations, how expensive it is, and how many pages need it. Currently there are 52,886 transclusions of {{annual readership}}. If we did them weekly, we could run 7555 per day. I'm thinking that once we have a mockup and a bot, if all looks good, we just redirect {{annual readership}} to the mockup, and then at some point, a Module would replace the mockup, and then down the road at some point, hopefully, Module:Graph:Chart will be back.

Oh, and I forgot to mention I've been playing around with generating bar graphs via a for loop. this is for a completely different kind of context, but will give a general idea what I mean: see the penultimate example at Template:Article length bar#Examples.

If you wish to continue, please suggest a venue; not the template talk page, because that might get deleted. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Wikipedia:Bot requests would be a good venue, because having a bot that makes thousands of edits per day obviously requires permission from the higher-ups. - Manifestation (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bot request would be premature; perhaps WP:VPI. Mathglot (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
edit
 
The Tools menu.
 
Same menu, but with an extra "Page views" link.

As a replacement of sorts, could we add a "Page views" link to the "Tools" dropdown menu? See the pictures on the right.

Currently, the link to pageviews.wmcloud.org is tucked away at the bottom of the "Information for ..." pages, e.g. here. If it wasn't for {{Annual readership}}, many users would probably not be aware of the existence of the pageviews tool in the first place. Having a direct link featured prominently in "Tools" would make it less difficult to find and access, should the Annual readership template be removed.

Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the best solution, and it needs to be in the tools menu for both logged-in and IP users. If it were in the tools menu it wouldn't need to be on the talk page at all.
Few editors, and fewer average readers, are aware that the page views link is on the "page information" page. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. And as you pointed out, there is User:PrimeHunter/Pageviews.js, which adds the button. But it would be cool if this was standard for all users, logged-in or logged-out. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, like I wasn't aware of it (but now that I am, it is still hard to find). This should be standard if the template is removed, which I hope it isn't, for reasons given. Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Put page views link in talk header template
edit

If we can't get it in the tools menu now, then let's start by putting the link in the {{talk header}} template. Note that there is room on the left side for a page views link. We could remove {{annual readership}} from all talk pages, and use this instead. This way the number of links to page views on talk pages goes from around 53,000 to 726,000 talk pages.

{{talk header}} is on around 726,000 article talk pages out of 6,928,833 articles. {{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|en|N}}. That is around 11% of articles.

--Timeshifter (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Washington Metro station platform templates

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous consensus to deprecate these tabular diagrams: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Closure of 2019 station layout RFC. Mackensen (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2024–25 UEFA Champions League league phase

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template is unneeded as the code removed in this edit did the same job. Several previous discussions have resulted in consensus against having separate single-table sports templates and have favoured transclusion instead. Originally discussed here and further information available here. No indication this consensus has changed and no reason this competition should be treated differently. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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:Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Izno (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer with Template:Angel (1999 TV series).
The two television series are part of the same franchise. There is a major overlap between the two templates. See Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer/sandbox for how it would look like after a merge. Mika1h (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Dutch candidate lists for European Parliament elections

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2024 September 8. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Year by category

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2024 September 2. Izno (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Contentious topics/talk notice

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This individual page edit notice has the same content as group notice Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Contentious topics. This causes duplicate banner to appear when editing Template:Contentious topics/talk notice. Note that Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Contentious topics/alert, as an example, has completely different content to the group notice (edit demo). —⁠andrybak (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons stated. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Liberal Democrats London mayoral selection, 2015

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2024 September 1. ✗plicit 11:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_25&oldid=1244681750"