Template talk:Annual readership/Archive 1

Archive 1

collapsable

I have changed the template to using a collapsable box. It is an interesting feature, but takes up a lot of space, and seems to have been added at the top of many talk pages where readers will have to scroll past it every time. It covers the whole year, so will only change very slowly; even if a reader is interested in it they will only want to look at it occasionally, not every time they view the page. Of course they can expand it to see it any time. But for the rest of the time, i.e. most of the time, it is collapsed and so takes up as little space as possible.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The change broke the formatting on Talk:Main page - {{collapse}} takes up the entire horizontal width of the page while the use there was contained within a {{tmbox}}. I agree that collapsing it is better but there needs to be a way to do it that won't break formatting. ansh666 21:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

How does it look now? A bit more work digging around, but I think I’ve found something that works with the right width and colouring. Even better it uses the image as a hint to what’s hidden.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

There are often lots of static templates at the top of talk pages and this one is more useful than most of them. I prefer that it remain uncollapsed. If a reader wants to get to a section on a busy talk page, they can navigate using the contents which will list the sections. Andrew D. (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

But large sections at the top of talk pages are normally collapsed. I copied the HTML from one of them, {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. In this case in particular it makes a lot of sense to collapse it; editors will not want to look at it every time, especially not annual readership data that changes only very slowly. As creator of this template your preference is understandable, but two editors have expressed a preference for having it collapsed, so the limited consensus is against you on this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind it being collapsed, although it is also nice to immediately see the page views. However, it is lengthy, so perhaps it is best collapsed, so it's not overbearing on talk pages. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

You can now override this using |expanded=true. The template still auto-collapses by default. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Wish list

This graphic is very interesting and very useful when gauging the popularity of an article. If possible; may I suggest the ability to quickly get a snap-shot of various timeframes? For instance instead of making a parameter that only shows a year, 30 days or multiple days, etc. Is it possible to embed into the graphic a selection box that would instantly present those timeframes (e.g. daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, since article inception, etc.). HJKeats (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am aware that is not possible. as template code runs once, on page load. To do what you describe would need something more dynamic than that, such as a bit of Javascript that e.g. reloaded it when the selection was made. But that is not possible as for obvious reasons WP does not allow editors to embed Javascript in pages, directly or via templates.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Similarly, I think a bar graph of monthly readership (eliminate daily outliers) would be more illustrative of "annual leadership" (as the template is titled) than the cramped last 60 days. Might be a good idea to incorporate this into Template:Article history as well czar 17:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Changing the timeframe can only be done with {{Graph:PageViews}} (i.e., the underlying template which is called in this template to generate the graph) when site-wide statistics are depicted, not individual page traffic. The parameter for changing that is |granularity=; it requires that the 2nd unnamed parameter in that template is specified as "_" (an underscore). See Template:Graph:PageViews/doc for further details. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Day range

Upon inspection, it seems like it would be a pretty simple matter to modify this template to permit ranges other than 365 days. I think doing so would be useful because it would allow for the part of this template surrounding the graph to be easily included with any number of days in the range. Master of Time (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Master of Time:  Done – use either {{Annual readership|days=<!--# of days-->}} or {{Annual readership|<!--# of days-->}}. The first unnamed parameter in this template currently has the same functionality as the days parameter. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Tracking category

Could a tracking category be added to the template? I would, but I don't want to break anything. :) Trivialist (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

A tracking category for what? If you just want a list of pages where it's transcluded, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Annual_readership&hideredirs=1&hidelinks=1&limit=2500. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I meant; just thought that a category might be slightly more findable. Though I guess anyone who's set hidden categories to be visible probably knows how to use Special:WhatLinksHere. :) Trivialist (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Intersection b/w annual readership & article rating

Any way to know what are the articles with the highest readership and yet the lowest ranking, for article improvement purposes? Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lingzhi, not an exact fit, but there's the recently resuscitated popular pages tool, which generates monthly cross-sections of most viewed and quality assessment (e.g., Category:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject) czar 22:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Clarify "page"

Can this template be modified slightly to clarify that the "page" it is referring to is the accompanying article and not the talk page that it is placed on? I'm talking about stating this in the title bar ("Daily page views"), not just in the template documentation. Maybe "Daily page views for this article"? (I guess "article" would have to be modified if used on other types of pages.) - dcljr (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done The modified heading only appears when this template is transcluded into an article talk page. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops… I forgot that I came here after seeing this template on Portal talk:Mathematics, so my original request wasn't even phrased correctly (I wasn't only interested in "articles")! [grin] The modification that was just made doesn't change anything for that kind of page, so would you, or someone else, like to be even more adventurous and modify the template further, to detect its use on other types of talk pages? - dcljr (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The template now uses the following headings depending on where it's placed: article talk page → "Daily article pageviews"; all other talk pages → Daily pageviews of {{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}; all subject pages → "Daily pageviews of this page". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

That seems to have done the trick. Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverse curve in pageviews graph

Has anybody come across a reverse curve and loop in a pageviews graph before? This is in the {{annual readership}} at Talk:Martin Hellinger, but please discuss at mw:Template talk:Graph:PageViews#Reverse curve. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I see the issue. The article was created on October 10 and Wikipedia had maintenance last week. If you add |days=30, the graph displays correctly. – The Grid (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Argh. In accordance with WP:MULTI, I specifically asked for discussion at mw:Template talk:Graph:PageViews#Reverse curve and this simple request has been ignored both here and at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Reverse curve in pageviews graph. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Template broken

The image of the template is broken. When viewing the page we get the error "{"type":"https://mediawiki.org/wiki/HyperSwitch/errors/unknown_error","method":"get","uri":"/en.wikipedia.org/v1/page/graph/png/Template%3AAnnual_readership/0/17d39408d9440bbe1eee22dabf14d354e445000f.png"}" One example is Talk:Ruby_Modine where the graph does not show. Edit: I purged the page and now it's working. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

add "2" or "target" parameter(s)

Hi. I'm interested in adding a 2nd parameter to the template that would allow a page other than the default to be shown in the graph. The parameter would be named etiher "2" or "target" (or something similar) and would directly map to the 2nd parameter of Template:Graph:PageViews as well as in a label to differentiate it from a normal translusion on the same page. I intend to use it on Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to show the graphs for Talk:Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017), 2018, and 2019 as a way to support the talk page centralization of these related pages. Is this something that others would find useful? Would it be helpful if I did a mock-up? Thanks, - Paul^T+/_C 08:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Psantora: I think that this functionality would need to be added to Template:Graph:PageViews, which is merely a local copy of mw:Template:Graph:PageViews with minor changes for default values for the |interpolate= parameter and colours. So you could suggest it at mw:Template talk:Graph:PageViews. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Redrose64, I may have been unclear (or I'm missing something). The parameter |2= ("Page Title") specifying the page name for the graph already exists in {{Graph:PageViews}}. My intent is to add a passthrough parameter (and an additional label to show when collapsed) to {{Annual readership}} so you can call {{Annual readership}} more than once - once per graph needed on the page. So, for example, I would have {{Annual readership}}, {{Annual readership|2/target=Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017)}}, {{Annual readership|2/target=Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018)}}, and {{Annual readership|2/target=Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019)}} all one after the other on the talk page of Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to list the 4 related graphs underneath each other with the talk page header formatting. Does that make more sense? I don't think anything at {{Graph:PageViews}} needs to change, but maybe I don't understand what you are saying? - Paul^T+/_C 16:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You can use the template accordingly now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Just be sure you don't specify a redirect in the target or you'll see weird data like this as opposed to this

FWIW, I dislike templates that only use unnamed parameters – like {{Graph:PageViews}} − since I think they're harder to learn how to use. It's also harder to screw up what you're inputting when you have to explicitly call a parameter by name. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, the new feature works great! I like parameters that work with named and unnamed options. It is a little harder to learn (and easier to accidentally screw up) if the names are ommitted, but sometimes it is easier to use once you get the hang of it. Either way, not a huge deal as long as it works!! Thanks again, - Paul^T+/_C 06:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Logarithmic scale

Per @GenQuest:, could we please adjust the vertical axis of this template to logarithmic scale? Otherwise it becomes hard to read when articles receive a sudden increase in visitors. --bender235 (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bender235 and GenQuest: You can now use |scale=log if you wish to change the linear scale to a logarithmic one. See Template:Annual readership#Optional parameters and Template:Annual readership#Examples for other options and examples. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 12:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Quarterly readership

A wrapper, changing days default to 90 or 91, and passing everything else through? Tbh, when I create one, quarterly is the most likely x-axis domain I'd want to see, although it depends how dependent the page where it appeared might be to fluctuations on a longer scale. Annual might make more sense for D-day, for example. Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Template error

Any ideas why the following is happening? See Talk:Be Still for the Presence of the Lord. Greenshed (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Greenshed: could you describe what you see? I am not sure if I see the same thing or not.--Nessie (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It's working now but last time a looked (a few days ago), the top of the graph line was circling round from the vertical axis to the left and then continued its arc around to the right where it eventually met up with the data points on the graph. The article was deleted and then re-instated if that helps explain things. Greenshed (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Usage

Note I added the following to the template's documentation page, which is almost word for word the guideline used on a similar template, {{Talk header}}:

This template should be placed only where it's needed. Don't visit talk pages just to add this template, and don't place it on the talk pages of new articles. Talk pages of articles that are heavily edited, articles whose subjects were recently in the news, or articles that for another reason have high viewership may be appropriate for this template.

I don't view this as controversial, as even during the deletion discussion last year, there seemed to be support for the idea (as one user put it: "It does not belong on every page, but on pages where there is interest in their viewership"). I would be happy to support wordsmithing of the text I used, however I think it is important that there is something to make clear that the template shouldn't be added indiscriminately to article talk pages « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure Gonzo's proposed restrictions are appropriate. I find the "annual readership" template to be quite useful in monitoring page views on articles that I've created, edited extensively, or am considering investing my time. Some editors may choose to focus their time and energy on topics that receive higher viewership, and the "annual readership" template facilitates such a process. It is particularly helpful to see it on articles with relatively low viewership, raising questions as to whether the article is in need of further development or is simply a topic of very limited interest (and thus one where an editor might choose not to devote their time and efforts). Moreover, I see no harm that is caused by placing the template on an article's talk page. If I am wrong, can someone clarify what that harm might be? Cbl62 (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Pending some consensus on this issue, I think it appropriate to revert Gonzo's changes to preserve the status quo ante while the discussion is pending. Cbl62 (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Cbl62, fine with the revert, per WP:BRD. There needs to be some guideline for this template's use though. Something that says there is an appropriate time to use this template and an inappropriate time to use this template. If the takeaway here is that it should be eligible to be added to any page at any time by any editor, then that would need to be be confirmed by an RFC or larger discussion. The harm to its addition is talk page clutter; numerous banners on each page decrease the legibility of the entire talk page and take away from important banners that editors need to see. It is the same reason why {{Talk header}} isn't added to every article. I also disagree that this template is that helpful for most editors to differentiate the articles they edit. The Wikimedia Viewership tool is much more powerful, interactive, and dynamic. WikiProjects also have the Popular Pages bot that provides a lot of good cross referencing for article's viewership, quality, and importance. These tools are much more beneficial than adding a template to 6 million articles. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The concerns of Gonzo_fan2007 seem to be parochial – he wants stats for the Green Bay Packers project to be presented in a different way. He is welcome to try out other ideas in such places but, as they are a small portion of our six million pages, he should not presume to tell the rest of us what to do. There doesn't seem to be a problem that needs fixing and so we should leave well alone per our policy WP:CREEP. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Andrew Davidson, I literally have no idea what you are trying to say ("parochial", relation to WP:PACKERS, what?). I think {{Annual readership}} can be useful on some pages, but it is absolutely pointless on pages like Talk:Dan Jilek, which in the entire year of 2019 received 5 page views. I also don't think that editors should indiscriminately add {{Annual readership}} to a bunch of articles without actually having a reason. Cbl62 said that they use it to see readership for articles they edit. Great! That is a perfectly acceptable use of this template or any other tool. However, an editor shouldn't just take a random category and edit every talk page just to add {{Annual readership}}. That is spamming, it creates talk page clutter, serves no point, and is a waste of effort. If you want consensus to add this to every talk page, as Timeshifter appears to, then start an WP:RFC and get consensus from a broader group of editors than just those who watch this talk page, who obviously have a slightly biased opinion of the utility of this template. And lastly, asking for three sentences providing a very general guideline on how this template should be used is not WP:CREEP (which says Instruction creep is often a result of editors producing too much instruction, resulting in very long, complicated pages.). Literally every template on Wikipedia provides some guideline on how it should be used, such as its location in an article (navboxes), when to use it ({{Talk header}}), how to use it (WikiProject banners), etc. Why is this any different? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If you are seriously worried about clutter at the top of talk pages, then encourage people to use {{skip to TOC}}. Also, encourage people to convert all the templates to show/hide boxes that are closed by default. And I find this {{pageviews}} particularly useful when it indicates that an article is getting very few pageviews. Editors would be able to make decisions based on facts, and not presumptions about pageviews. -- Timeshifter (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Timeshifter, all your recommendations about talk page clutter are great! But that doesn't really take away from providing a guideline for the use of this template to make sure that this template doesn't contribute to the large issue of talk page clutter, does it? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see my comment farther down. I can halve the height of this template, so that it is the height of a single line of text. By removing the image on the left. This template is not the problem. The other talk page templates are the problem, because many are not in show/hide boxes. -- Timeshifter (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This template should be on every article talk page for all the reasons previously stated. I have learned a lot about what interests readers by looking at page views. And it is not clutter because it is a thin template unlike {{Talk header}}. And {{Talk header}} is only needed on busier talk pages. Especially ones with some serious argumentation, where people need to be reminded to stay cool, and to follow the talk guidelines linked from {{Talk header}}. When there are a lot of talk page templates it is good to add {{skip to TOC}} at the top. Links to Wikimedia Viewership tool and Popular Pages bot should be added to {{Annual readership}}. Alternatively, all of these great page view links should be in article sidebars. Gonzo_fan2007, maybe you can push that through. Since you are an admin, you might be more likely to get the developers to seriously consider it. They, and the WMF, seem to ignore what longterm editors like me want. :) -- Timeshifter (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Timeshifter, try this out: click Preferences >> Gadgets >> Appearance >> turn on XTools. This provides readership stats and a link to the Wikimedia Viewership Tool under the title of every article you visit. This is so much easier and more powerful than this template. It also has the benefit of being dynamic and not forcing an editor to navigate to an article's talk page or editing the talk page to produce the readership chart. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

That should also be linked by default in the sidebar or under the title. But I looked at the linked statistics page and did not see what I was looking for: a graph of the last few months of pageviews. For example; compare:

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/List%20of%20countries%20by%20total%20wealth

Talk:List of countries by wealth per adult

-- Timeshifter (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Timeshifter I think you clicked on the wrong link, try clicking "30,629 pageviews" at List of countries by wealth per adult, it sends you here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=List_of_countries_by_total_wealth « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I want various pageview links including that one. Developers and WMF will probably never allow the links in the sidebar, nor under the title, because in my opinion, they are hidebound and out-of-touch overall. So that leaves this template. I can halve the height of this template by removing the icon on the left side of it. The line of pageview links from the gadget can be put inside the show/hide box. I am not interested in the number of revisions, editors, and watchers. That is additional offtopic clutter inside the box. I much prefer the almost yearlong timeline of {{pageviews}} as the main focus because it gives a bigger picture. Some pages have peaks and valleys related to events, news coverage, academic year, etc.. I have had links to page view timelines on various websites of mine in the past, and the yearlong timelines are very informative. Links are nice, but having the graph right there is much better, and takes the same amount of height. A line of links is the same height as a narrow show/hide box (I have created many of them on other wikis). So I think I have lessened your problem with the template by halving its height. Please go convince the editors of the many other talk page templates to put their huge templates in similarly narrow show/hide boxes. -- Timeshifter (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Another suggestion. class="tmbox tmbox-notice mbox-inside" used for this template, and many others probably, needs to produce narrower show/hide tables. The top and bottom padding is too large. -- Timeshifter (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? And why so much bold text in your comments? https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=List_of_countries_by_total_wealth provides exactly what {{annual readership}} does, but in a dynamic format (you can change the time frame, see exact totals, averages, search for other articles, etc). The Xtool provides this link on every article you visit! And I have no connection with Wikipedia developers, so I can't help you there. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, you are a Wikipedia admin, and the developers tend to listen to admins more than us mere longtime editors with tens of thousands of edits. That page only has a 3 week timeline by default. Bold text is for getting to the point and not wasting people's time. Same reason it is better to put the better, longer timeline graph directly on the page in a show/hide box. Versus making people go elsewhere, and have to figure out how to set parameters for a dynamic chart. That should be an option, but not required. Please read up on K.I.S.S.. I assume by "What are you talking about?" you are asking about padding? I am referring to the CSS for internal padding (in pixels, etc.) between the line of header text and the border of the show/hide box. -- Timeshifter (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Timeshifter yep, I am an WP:ADMIN, but that doesn't get me any points with the devs. What are you talking about? had more to do with your comments about devs and how admins have more clout than editors. The beauty of the online tool is that it is dynamic, doesn't require any editing or template additions, and is easier to read the actual viewership data. I would support making the template smaller, but that doesn't really solve the problem. A bunch of really thin templates still is clutter. Lastly, I take your bolding (and I imagine most other people do to) as WP:SHOUTING, similar to the use of all caps. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Do the math. A bunch of really narrow show/hide boxes adds up to far less talk page clutter than a bunch of taller show/hide boxes combined with talk page templates not in show/hide boxes. I am an admin and bureaucrat on Wikia and Shoutwiki. Bolding is common outside Wikipedia. I find the timeline graph easier on the eyes than a bar graph. I am looking for trends and approximate pageview counts over time. -- Timeshifter (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, so your role on other wikis is irrelevant. Because this is Wikipedia, you are governed by our behavioral guidelines, of which, WP:SHOUTING is one. So I am just trying to warn you that continually doing this, especially in a dispute, may lead to poor results for you and the dispute. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

And this is the real world where people bold stuff. And bolding is not shouting. Not in articles, nor on talk pages. Are you threatening to block me for bolding? Please stay on topic. -- Timeshifter (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Nope, as an involved admin, a block coming from me would be inappropriate. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... honestly, I don't think there's really any reason to restrict the usage of this template with the use of the "where it's needed" clause. People should be able to use this wherever they want to put it, provided that they're not being disruptive and there's a consensus for placing it on any page where there's a disagreement about its placement there. I don't think that language in {{talk header}} was actually meant to restrict its use in articles anyway; it doesn't make sense to randomly place it on talk pages for redirects (e.g., see {{tpr}}), categories, file pages, or other namespace pages that are almost never watched by editors, so I assume that's what the intent of that clause was. Talk: and Template talk: are the namespaces that {{Talk header}} is most suited for (User:Talk as well), so I almost always place that template and any relevant WikiProject banners on the corresponding talk page of any page I edit in those namespaces.

This template is relevant in basically any namespace though since it merely tracks how much viewership the basepage has (NB: this is useful for categories, redirects, file pages, modules, etc.) so there's no reason to add a clause like that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Huge increase in views, real or bug?

It's showing over 70,000 views on Hamilton Brown in one day, which is a massive increase (could be explained by recent mention in the media, but it seems like a lot). Is this accurate? It isn't reflected on the linked Pageview Analysis page, but maybe that site just hasn't updated its data yet? Student298 (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Template width

Do editors support the idea of having the template the same width as other talk page templates, or at least those frequently seen at the top of the page? I don't prefer the look of the template becoming wider than others once uncollapsed. Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems to vary according to the width of the graph image. Sometimes (like right now) it's the correct width, other times it's slightly too wide. The box belongs to the tmbox class, which attracts the declaration min-width: 80%; so the box is allowed to be bigger than that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You say correct length "like right now", but when I look at this page, I see the readership graph box as wider than the talk page header and 'templates for discussion' templates. IMO, having templates widths vary is not a good thing, and we should strive templates to have consistent widths. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Try zooming out. You'll find that at a certain zoom level, the box widths coincide. Zooming out past this point keeps the box width the same as the two above it, but gaps appear in the pageviews box to the left and right of the graph. The minimum width of the box is determined by the pageviews graph, which is an image generated semi-externally. I don't know how we can control that image width, but that is the key here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by zooming out. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

In most browsers, you can use Ctrl+- to zoom out (reducing the size of text and images) and Ctrl++ to zoom in. With many of these browsers (excepting some versions of IE), the normal size may be restored with Ctrl+0. The current zoom level may be indicated somewhere in the window borders as a percentage. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer and Redrose64: I can parametrize the width and height of the graph to be user-specified if either of you want that functionality (i.e., you would be able to change the width and height of the {{Graph:PageViews}} graph in this template; the default values are listed in Template:Graph:PageViews#Template parameters). I'm probably not going to add this option otherwise. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

You can now change these using |width= and |height=; the default values are |width=800 and |height=200. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Seppi333 and Another Believer: I recently discovered this independently (and had come up with 565, but perhaps 570 is closer) and strongly support that as the default.

As a first cut, the /doc page should be altered to remove the bullet point in the Optional parameters section, and replace it with entries for |height= and |width=. I've boldly gone ahead and done that as I think that's uncontroversial, and hope there is no objection. Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Mobile browsers

I see what the issue is now. This template stretches the width of tmbox beyond that of other talk page templates when it's viewed in a desktop browser on a device with a small screen (e.g., a mobile phone). The first template below is the widest that I could expand the graph without causing the tmbox to stretch, although that width (570px) is probably unique to my particular phone. Nonetheless, I'd expect the maximum width for other devices to be roughly in the ballpark of this value.

This is the maximum width for viewing this template on my phone (|width=570); higher width values cause the tmbox to stretch when viewed on my mobile browser

This is the current default width for the graph (|width=800)

This is roughly the maximum width for viewing this template on my laptop (|width=980); higher width values cause the tmbox to stretch when viewed on my laptop's browser

Below is {{Annual readership}} with a width setting that exceeds the maximum for most laptop/desktop browsers. I've added the {{oldtfdfull}} template from the top of this page here for comparison with this template's tmbox. If you click "Show", you can see what happens to the tmbox when the graph's width exceeds the maximum width for a device/browser. In particular, this is what currently happens when viewing this template on mobile phones.

---

Does anyone have any objections to me setting the default width to 570px? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Seppi333, I think I'm understanding what you've done, and I definitely support making the default width one which will not cause stretching. I can't stand when I click on the "show" link and the width of the template changes. Thanks for your work on this issue. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Seppi333: Can we revisit this discussion? The stretch when this template is uncollapsed drives me nuts! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer:@Redrose64: I support the move to set the default to 570px. Having it at 800 is very annoying. Would there be any unforeseen problem in changing it to 570? Thanks Funandtrvl (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I would like to reopen this discussion. The template is still larger than all other talk page boxes when expanded. This is very ugly and unnecessary. Can we change the default width to 570px (instead of the current 800px) so that the template width is consistent with all others (and its collapsed self)? The template is protected, so I would ping users with template edit rights that recently contributed Wugapodes andrybak PrimeHunter QEDK. Thank you! --Ita140188 (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ita140188: I can change it, I've been waiting for someone to respond since mid-November. (see above)

 Done much better now! Funandtrvl (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The template does not work for me

I tried Chrome and MS Edge and both display only a 'picture failed to load' error for me for this template. {{Graph:PageViews}} works just fine and the clickthrough to the toolserver also works. Any idea what's wrong? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me either (on Chrome). --GentlemanGhost (séance) 10:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Me too (on Firefox). I have some of these on my user page for articles I'm maintaining, and they've worked fine for Chrome and FF on MS. But now I'm on a Linux machine (Mint), and though I'm still using FF, the templates don't display. I get a permanently swirling circle, like when something is loading. It does work in Falkon on my Linux machine. — kwami (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus, GentlemanGhost, and Kwamikagami: This template is not working for me too on MS Edge (for PC/Windows), it just stays in loading mode. But it does work on MS Edge (for Apple/iPad), Internet Explorer and Safari. Is it possible that an ad blocker could be interfering? Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 17:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@History DMZ: I didn't think of that. Disabling mine allowed the template to work. Thanks! --GentlemanGhost (séance) 18:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

GentlemanGhost Good news here as well, I just whitelisted en.wikipedia.org on my ad blocker, and the template now works ok. Cheers, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 18:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yup, that did it! — kwami (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

uBlock Origin

This template ends up getting the graphic from a URL which includes /pageloads/ in its path. That causes the default configuration of uBlock Origin ends up blocking it for that reason. It might be a good idea to fix it to use a URL path that isn't so closely associated with personal monitoring. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

bug: log-scale does not work with recent articles

If the time range is too long, then scale=log messes up. There's no scale at the side, and the graph is a flat line at the top. I suspect the problem occurs when the count drops below 1, since the template presumably doesn't extend to fractional ranges. Here's an example with from an article I've been monitoring:

106 days, standard scale:

365 days, standard:

106 days, log scale:

365 days, log scale:

This isn't the first time I noticed this, so it's not something new. — kwami (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• The examples all look ok to me now so the issue seems to be resolved. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Template not working on newer articles

Does this template work for articles without 365 days of historical data? Something seems to be wrong for newer articles that I have placed this on.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently yes - that article was created 55 days ago. Which newer articles have you been using it on? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It's also working at Talk:Killing of Brianna Ghey, the article was created 12 days ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Jett Howard, Sheesh! are two examples.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Both of those specified |scale=log, removing that fixes it. Most of the view figures are quite low, but there is a huge spike which knocks out the calculations for a logarithmic vertical scale. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Width

Clicking on the "show" link increases the width of the template. Seems too wide for users of the new skin. Thoughts on adjusting in some way? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

How are redirects counted in page views?

See discussion here:

• Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Google limits length of titles in search results. Big difference in page views

See the statistic links in the above-linked discussion. Especially this one (range has been increased).

It would be nice if the page views graph was like that one (a double graph). Because then we could see the actual page views of an old title while it was actually the page, and not just a redirect.

Or maybe we could add a link to the double graph from the single graph view. That may be less taxing on the servers. "Daily page views" link could be changed. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)