Template talk:en-rank

New format
I have changed the format here to match User talk:Hippietrail/nearbypages.js while I'm gathering feedback on it.

After enough feedback we can decide whether to keep the matching format here, go back to the old format and use it also for nearbypages, or keep two very dissimlar formats. Whatever you guys decide. &mdash; hippietrail 23:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it just my computer, or are the words: Word frequency based on Project Gutenberg corpus missing from this format? (I can see that they are supposed to be displayed.)   D b f  i  r  s  '' 13:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a tooltip now. If your hover your mouse over the section generally but not over a link you will see it. The previous/next links also have no heading. Headings for these would seem too bloated and take up too much space in my opinion. Of course my opinion is not to have these rankings at the top of articles anyway since are simply not important parts of the articles. &mdash; hippietrail 06:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But the apparently random words appear above the definition without explanation. Only the numbered link provides a limited explanation as a tooltip.  I agree that they should not appear at the top of the entry.  Perhaps they could just be in a float-right expandable box? I don't want to alter the template, but why not put this heading back?
 * Rank of this word in the English language, from analyzing texts from Project Gutenberg. «  «  « #:  »  »  »     D b f  i  r  s   08:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ... (later) ... oh, I see! The explanation appears if you happen to point at the blank space after the last word, or at the separators.    D b f  i  r  s   08:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this template layout is not clear to a user. Maybe it would be better to place a small explanation header, insted of the appearing one when the cursor passes on it --Diuturno 16:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me experiment with a few things. I really don't want it to take up too much space though, especially at the top of articles before the senses and definitions. &mdash; hippietrail 23:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Placement
The placement of this template is odd. The information is insignificant for it to be above the definitions. It's wrong semantically to have it's content not in any L3 (User:Hippietrail/nearbypages.js avoids this problem by being an optional add-on rather than being in wikitext). Two options I think would be better: The first is probably more work (involves coding), slower (extra loading time), and more complicated (how to display this along with nearby pages below the L2). That's why I'd go for the second option. Do others agree, or have other ideas? --Bequw → τ 17:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Turn this information into a JS addon like nearby pages.
 * 2) Move the placement of this template to a =See also= section. A third of the entries already have such a section.
 * I have just noted a change in appearance of this and its appearance despite my having Preferences set not the see it.
 * It doesn't belong at the top of any entry. DCDuring TALK 02:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like the first of Bequw's two options, as JS should be used to generate content only when necessary (as for the nearbypages, although I suppose a bot could do that if someone would write such a bot); otherwise, if we want it, then it should be in the page proper, and if not, then it should not appear there by means of JS. I don't much like it where it is, but I do like it somewhere. The See also section is okay; the Trivia section is perhaps better, though I think some people wish to be rid of Trivia sections altogether. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion was continued at Wiktionary_talk:About_English. --Bequw → τ 03:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

RFM discussion: March 2014–August 2015
Same as above. 17:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Moved, but it would be good to have everything transclude directly rather than through a redirect.  —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean ? is the redirect. —CodeCat 12:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is indeed what I meant. Sorry. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

RFM discussion: March 2014–August 2015

 * See Template talk:en-rank.

Deprecated
This template has been removed from NS:0 per discussion. - TheDaveRoss  15:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: January 2016–November 2017
I've been wanting to get rid of this template for ages. It was probably very useful back in the early days, but seems like an outdated relic today --Stubborn Pen (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, too hard to update. Also should be deleted. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 00:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason to delete this? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, not very useful information to keep in the entries. If anything, could be made an appendix. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also delete, it is an unused template. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Abstain - I find it confusing and it would be difficult to make it clearer without it taking up more space in the articles. John Cross (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep the template, the Statistics header and the frequency data. I found that useful when I started here. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , it seems like the consensus is to remove the rankings as they currently exist, but I agree with you that this could be useful information if it was implemented better. Would you like to start a discussion somewhere about how to make this a more useful and accurate resource, whether it exists in an appendix or in the main space? - TheDaveRoss  13:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support deletion as well. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, and remove statistics sections where this is the only content. - TheDaveRoss 12:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What else do we put in Statistics headers? —Rua (mew) 19:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what we should put in there, but at the very least I have been putting demographic statistics about surnames in that section. - TheDaveRoss  19:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - especially since it's using 1923 as a random date. --WF on Holiday (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Same user as Stubborn Pen.
 * Delete. Move to appendix if we must. Equinox ◑ 19:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is already at Frequency lists/PG/2006/04/1-10000 --WF on Holiday (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks like the consensus is to delete. - TheDaveRoss  13:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the use of this template and from NS:0. -  TheDaveRoss  15:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)