Template talk:AfC statistics

(Redirected from Template talk:AfC statistics/sandbox)
Latest comment: 4 years ago by AntiCompositeNumber in topic Include limit

Bug?

edit

Problems in the operation of this template are under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 5#Finding drafts ready for review --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 26 June 2018

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply


Module:AfCModule:AfC statistics row – More descriptive name; current one is too vague {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. WBGconverse 08:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

This seems reasonable, though one of the reasons we picked such a short name was to keep the page size down on Template:AFC statistics. Is there another AfC-related module that would better fit here? — Earwig talk 02:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Do not move this module!!!!

edit

This recent move broke a bunch of pages that were not updated to use the new module name..... There are bots (such as EarwigBot) that automatically update pages like Template:AFC statistics by invoking this module. The move broke this and many other pages and these bots and automated tools are not updated to use what would be the new name that you want to change this to... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Oshwah:-I guess there is nothing barring the move shall there exist a consensus and all loose ends (esp. EarwigBot et al) are tied up, along with the move. WBGconverse 08:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Winged Blades of Godric - Yeah, we just need to plan the move and execute it when everything is ready is all - I wasn't trying to say that nobody should move this module ever lol. For the record, I agree with the rename and that getting a naming convention that's consistent and that makes sense is important ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Include limit

edit

Template:AFC statistics/pending is way over the post-expand include size limit. That means that only some of the templates (really Lua module invocations) are displaying on that page. When that page is transcluded here, it breaks everything on this page because it's on top. I've temporarily commented out the transclusion for now. @The Earwig: could you add something to EarwigBot to prevent this from happening? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

To put some numbers to the situation, there are 3831 #invoke lines on /pending. Out of those, 886 are not displaying. That means that about 2945 lines equates to 2 MiB, or 1473 lines per MiB. The other templates on Template:AFC statistics take up about 0.28 MiB right now, bringing the limit on /pending down to ~ 1.72 MiB. To get everything working, /pending needs to be below ~ 2530 lines. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
This has been happening for years, but I guess it's time to do something about it. I added a limit of 2000 pages to each chart; the bot will only show the 2000 oldest pending submissions, and the footer of the chart will indicate how many were excluded. Hopefully this should be enough to avoid the limit. — Earwig talk 03:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Apparently that is still too much? Trying 1500... — Earwig talk 04:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Seems like 1000 will work, but not much more. That's much lower than I thought would be safe. — Earwig talk 16:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Odd...apparently 2 + 3 > 6. Thanks for fixing it. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply