Template talk:AfC statistics

Bug?

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

Moved from Module talk:AfC

– * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:AfC → Module:AfC statistics row – More descriptive name; current one is too vague {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. ∯WBG^converse 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]

Comment-Please advertise this at WT:AFC and VPT, at the very minimum.In case of scarce-participation, I'm not willing to grant the move.∯WBG^converse 08:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already advertised this at WT:AFC, and don't see why this module in particular requires a notice at VPT. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It might not necessarily need a notice at VPT, but given how many places/bots this module is used, at the very least you'd need to get the bot operators on board so that if/when it does get moved then nothing gets broken. ~~(for the record, I have zero opinion on the final target name)~~ Primefac (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I started looking at the module, and what it does, and a) it's very clearly marked in the documentation what it's used for, and b) as Earwig says, it really keeps the length of Template:AFC statistics down; adding 15 characters to one invocation is one thing, but adding 15 characters for 1500 invocations... that adds a lot of size to an already huge template. People who use AfC know what "AFC" means, and people who don't know what AfC mean probably aren't messing around in the module space anyway. Primefac (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this isn't the only module used ion the AfC process; it also uses Module:AFC submission catcheck (which is also requested to be moved by me). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: "More descriptive name..." to whom this more description is necessary?. New editors, experienced editors or general readers? –Ammarpad (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Users who stumble on this module in a list not knowing what is does (like I did). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not necessary for everyone to know what this module does, is it? And how do you find descriptive name for it when you know not what it does? –Ammarpad (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A solution looking for a problem. Modules are internal stuff not content and not used directly in content. While there's clear benefit of the current name (keeping the length of Template:AFC statistics down) and has been so for several years, none exist for the proposed name. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:25, 9 July 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!!!!

Moved from Module talk:AfC

– * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. ∯WBG^converse 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

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]