Template talk:FA number

Comma?

Could someone add comma after the first '1' to make the number read '1,191' (as apposed to '1191')? All of the other numbers on the Main Page use commas as thousands-separators, so I think this should too for consistency. Thanks! :) - Lewis R « т · c » 09:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the {{formatnum:}} to add comma separators at {{TFAfooter}}. This number is used in a formula at Wikipedia:Featured articles, and I'm moderately sure that a comma in the number itself would cause the formula to break. Thanks, Banyan Tree 11:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it will not, I use it in Gnome Week. Use it like this: {{FORMATNUM:{{FA number}}}}. Tcrow777 talk 19:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you were talking about a comma in the number itself beraking the formula, not using {{formatnum:}}. Tcrow777 talk 22:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce by two please

I cannot edit this as I'm not an admin. Ho-hum. I've been closing FARs for six months and this seems rather silly.

Can someone please reduce it by two; it should be at 1192 as of 22:20 UTC, Dec 11. Marskell 22:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul just beat me to the update. Sorry for the inconvenience. Please chime in at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Jmax-bot, if you have any thoughts on how it should work. Thanks, Banyan Tree 22:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that reduction was for Bath and World War I (including in edit summary helps track them). Sandy (Talk) 22:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unprotection for bot trial run

It appears that the bot is shaping up nicely. (See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Jmax-bot) Assuming all goes well, at some point in the trial run it will have to retarget this template. When it does, I suggest unprotection and removing the transclusion to the Main Page, for troubleshooting. In that interim period, I would be happy to make manual updates to {{TFAfooter}}. However, I'm not sure whether we want to do that early in the testing period or wait to make that the very last step. Thoughts? - Banyan Tree 15:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better for the bot to put its version of the count somewhere else, say {{FA number/Temp}}, until we've established that it's going to work properly (at which point it could start updating this template instead)? That way people can check it's working without having to stop using this template and updating manually – Gurch 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's already running at User:Jmax-bot/FACounter Raul654 04:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.js transclusion

The bot is now operating and approved. Concerns arose about it getting a sysop flag and it is placing its FA count into User:Jmax-bot/FACount.js. Are there any issues with transcluding that page here, or should it be transcluded directly as a template, i.e. {{User:Jmax-bot/FACount.js}}? - Banyan Tree 13:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the js file has already been put on the Main Page, which answers my question. I have replaced transclusion of this template as a counter and am redirecting to User:Jmax-bot/FACount.js. Thanks to everyone for their patience and input! - Banyan Tree 14:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]