Template talk:RFX report

Errors abound

This template's had "Error parsing votes Error getting status Error parsing end time" up for a while now, perhaps months. Any idea what's up? Or is this template just no longer in use? czar ♔ 04:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was broken by this edit. Fixed now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Errors with visibility on mobile

Hi, just wanted to let y'all know that the template cuts off due to its width. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

link to the crat chat

If the current status of the nom is "pending closure", you'd probably want to link it to the 'crat chat, right? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearer wording

This edit request to Module:RFX report has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add a onhover description in the "report" heading saying "edit count over time" to explain what the report is about. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Furthermore, the report is not about edit counts but rather about vote totals. TG HL ↗ 🍁 22:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGoodAndHolyLord Sorry, I used the wrong template. The module is template editor protected. I meant to say "vote count over time" — wrong word. Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To actually change the text in the template, you have to edit the Module:RFX report Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Reopening request as a template editor edit request as this ER initially went to the semi-protected edit request queue. Have a nice day! TG HL ↗ 🍁 11:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some code on sandbox. Please review Template:RFX report/testcases — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ca — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think "vote count history" is less than helpful. I'd prefer the header be changed to "Votes" instead of adding a tooltip. SWinxy (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've disabled the request unless/until there is consensus for any particular action — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA2024 3b clarification

Consider changing status to "discussion" (a tooltip explaining that the vote will begin later on) and "voting" for when the period has started. NotAGenious (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use a neutral color to denote 0% state

This edit request to Module:RFX report/colour has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Currently, the color used to show the 0% state is a weird shade of aquamarine which can be easily confused with the traditional shade of green used to denote a RFA with a high amount of support. This was not a problem, since you would not have a 0% state for more than a few minutes. However with the temporary introduction of WP:RFA2024 3b, this color feels incorrect. Given this, please sync over Module:RFX report/colour/sandbox to Module:RFX report/colour. (The only change is that a neutral grey is used to denote the 0% support stage). Sohom (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Before the reform it was (red). Primefac changed it to (dark blue) then (blue). Dekimasu changed it to (sky blue). Sohom Datta is suggesting (light grey). These are some of the high-support colors: (100%), (90%), (80%), (70%). SilverLocust 💬 05:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The color of 100% and sky blue are close enough that they could be mistaken for one v/s the other ( v/s ). Sohom (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those colors look different enough to me, but color is of course something different people see differently so I have no objection to changing it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another tweak

I would also suggest replacing the "0" with "N/A" or something similar. It's not acurrate to say that a candidate has 0% support when no !votes have been cast, as that'd require dividing by 0. Sdkb ^talk 19:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Module:RFX report has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Per the above, please make the changes at this link. The change should replace 0 with 'NA' when no votes have been cast. Sohom (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done using N/A (in line with N/A and MOS:ABBR#Miscellanea). SilverLocust 💬 04:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Near-unanimous support

Right now, this report uses basic rounding to show either "99" (if less than 99.5) or "100" (if greater than 99.5) for candidates with near-unanimous support. The "100" can potentially be a bit misleading, as it's generally taken to mean unanimous. For a candidate at, say, 295-0-1, I think ">99" might be a better display. Sdkb ^talk 19:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. This module is transcluded on only 390 pages, so a bit of boldness seems fine. SilverLocust 💬 04:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Want to localize in BN wiki

I want to localize this module and it's submodules in bnwiki. What things I need to change so that this work in the BN wiki R1F4T (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Highlight colors for RRFA (re-RFA) noms

I think the colors for one re-RFA aren't right, honestly. The ≥60% should've been colored green. The 50~60% should've been yellow. <50% should've been red. But then that would affect the overall table. Create separate table then? George Ho (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]