Documentation discussion

Documentation discussion

Template loop detected: Template talk:User contrib/doc

Template discussion

As the number of edits get higher, is it possible to shrink the text in the icon box somehow? Otherwise, theoretically, we could end up with this:

JPG-GR 00:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I think that would need quite a bit of logic (adding commas for every power of 1000) Are there any other templates that have this problem? How do they deal with it. Adam McCormick 00:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No clue whatsoever, and I figured as much. One of those puzzles that I love, but I am waaaaaaaaay too unfamiliar with wiki-code at this point to solve this one. JPG-GR 04:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the solution is to put them in yourself, So:

or for commas and returns:

You can put just about anything in the text box so <small></small> tags should work too:

Adam McCormick 16:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... can we safely say that someone with that many edits NEEDS HELP, NOW? – Gurch 20:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. It's my debugger lifestyle. Gotta find solutions to those problems that theoretically won't happen. :) JPG-GR 04:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably gonna have to use exponents. So for 100000000000000000000000000, it's 10²⁶, which will produce:

V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 15:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This still leaves us with the problem of, what if the exponent too becomes too wide?, e.g. 10^{1000000000000000}. Maybe a change of basis, or double exponentiation: 10¹⁰¹⁵ — Isilanes 15:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the exponent is too wide, you ban the user, because any user making that many edits within the forseeable future is clearly a renegade bot causing financial problems for the Foundation through extreme overuse of bandwidth. We don't need to solve this problem for the same reason that computer systems don't always use 5 digits for the year section of a date - it isn't worthwhile for the next 7993 years. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 19:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the above : ) - As a guideline back down to reality, let's make the top number 900 million (900 000 000), so that we sidestep the billion naming convention issue between english speakers. - jc37 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously, I was kidding. 10¹⁰¹⁵ edits is just as as ridiculous as 10²⁶ edits mentioned above (however bigger it is). We can safely assume that anything above 1M or 10M must be faked. Moreover, the solution to the "problem" is that the user can write anything in the subst'ed text (e.g. 200k edits, or 0.2M edits, or 2·10⁵ edits). — Isilanes 16:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A valid explanation for not needing a solution. *rests now* JPG-GR 07:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about just having an optional argument for the template specifying the text size for the number in the left section? --Jordan Elder talk 01:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The {{#ifexpr ParserFunction seems good for an automatic solution. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 01:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually what I was going for in the first place, but wasn't sure if it was even possible. JPG-GR 04:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a table on the documentation page showing the colors that were used for each range in the original templates, in case users want to emulate these. --PhantomS 08:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has significantly changed the way the template works for color and I think it makes it much more difficult to use. I've corrected the default back to the colors it was and unless there's some good reasoning I'm going to revert the change. Adam McCormick 04:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: {{subst:User contrib meta|User 100e}} will produce just about the same appearance as {{User 100e}}, but it's programmed to use {{user contrib}}. I'm in favor of using a one time substitution, rather than keeping the 4 huge switch statements. Gracenotes^T § 19:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, since users regularly update userboxes on their pages. I know I will. And I also know that I would not like to change the template back to a substed template every time. A bunch of huge switches will not waster server resources; my userpage has two of these templates on them, and one uses the set switch. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 19:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Well, I guess that sounds fine, I should have never gotten into colors to begin with; just standardized it. Well, paint the bikeshed however you wish :) Gracenotes^T § 20:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: {{User contrib meta}}, I created an alternate version which takes the raw edit count as input and autoselects the right userbox from the old set by transcluding {{User contrib}}. This simplifies the template setup process. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 22:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before this page goes much further into "mass-effect", I'd like to suggest a more specific rename to Template:User edit count. "contrib" is too vague for the usage, and could mean any number of things. - jc37 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer contrib because it's easy to remember and shorter to type. Either way I think this page needs to at least be a redirect. There is also some debate as to whether talk page contributions count as "edits" or just contributions Adam McCormick 18:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to that debate? I think that the fact that we click on a tab labelled "edit this page" makes such a debate moot? : ) - jc37 19:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit this page bit is consistent on most wiki sites. I can't point you to a debate because I've only ever seen it in statements by individuals and personal conversations. I just meant that there is some difference between edits to the Main namespace and edits in general and that some editors (myself included) believe that edits should refer to the Main namespace as that is "Editing" the encyclopedia and that other edits such as discussion are contributing to the encyclopedia but not editing it. Adam McCormick 19:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone support me in re-adding the ", and as a result may be slightly insane" text for contribution numbers over 100,000? This would be the simple addition of two ParserFunctions, one inside the other:

• Wikipedia. would become "Wikipedia{{#ifeq:{{#expr: {{{1}}} > 100000}}|1|, and as a result may be slightly insane|<!--null-->}}.

I think it'd be nice, since this improves the emulation of the old templates, but I don't know what other people think. What's your opinion? Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 22:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that it adds much to the template. I'd prefer an insane param like "insane=yes" that would activate the text. I'd still prefer to have neither. Adam McCormick 06:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a good idea to retain the classic bits, just for a sake of history. Plus, it'd be nice to see something like "this user has 2 edits and as a result may be slightly insane" just for sillyness factor. JPG-GR 07:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, an insane parameter would be just fine as a means of implementation, and I was thinking just the same as regards history, JPG-GR. The idea of having it apply for users with 2 edits who want it, why not? Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 13:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If as seems likely per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_5#Numerous_edit-count_userboxes this box will replace all the existing boxes, shouldn't it output categories like the other boxes do? --kingboyk 17:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding categories, there is talk about deleting them alltogether due to past precedent never being overturned at DRV. Disregarding that, we have established on WP:UCFD that edit count categories should only exist in 5k increments at most. So to whoever is thinking about adding this, please do not have this template add people to categories such as "Wikipedians with over 6,000 edits" or other redlinked categories that are likely to encourage someone to create such categories. Thanks. VegaDark (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I use the userbox, I get a 200+ edits boxs with the number in white! Take a look to see what I mean: User:PostScript/ImportantBoxes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PostScript (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fixed. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 20:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the font switches need to be changed so that the numbers that are supposed to be colors other than white are listed as the font defaults to white Adam McCormick 21:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should do it, hopefully that works? Adam McCormick 17:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yessir, it works, thank you very much. --PostScript (info/talk/contribs) 00:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template discussion

As the number of edits get higher, is it possible to shrink the text in the icon box somehow? Otherwise, theoretically, we could end up with this:

JPG-GR 00:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I think that would need quite a bit of logic (adding commas for every power of 1000) Are there any other templates that have this problem? How do they deal with it. Adam McCormick 00:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No clue whatsoever, and I figured as much. One of those puzzles that I love, but I am waaaaaaaaay too unfamiliar with wiki-code at this point to solve this one. JPG-GR 04:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the solution is to put them in yourself, So:

or for commas and returns:

You can put just about anything in the text box so <small></small> tags should work too:

Adam McCormick 16:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... can we safely say that someone with that many edits NEEDS HELP, NOW? – Gurch 20:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. It's my debugger lifestyle. Gotta find solutions to those problems that theoretically won't happen. :) JPG-GR 04:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably gonna have to use exponents. So for 100000000000000000000000000, it's 10²⁶, which will produce:

V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 15:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This still leaves us with the problem of, what if the exponent too becomes too wide?, e.g. 10^{1000000000000000}. Maybe a change of basis, or double exponentiation: 10¹⁰¹⁵ — Isilanes 15:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the exponent is too wide, you ban the user, because any user making that many edits within the forseeable future is clearly a renegade bot causing financial problems for the Foundation through extreme overuse of bandwidth. We don't need to solve this problem for the same reason that computer systems don't always use 5 digits for the year section of a date - it isn't worthwhile for the next 7993 years. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 19:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the above : ) - As a guideline back down to reality, let's make the top number 900 million (900 000 000), so that we sidestep the billion naming convention issue between english speakers. - jc37 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously, I was kidding. 10¹⁰¹⁵ edits is just as as ridiculous as 10²⁶ edits mentioned above (however bigger it is). We can safely assume that anything above 1M or 10M must be faked. Moreover, the solution to the "problem" is that the user can write anything in the subst'ed text (e.g. 200k edits, or 0.2M edits, or 2·10⁵ edits). — Isilanes 16:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A valid explanation for not needing a solution. *rests now* JPG-GR 07:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about just having an optional argument for the template specifying the text size for the number in the left section? --Jordan Elder talk 01:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The {{#ifexpr ParserFunction seems good for an automatic solution. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 01:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually what I was going for in the first place, but wasn't sure if it was even possible. JPG-GR 04:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a table on the documentation page showing the colors that were used for each range in the original templates, in case users want to emulate these. --PhantomS 08:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has significantly changed the way the template works for color and I think it makes it much more difficult to use. I've corrected the default back to the colors it was and unless there's some good reasoning I'm going to revert the change. Adam McCormick 04:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: {{subst:User contrib meta|User 100e}} will produce just about the same appearance as {{User 100e}}, but it's programmed to use {{user contrib}}. I'm in favor of using a one time substitution, rather than keeping the 4 huge switch statements. Gracenotes^T § 19:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, since users regularly update userboxes on their pages. I know I will. And I also know that I would not like to change the template back to a substed template every time. A bunch of huge switches will not waster server resources; my userpage has two of these templates on them, and one uses the set switch. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 19:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Well, I guess that sounds fine, I should have never gotten into colors to begin with; just standardized it. Well, paint the bikeshed however you wish :) Gracenotes^T § 20:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: {{User contrib meta}}, I created an alternate version which takes the raw edit count as input and autoselects the right userbox from the old set by transcluding {{User contrib}}. This simplifies the template setup process. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 22:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before this page goes much further into "mass-effect", I'd like to suggest a more specific rename to Template:User edit count. "contrib" is too vague for the usage, and could mean any number of things. - jc37 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer contrib because it's easy to remember and shorter to type. Either way I think this page needs to at least be a redirect. There is also some debate as to whether talk page contributions count as "edits" or just contributions Adam McCormick 18:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to that debate? I think that the fact that we click on a tab labelled "edit this page" makes such a debate moot? : ) - jc37 19:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit this page bit is consistent on most wiki sites. I can't point you to a debate because I've only ever seen it in statements by individuals and personal conversations. I just meant that there is some difference between edits to the Main namespace and edits in general and that some editors (myself included) believe that edits should refer to the Main namespace as that is "Editing" the encyclopedia and that other edits such as discussion are contributing to the encyclopedia but not editing it. Adam McCormick 19:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone support me in re-adding the ", and as a result may be slightly insane" text for contribution numbers over 100,000? This would be the simple addition of two ParserFunctions, one inside the other:

• Wikipedia. would become "Wikipedia{{#ifeq:{{#expr: {{{1}}} > 100000}}|1|, and as a result may be slightly insane|<!--null-->}}.

I think it'd be nice, since this improves the emulation of the old templates, but I don't know what other people think. What's your opinion? Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 22:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that it adds much to the template. I'd prefer an insane param like "insane=yes" that would activate the text. I'd still prefer to have neither. Adam McCormick 06:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a good idea to retain the classic bits, just for a sake of history. Plus, it'd be nice to see something like "this user has 2 edits and as a result may be slightly insane" just for sillyness factor. JPG-GR 07:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, an insane parameter would be just fine as a means of implementation, and I was thinking just the same as regards history, JPG-GR. The idea of having it apply for users with 2 edits who want it, why not? Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 13:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If as seems likely per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_5#Numerous_edit-count_userboxes this box will replace all the existing boxes, shouldn't it output categories like the other boxes do? --kingboyk 17:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding categories, there is talk about deleting them alltogether due to past precedent never being overturned at DRV. Disregarding that, we have established on WP:UCFD that edit count categories should only exist in 5k increments at most. So to whoever is thinking about adding this, please do not have this template add people to categories such as "Wikipedians with over 6,000 edits" or other redlinked categories that are likely to encourage someone to create such categories. Thanks. VegaDark (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I use the userbox, I get a 200+ edits boxs with the number in white! Take a look to see what I mean: User:PostScript/ImportantBoxes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PostScript (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fixed. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 20:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the font switches need to be changed so that the numbers that are supposed to be colors other than white are listed as the font defaults to white Adam McCormick 21:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should do it, hopefully that works? Adam McCormick 17:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yessir, it works, thank you very much. --PostScript (info/talk/contribs) 00:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]