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]

I wouldn't say we need to worry too much about this. Assuming the average time taken to make an edit is 10 seconds, making 10²⁶ would take 50 billion times the earth's predicted lifetime. I don't think getting over a couple hundred thou would be possible. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 23:25, 22 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]

The Color Reference is broken, {{Template:User 10e}} does not exist, and the other ones don't exist either.  Tcrow777  talk 20:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those links can be deleted, they reference the old userboxes that this one replaced, they worked for the first wee this page was up. I'll go delete them. Adam McCormick 04:38, 1 July 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]

I am trying to set this up please don't panic! Adam McCormick 04:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, 5000 categories work, now to deal with non-number text Adam McCormick 04:51, 21 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]

I got an 'Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "?"' with the userbox today. I'm assuming it was because I stuck a ³ in which messes up the script. Is it possible to be able to use the old userbox for now, until the script is finalised.

Not only did it mess up my userbox, for some bizarre reason it messed up the __NOTOC__ magic word! Centy 13:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're gonna have to revert the changes until after somebody successfully tests this in a sandbox. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · ER 4} 19:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it should work now but the solution is less-than-ideal There doesn't seem to be any function to identify strings. I'll add code to show commas with {{formatnum}} Adam McCormick 00:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway way to allow users the option to turn of commas? 1,337 looks far worse than 1337 edits. Centy 21:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it could be messy. I'll give it a shot Adam McCormick 23:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messy was the word, I hate {{#ifeq:}}. It wouldn't take {{{1}}}. Anyhow, adding "format=no" should now kill the text formating. Let me know if there's another problem Adam McCormick 02:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A minor issue: there's an extra line at the bottom of the template that is transcluding onto user pages. This is generally not an issue except when the userbox is placed in a table or next to other userboxes. See, for example, the transclusions here and here. Could someone please fix it? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Alanbly for fixing it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, couldn't see the extra line in the preview Adam McCormick 21:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The categories corresponding to this template are all up for deletion, please weight in at the discussion if you care. Adam McCormick 04:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence "This user has made over 100,000 contributions to Wikipedia, and, as a result, may be slightly insane," the comma after "Wikipedia" shouldn't be there. It's a list with two items, and a comma only needed with three or more (and even then, it's optional). I tried to fix it myself, but in removing the comma, it wound up displaying as "...to Wikipediaand, as..." --Brandon Dilbeck 07:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Adam McCormick 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a new box/colour for 150,000 contribs, as some users have attained/are close to attaining this number of contribs. I propose that this box be really really outstanding, with loyd colours etc. What does everyone think? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it if you want, but please keep in mind that colours don't matter that much. (→zelzany - fish) 17:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this change is made (And I'll make it if there's consensus), then we need an even more outrageous color for 200k edits, as it is currently set the same as 100k. What color combination do you propose? Adam McCormick 22:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red and black always serves to stun. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway I can change where the link goes to? I'd like it to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rockfang instead of where it currently goes. Rockfang (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to make this same thing work for a Wikia project? or is there already one on wikia? if you could respond on my talk page that would be great. Thanks! Sirkad_talk 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently there was an edit concerning which edit counter this template should use. I have always been of the opinion that the counter by wantanabe_kate is the best (and easiest to read) out there. The new edit pointed here I think there needs to be more discussion before this is made the default. If the new link is decided to be "better" I'll add a parameter to allow the original as I find it much more legible. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I talked to the user who made the change after the first time he changed it. Apparently the one that we changed it back to, wannabe-kate, is "... extremely slow when you get into tens of thousands of edits, and was only implemented to combat the (now mostly non-existemt) replication lag." ^([1]) I agree, it is slower (a lot slower), but I prefer it anyways, because it is just better . I think it would be a good idea to add a parameter that way people can chose whichever one they like. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you could make a couple different options, like the one requested on the thread 2 above this one. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've made a first attempt at adding a "link" parameter. it works like this:

{{User contrib|100}} makes:

{{User contrib|100|link=http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user={{urlencode:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}}&dbname=enwiki_p}} makes:

{{User contrib|100|link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alanbly}} makes:

Noticed that since the last change, any boxes with a comma in them break. Compare

with

Lugnuts (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2008 (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]

I wouldn't say we need to worry too much about this. Assuming the average time taken to make an edit is 10 seconds, making 10²⁶ would take 50 billion times the earth's predicted lifetime. I don't think getting over a couple hundred thou would be possible. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 23:25, 22 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]

The Color Reference is broken, {{Template:User 10e}} does not exist, and the other ones don't exist either.  Tcrow777  talk 20:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those links can be deleted, they reference the old userboxes that this one replaced, they worked for the first wee this page was up. I'll go delete them. Adam McCormick 04:38, 1 July 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]

I am trying to set this up please don't panic! Adam McCormick 04:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, 5000 categories work, now to deal with non-number text Adam McCormick 04:51, 21 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]

I got an 'Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "?"' with the userbox today. I'm assuming it was because I stuck a ³ in which messes up the script. Is it possible to be able to use the old userbox for now, until the script is finalised.

Not only did it mess up my userbox, for some bizarre reason it messed up the __NOTOC__ magic word! Centy 13:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're gonna have to revert the changes until after somebody successfully tests this in a sandbox. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · ER 4} 19:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it should work now but the solution is less-than-ideal There doesn't seem to be any function to identify strings. I'll add code to show commas with {{formatnum}} Adam McCormick 00:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway way to allow users the option to turn of commas? 1,337 looks far worse than 1337 edits. Centy 21:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it could be messy. I'll give it a shot Adam McCormick 23:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messy was the word, I hate {{#ifeq:}}. It wouldn't take {{{1}}}. Anyhow, adding "format=no" should now kill the text formating. Let me know if there's another problem Adam McCormick 02:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A minor issue: there's an extra line at the bottom of the template that is transcluding onto user pages. This is generally not an issue except when the userbox is placed in a table or next to other userboxes. See, for example, the transclusions here and here. Could someone please fix it? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Alanbly for fixing it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, couldn't see the extra line in the preview Adam McCormick 21:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The categories corresponding to this template are all up for deletion, please weight in at the discussion if you care. Adam McCormick 04:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence "This user has made over 100,000 contributions to Wikipedia, and, as a result, may be slightly insane," the comma after "Wikipedia" shouldn't be there. It's a list with two items, and a comma only needed with three or more (and even then, it's optional). I tried to fix it myself, but in removing the comma, it wound up displaying as "...to Wikipediaand, as..." --Brandon Dilbeck 07:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Adam McCormick 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a new box/colour for 150,000 contribs, as some users have attained/are close to attaining this number of contribs. I propose that this box be really really outstanding, with loyd colours etc. What does everyone think? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it if you want, but please keep in mind that colours don't matter that much. (→zelzany - fish) 17:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this change is made (And I'll make it if there's consensus), then we need an even more outrageous color for 200k edits, as it is currently set the same as 100k. What color combination do you propose? Adam McCormick 22:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red and black always serves to stun. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway I can change where the link goes to? I'd like it to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rockfang instead of where it currently goes. Rockfang (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to make this same thing work for a Wikia project? or is there already one on wikia? if you could respond on my talk page that would be great. Thanks! Sirkad_talk 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently there was an edit concerning which edit counter this template should use. I have always been of the opinion that the counter by wantanabe_kate is the best (and easiest to read) out there. The new edit pointed here I think there needs to be more discussion before this is made the default. If the new link is decided to be "better" I'll add a parameter to allow the original as I find it much more legible. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I talked to the user who made the change after the first time he changed it. Apparently the one that we changed it back to, wannabe-kate, is "... extremely slow when you get into tens of thousands of edits, and was only implemented to combat the (now mostly non-existemt) replication lag." ^([2]) I agree, it is slower (a lot slower), but I prefer it anyways, because it is just better . I think it would be a good idea to add a parameter that way people can chose whichever one they like. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you could make a couple different options, like the one requested on the thread 2 above this one. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've made a first attempt at adding a "link" parameter. it works like this:

{{User contrib|100}} makes:

{{User contrib|100|link=http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user={{urlencode:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}}&dbname=enwiki_p}} makes:

{{User contrib|100|link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alanbly}} makes:

Noticed that since the last change, any boxes with a comma in them break. Compare

with

Lugnuts (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]