Template talk:RFX report#Near-unanimous support

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)

:It was broken by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=595795763 this edit]. Fixed now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

{{edit template-protected|Module:RFX report|answered=y}}

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)

: File:Semi-protection-unlocked.svg 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. TGHL ↗ 🍁 22:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

::@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)

:::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)

:::: 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! TGHL ↗ 🍁 11:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

::::::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)

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

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)

{{TPER|Module:RFX report/colour|answered=yes}}

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)

:Comment: Before the reform it was {{color square|#ff3c3c}} (red). Primefac changed it to {{color square|#3C3CFF}} (dark blue) then {{color square|#3C9EFF}} (blue). Dekimasu changed it to {{color square|#bbddff}} (sky blue). Sohom Datta is suggesting {{color square|#f2f2f2}} (light grey). These are some of the high-support colors: {{color square|a5ffbb}} (100%), {{color square|c3ffbb}} (90%), {{color square|e1ffbb}} (80%), {{color square|ffffbb}} (70%). SilverLocust 💬 05:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

::The color of 100% and sky blue are close enough that they could be mistaken for one v/s the other ({{color square|a5ffbb}} v/s {{color square|#bbddff}}). Sohom (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

::: 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)

:{{complete2}}. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

:{{TPER|Module:RFX report|answered=yes}}

:Per the above, please make the changes [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=Module%3ARFX+report&rev1=&page2=Module%3ARFX+report%2Fsandbox&rev2=1227278181&action=&unhide= at this link]. The change should replace 0 with 'NA' when no votes have been cast. Sohom (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T:RFXR&redirect=no T:RFXR] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 31#T:RFXR}} until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the links in this text be changed. "Recent RfAs" currently links to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year, which includes all RfAs (not just recent ones). I believe this should be changed to the RfA page for the current year, i.e. Wikipedia:2025 requests for adminship. I also believe that "unsuccessful", which currently links to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies (in alphabetical order), should be changed to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies/Chronological to align with "successful", which links to Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies (which is in chronological order). Best, it's lio! | talk | work 05:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)