Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Recent

Criteria for Inclusion

Is there any specific criteria on how many recent requests for RfA's and RfB's that should be listed ? Currently last five RfA's and last two RfB's are listed. Shouldn't both be the same ? Instead of two RfB's we can list last five. I may have missed something but is there any documentation on how this should be managed ? -TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It used to list the last five RfBs, but they were considered too old to be there. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 14:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you're right though. Thanks for your reply. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to adjust it, though. if we ever have, say, 5 RfBs in two months, it would be unfair to only list the latest two. in such a situation, we could list all five, since under the current rules, they would be recent enough :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 22:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to me that we have this distinction between RFA and RFB. The whole list should "scroll" irrespective of whether the items are RFAs or RFBs (this is why I added the 'type' column originally), as this keeps things recent. I wouldn't mind upping the number of items to 10 or so, but the fact that we can and will have RFBs from 6 months ago is really, really unintuitive for an RFA/RFB "ticker". --Izno (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno:: Did you originally imagine the template as I've made it look like now? But with 10? — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 02:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hahc21 and Izno: It looks good to me. I agree, having the last 10 requests regardless of whether they are RfA's or RfB's seems fine. But what if all the last 10 requests are RfA's only, will we list RfB's in that situation ? By the way, nice idea though ;) -TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGeneralUser: Explicitly, in case I wasn't obvious enough: No, we would not display RFBs which "fell" off the edge. See below comment to Mkdw on why I think that should be the case. --Izno (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hahc21: I would have gotten rid of the rowspans, which would simplify the upkeep. I'll probably also move the columns around when I get the chance. --Izno (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the changes as the existing template meant users only needed to replace the existing entries whereas the new layout would mean more coding required to update. For the sake of time I agree that a chronology has some advantages but the aesthetic, less crowding, and ease of use in the former layout was in my opinion preferred. If a way can be found to make the coding as simply and less time consuming but in chronological form then I would be all for it. I also feel it's important to list the previous RfB even if it's not with in the last 5 or 7 most recent RfA/RfB. Mkdw ^talk 20:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: Making the templlate easy to edit isn't hard.

What is more problematic is the notion that the "most recent" RfB should always be displayed. RfBs older than two weeks will be OBE for the reason that a) if promoted, the new bureaucrat will be making himself felt around the wiki with his new rights and b) if not promoted, then the RFB will fade into obscurity out of timeliness factor and so it's rather irrelevant to this template. Also, if we want to know, we can always go to a more dedicated page such as Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies, which is linked quite prominently in the navbox. In all, it's not important for the most recent RFBs to be displayed. --Izno (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: I was about to revert what you did, but I recognize that the rowspan is a problem. I am now thinking of a way to get rid of the "type" column and at the same time make sure people know which request is for which right. However, i agree with Izno that chronology goes first, and having a 3 month old RfB still listed on Lastest RfXs makes no sense at all, since they are not recent, which was the main purpose of this template. Anyways, I will be exploring how to update this template on my sandbox. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 02:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno:@Hahc21: Making the template easy to edit is not a difficult task but I think if it's going to go live it should be as easy to edit. That was the point I was trying to bringing up first and foremost. As for the chronology, I was in support. I always liked seeing who the new RfB was but clearly I'm outvoted in that regard which I was more than willing to give way. I've revamped the layout so it simply requires people to put in if it was an RfA or RfB. Please when you have a chance look at the current layout and see if it accomplishes everything we've been trying. If yes, then I'll do a few more edits to make it more "official" looking. Mkdw ^talk 18:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw:Yes!, I like it. Exactly what I was thinking, though I would not shade the type column. It's okay, though. My only caveat is that I'd prefer if we list the latest 10 instead of 6, but I'm sure you already have that in mind.

Like — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 21:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw and Hahc21: In the interests of WP:accessibility, before I go editing anything, I think I might suggest the following headings (you can copy paste this into the live version if you want):

Latest RfXs update
Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	S	O	N

This better frontloads the information that editors may be looking for (in particular, I think the candidate and result are more important than where they are currently placed). I think I'm okay with having the tally still be last, as that information is summarized by the result.

I have no strong opinion on the number of entries. I think definitely no more than 10. 9 or 10 may stretch it beyond what is actually necessary. I would definitely be in favor of keeping it at 7. Again, no strong opinion on the matter though. There's something else I feel like I'm tweaking about, but I'm not sure what. --Izno (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had to restore the old version until I can get my template to know the difference between an RfA and RfB. Mkdw ^talk 01:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: I think the new template became a bit awkward. Yes, Support-Oppose-Neutral columns are okay, and candidate column looks good. What confuses me may be the following: (1) There is no obvious way to distinguish an RfA from an RfB. (2) The date of closure may also look awkward. I think the date format in the Date of Closure column is not in accordance with Wikipedia conventions on date formats in a table. My suggestion is to make the format YYYY-MM-DD. With RfXs, there should be a check mark instead such that RfAs get to check the RfA box, and RfBs the RfB box. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Japanese Rail Fan: Gotta' link my page if you want my attention. :) Most of those were implemented before any of the recent changes, but with that in mind:

No obvious way to distinguish? As in?
Per WP:DATEFORMAT, the date format is fine.
A check mark? I don't know what you mean? Taking that to mean the internals of the template, I think it does not make sense to have two parameters when all we are distinguishing is the type of RFX. If you mean something else...?

@Mkdw: I made the change from RfX to <abbr title="Request for x">X</abbr> (rendered RfX and X) as because I found myself having difficulty parsing out the type of the request with the "RF" in front. I added the abbr to show what we mean, which anyone can hover over to see the definition. Is that not sufficient? It achieves the same as linking the page would do I think, and I'm not sure that newcomers have much if any interest in a ticker. It will mostly be the old farts of us who care about the information in this template. On an aside, I've reverted most of your reversion because there are other positive changes made. --Izno (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue was that "A" or "B" as a visual output in the template is nondescript to the point where even experienced editors may not associated it with meaning RfA or RfB. Now that the visual output for inputs "A" and "B" are now RfA and RfB it works fine. As for the other changes there were good but I wasn't able to restore them as you are surely a more superior coder than I. Cheers, Mkdw ^talk 06:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: (Sorry if I didn't link to your page in my first comment. I didn't know the ping feature then. :) ) Anyway, I'm not so familiar with table formatting parameters, so I don't know how to make two column headings appear under the "Type" heading and then place check marks that corresponds to the type of RfX. (The thing I'm talking about is to make the two colums appear like the S-O-N columns. But more probably, instead of a check mark, even the words "RfA" or "RfB" will do. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be pretty easy to do, though I'm not sure I personally would support doing it. It adds columns to the already-wide table. /shrug. If the consensus is to do something like that, I can take care of the techy side. --Izno (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links not pointing to correct page

I saw Acalamari's recently closed RFA as his second, but the link carries you to the first RFA. The template needs to be fixed. Techman224^Talk 23:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: Why not just modify {{RfARecentA}} and {{RfARecentB}} Instead of using a new one? — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 01:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm admittedly not a great coder but there's no reason why if we're putting in RfA and RfB that the template can self adjust. I also didn't want to screw too much with the live edit for this very reason. You're more than welcome to help test it on my sandbox though. Mkdw ^talk 01:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: I was thinking about merging these two into a single {{RfARecentX}}, with a parameter (either A or B) to determine the type of request. Would that work for you? I can do the coding. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 01:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at that but I'm not too familiar with if and ifequals on Wikipedia. If this were excel I'd have it done in a jiffy. Could you look at User:Mkdw/RecentRfX and find out where my argument for {{{1}}} equals "RfA" then link otherwise link2? Mkdw ^talk 01:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have done some tweaks to your template. First, I changed RfA as default instead of RfB, since RfAs are way more common. I also changed it to A, instead of the full RfA. The problem about it not pointing to the right direction was that you (I believe) confused something between {{{3}}} and {{{4}}}. I fixed that and a couple other things. It is now live. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 15:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great. The coding for {{#switch:{{{3|}}}|{{{4}}}=_{{{3}}}|}}|{{{2}}}{{#if:{{{3|}}} was actually in the original template so we'll need to keep an eye on it but all the scenarios right now are working. Does anyone have any further input before we finalize it? Mkdw ^talk 22:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the template {{RecentRfX}}. I saw someone else had moved it out of my userspace but this one is shorter and less complicated. I adjusted it since we were able to make the template work for both RfA and RfB making "X" the unknown. Mkdw ^talk 01:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number of entries

Is there a hard-and-fast rule on how many entries should be listed? We currently have 8. Northern Antarctica (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've had it at 7 for a while. My feeling is that we shouldn't increase it beyond that, but I don't feel particularly strong. There should be no more than 10, which would be my hard line. --Izno (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I removed the last entry, so it's at 7 again. Northern Antarctica (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

100 and 200

Hey MSGJ, I like the new formatting but was there a particular reason you removed the coding and expressions for WP:RFX100 and WP:RFX200 in the count? That's been there for quite awhile and a general practice at RFA. It'd be good to talk about removing it on a wider scale since most people don't really patrol some of the more obscure coding pages like {{Recent RfX}}. The template has undergone some fairly big changes with quite a bit of community input so any bigger changes can be discussed here. Cheers, Mkdw ^talk 01:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them because they are naff. (I forgot to include this in the edit summary though.) I always cringe when someone links to these pages. What exactly is gained from the link? If someone has 105 supports, I can work out that more than 100 people have supported them without having a link to a page which says that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one else commented so I've removed them again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one else patrols this page since at the time it was very new. Removing it should be talked about at WT:RFA. Even I didn't catch the comment. Mkdw ^talk 12:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automation?

It seems that this page could be automated fairly easily, and I've asked at User talk:Cyberpower678#‎Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Recent automation? about adding this to Cyberbot's routines as it already collects much of the data for ongoing RfA template. Any bot process would need to be able to accept human input to account for the nuances of RfA, of course. Please advise if there are any other considerations that need to be taken into account. –xeno^talk 14:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason why not, but the bot may have issues parsing the closes to appropriately fill in the result column (most particularly in the case of failed requests). --Izno (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost 2020, where are our robot overlords? –xeno^talk 21:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tally and weight

I think this template and User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report give too much weight to tally counts. An alternative would be to display the total number of participants and the current percentage of those participants supporting. Those who want the individual counts (for what shouldn't be votes) can easily check the page. czar 23:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to raise this on WT:RFA. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually prefer it the way it currently is. Lepricavark (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They "shouldn't be votes", yet they are votes. (Yes, am implying that they are not !votes.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]