Template talk:High-use

TemplateData - no idea what the all-pages and system parameters are supposed to do, might need someone who knows what they do to fix that

Ok so I've attempted to add some TemplateData to this template's documentation, but I encountered a slight problem with the all-pages and system parameters; that problem being that I have no idea what they're supposed to do, and the existing documentation doesn't mention them at all. If someone here does know what purpose they serve, you might want to quickly edit the TemplateData to add some info about what they actually do. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@HotMess: The "all-pages" parameter was removed a while ago from the underlying module so I have removed it from the template and will remove it from documentation too. The "system" parameter on the module is used to implement Template:Used in system, but I can't remember why I made it available from this template and it doesn't seem like a good idea. User:GKFX^talk 22:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you, I'm not entirely sure what most of those words in that last sentence actually mean 😅. Thanks for taking care of the all-pages documentation, but should system be marked as deprecated within/removed from the TemplateData, or just left undocumented as-is? 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Different wording?

Moved from User talk:Paine Ellsworth § Different wording?

 – P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 23:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it might lead to less confusion if the wording of {{high-use}} were slightly different on the /sandbox page. Here's how it reads today at {{Citation needed}}:

This template is used on approximately 516,000 pages, or roughly 1% of all pages.
To avoid major disruption and server load, any changes should be tested in the template's /sandbox or /testcases subpages, or in your own user subpage. The tested changes can be added to this page in a single edit. Consider discussing changes on the talk page before implementing them.

I propose changing it to read like this on the sandbox page (I have included a couple of copy edits in green that should apply to both versions):

ThisThe live version of this template is used on approximately 516,000 pages, or roughly 1% of all pages.
To avoid major disruption and server load, any changes should be tested here in the template's /sandbox, and on the or /testcases subpages, or in your own user subpage. The tested changes can then be added to this pagethe live template in a single edit. Consider discussing changes on the talk page before implementing them.

It might be best to move this portion of the discussion to the template's talk page for future reference. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

To editor Jonesey95: yes, I think it's always a good idea to clarify things like this, especially for the newer editors – par excellence! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 04:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

When viewing a template's sandbox page, above the rendered documentation is a message box (apparently created by Module:Documentation at line 344) that tells the reader that Template:.../sandbox is a sandbox. Assuming that I will end up in the minority here, I wonder if the default message box should be augmented to give the any changes should be tested here in the template's /sandbox, and on the /testcases ... warning (or some variant thereof). Then, because repeating the warning in the {{high use}} ~/sandbox page rendering is rather redundant, the {{high use}} ~/sandbox rendering reduces to something like this:

The live version of this template sandbox is used on approximately <number> pages.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm probably agreeing with Trappist but the reason for my post is to agree with Jonesey95 that this discussion really must be somewhere more appropriate where others can see it, and where it can more easily be found in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion should really be at Template talk:High-use, but that has only 31 watchers; a better place might be Template talk:Documentation (134 watchers). If those are both too low, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates has 279 watchers; Wikipedia talk:Template documentation has 312; WP:VPR has 3,566. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's an excellent idea to include that message in the default sandbox message box, because that way the message is always there to remind editors of the need to test their edits. Great idea! And then, when the template is high-use or high-risk, I think it's also a good idea to be a little redundant about the need for editors to test their edits before going live. When things get critical enough to indicate high use, then a little redundancy is actually a good thing. And if the first message is missed because it's in a message box that editors always see and are used to seeing, then the second message in the HU box might actually register in their minds that they should take care to thoroughly test their edits before going live. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 02:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• This message should not be splashed in that doc-top place at all.

It is aimed at template editors, not article editors. But high-use templates are protected &tc., so the factual warning/guideline/advice is (a) already in appropriate places, (b) known to TPE, and (c) irrelevant for article editors in the first place. TPE's should know what they are doing. Then, documentation (-intro!) is freed for article-editor-aimed lede info right away, good. These visitors are a magnitude higher in numbers in the first place.

This template better be redesigned to be at stampsize in top-right, like {{Lua}}. Just saying "<number> transclusions" (or shorter), and not filling /sandboxes anyway. A TPE who does not understand or checks this, should loose a bit. -DePiep (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

As a TE, I think it's important to note that since I first registered, 1/3 of my edits have been in mainspace and a little more than 1/2 that have been in template space, so I fail to see the distinction you make. The high-use template is a tool, a warning of sorts, that is definitely needed and useful. Long ago, long before there was such a thing as a template editor bit, I made a triple edit to a high-risk template that wasn't labeled. Let's just say that the server didn't appreciate my work for a time. Came out of it okay though, and it was definitely a learning experience. Sorry, friend DePiep, there is a proven need for the high use/high risk template banner that catches the editor's eye in a way that the server remains cool and calm... up and working. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 15:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

re "I fail to see the distinction you make": An article-editor is visiting the Template:X homepage (with its documentation obviously) to use the template & to learn usage from /doc, to apply in an article. For this visit, the "warning" is utterly misplaced.

OTOH, there is a template editor i.e., an editor who arrives to change the template code. In case of a HU template, ~by definition this template is protected, and so that template-editor is a TPE (who knows what they are doing full stop). A non-TPE editor who arrives to change code is blocked for making badimmature edits by the protection, and sees the clarification-message in top of the "view source" screen (that is, what they get in lieu of the "edit" screen: the read-only source code screen). All stuations covered. There is no need to warn any template-editor (TPE or non-TPE) as documentation-lede (as is done nowadays).

Note that the article-editor who arrives for namecheck & documentation vastly outnumbers template-editor visits (another reason to not spend doc lede this way).

re Your personal experiences .. if you still need a warning this way (ie, learning that you are editing a protected template), then maybe the TPE-bit is not safe with you ;-) (I skip the older cases: sure uder-protection was bad, by why does that matter today?). And still asking for some personal extra, large warnings ... please reconsider (they are just visuals anyway, so not preventing you from mistakes anyway. I hope you have more serious approaches doing TPE).

Anyway, a well-designed poststamp redesign would do the job just as well. DePiep (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree, DePiep. I do see your distinction now. The editors who want to improve the template who don't have the bit are informed to take special care with their edits in the sandbox so that their edit requests are more apt to be granted. No piecework, do it right the first time and no need to edit the live template again to finesse. And the TEs who can make the edits are gentle-reminded to take special care. You can diss such carefulness as much as you like, it does not change the need for a present-sized banner to caution both the finest and the least experienced among us. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 18:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Shorter: docspace is not for that. Also: is done elsewhere & otherwise all right. DePiep (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

To editor Jonesey95: per above, moved discussion to this talk page. And was wondering where we are on this? Are we ready to go live? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 23:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping.

These changes do not set any prejudice on (advocated) change of aim. That includes, extra future usage (eg in sandboxes) does not change rationality. DePiep (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Understood, and while we haven't heard much from others on this issue, I can't help but wonder how many editors agree or disagree with you. I've been placing the HU banner on templates for many years ever since my mishap and have had no negative feedback save from yourself and Trappist the monk, who seems agreeable so long as the wording isn't confusing. So unless others chime in and, like yourself, vehemently disagree with present usage, we should probably run with Jonesey95's alterations for sandbox clarity. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 09:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

"haven't heard" -- please study the content of what I wrote, not the !votes. Incidentally, the e3xpressed !votes you used are very much your own say impressions & experiences, not a reflection on the template (I keep asking for). Then, better use the wording "no prejudice" in concluding. In short, it says that I do not object to the wording or counting changes by themselves, as isolates, and so that these changes do not reject/accept my point. (iow, still open). btw, the ping reference was cynical. DePiep (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

You haven't pinged Trappist the monk. DePiep (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Ha! you had me going there. Had me thinking that just transferring the discussion and sigs over here and just signing the mdf template at the top was enough to ping you. So apologies for not pinging you and the others about the transfer of the discussion. Just been so busy lately. Let's see, I've already pinged Jonesey95, and you are already here, so here are courtesy pings to editors Trappist the monk, Johnuniq and Redrose64. Again, please forgive the oversight. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 11:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I have said what I think should be done:

• modify sandboxNotice() to include the any changes should be tested here in the template's /sandbox, and on the /testcases ... message
• modify Module:High-use so that it auto-detects sandbox templates and adjusts the rendering to be something like: The live version of this template sandbox is used on approximately <number> pages.

I have posted notices of this discussion at Template talk:Documentation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates, Wikipedia talk:Template documentation, and WP:VPR.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

At this point, it is unclear to me what changes are being proposed. It would be helpful for me to see a series of test cases showing what the template will look like in different situations. I have proposed some changes to the text above, but I do not know enough Lua to make the text show differently on template sandbox pages versus the live template page. At a minimum, I think that "The tested changes can be added to this page in a single edit." is a confusing thing to say on a sandbox page (you can see this wording at {{Center/sandbox}}). – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is another editor who was able to help who was part of the discussion on my talk page and who hasn't been pinged here, Aidan9382. Perhaps he can sandbox the proposed changes to Module:High-use/sandbox and Module:Documentation/sandbox? Then we might be able to see some good test cases. It seems that where we are presently would be to alter the sandbox notice that's generated by the {{Documentation}} template (and Module:Documentation) to include the message:

• any changes should be tested here in the template's /sandbox, and on the /testcases... – to let editors know specifically what to do.

As for the High-use template, it appears that we're looking for something similar to help editors know that they should make their changes in the /sandbox and thoroughly test them on the /testcases page, while making sure they know that a high-use/risk count applies only to the live template and not to the /sandbox itself. And of course, since the HU and Doc templates and modules are themselves high-use, any proposed edits should be thoroughly tested. No pressure is intended – no deadline is proposed or necessary. Thank you, Aidan9382, for any help you can spare! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 08:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Why-oh-why should I get the warning "Use the sandbox!" when I am at the /sandbox page? Why a message "do testcases!" when I am on the /testcases page? And, why not the message "Don't forget to adjust the /documentation for you edits" a dozen times on every page, and "When going to the bathroom, please do lower your pants!". DePiep (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Not every editor who wants to help fill a need is as adept as you are, DePiep. There are less experienced editors and other editors who appreciate the reminders to take extra care with certain templates that are transcluded to a high number of pages and therefore can affect all those pages with any changes in code. Now, whenever I go to the bathroom, I'll think of your precious warning! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 09:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

No, those texts are inappropriate. As in: wrong place, wrong aim, wrong targetaudience. Why do you think these "remainders" are helpful or needed this way at all? You have repeatedly written that you are talking about your own experiences (outdated, as a TPE, etc.). You have not once talked from regular editors point of view & experience. For starters, a regular editor does not visit the template page to edit the template.

BTW, did you recently check as non-WP:TPE (ie, logged out) the messages such someone gets, clicking the ""edit"" button? Because: that is the starting point for any usage plans.

I can support the aim to use the right number (main template transclusions) if and when number is used [the proposal missing on this page btw]. For message changes: reduction not expansion (this follows from usage & aim redesign thinking, as described). DePiep (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Well you got me there, DePiep – I don't understand how anyone could deem the messages inappropriate. And I don't understand why you belittle my harrowing experience with a high-risk template. If it can happen to me it can happen to anybody, which is why the high-use/high-risk template was created in the first place. And what is a "regular editor" again? Seems like a hasty generalization. Do wish I could understand your thoughts on this, but I will keep trying. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 11:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't explain without plain repeating myself. You've got a lot of unheard words. Just this one: A regular editor ie article editor visits the template homepage including its /doc to use that template and read the doc — not to edit that template. DePiep (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, no, please don't repeat yourself – it's enough that I have to read your words over and over and still have trouble understanding. I blame myself, because I'm really trying hard to understand why anybody, any editor, would be as outspoken as yourself against this issue of attempting to take a little extra measure to protect WP servers. Forgive me, for I've known you a long time, and yes we've had our differences before, both recent and long ago, but I've trusted your sandbox edits for the most part and implemented many of them, so there is no awkward suspicion here, only humble perplexion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 13:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

No need to be paternalistic or whatever this personal stab can be called. If you have "trouble understanding", the route to go is post questions or ask others for advice. Not deviation in personal irrelevancies. Incidentally, Aidan9382 has posted the same points (to which you did not engage either). DePiep (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems we both are having trouble understanding each other. There was no personal stab intended, and I'm certainly not trying to sound like a father. I'm well aware of Aidan9382's posted points and have not disagreed for the most part. So moving on... P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 08:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'd be happy to implement these in the sandboxes to give an idea of how the proposed design would look. High-use/sandbox already has some initial code to change the text on a sandbox page (see here), and I'd be happy to implement other suggestions for changes, but I'm a little confused over the {{Documentation}} one. What exactly are you asking for here? You suggest to alter the sandbox notice. Are you suggesting making the text that only displays on the sandbox page to suggest using said sandbox? If so, this feels a little excessive, and like an unnecessary re-iteration of {{High-use}}. If I'm missing something here I'm sorry, but I don't see what I'm meant to change in that regard. Aidan9382 _(talk) 11:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, Aidan9382! The text for the sandbox notice that accompanies every transclusion of the Doc template was suggested by Trappist the monk and would be seen by editors who go to the sandbox of any template whether or not it is high-use/risk. So yes, there would be some redundancy when the HU template is needed; however, such redundancy would be a good thing under the circumstances. A little excessive? maybe, but when we realize the sensitivity of changing code that affects thousands, even hundreds of thousands of pages in the blink of the server's eye, then a little is okay and isn't too much. Thanks again for responding and for your help in this! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 12:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Aidan9382 is saying what I say: "excessive", "using said sandbox", "unnecessary". And again, your answer ignores the fact that the only editor who could ignore that 'sensitivity' is a WP:TPE editor—who should then loose that bit right away for being careless. DePiep (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

On that we agree, DePiep, such carelessness might be intentional, as well, when we consider the enemies WP has made over the years, which is another good reason for protection. Even good editors need to be reminded as an extra measure of article protection, so the wording is not too excessive and definitely not unnecessary, so again, I fail to understand your critique of the issue, however I shall endeavor to persevere. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 13:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

For {{documentation}} I was thinking of something like this to replace the ombox that currently appears on sandbox pages above the green documentation:

and for {{high-use}} when it is rendered on sandbox pages, something like this:

These are just mockups so styling applied by the templates is no included here.

No doubt there will need to be different versions of the omboxen to match the various namespaces.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC) 13:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC) tweaked {{high-use}} mockup wording – forgot to mention that the count applies to the live template, not the sandbox template

Thanks, these give me a much better idea of what I'm doing. I was thinking, when exactly do we want to be displaying the different message for {{documentation}}? Should it be always, or if some certain criteria is met (E.g. transclusion count >XYZ)? Knowing which will help because I need to decide if I should work around or directly mess with some of the existing message code.

As for {{high-use}}, are you suggesting just a much more minimal version of it when displayed on /sandboxes (no extra text, just transclusion count)? If so, I can also attempt in implementing that as well.

Sorry for all the questions, I'd just prefer to know more details before guessing implementations. Aidan9382 _(talk) 15:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, {{documentation}} always renders an ombox above the documentation when the reader is looking at Template:<whatever>/sandbox (sandboxNotice()) – also Module:<whatever>/sandbox. That should not change so here is no reason to bother with transclusion count criteria.

Yes, on sandbox pages, because the use the damn testcases warning has been moved to the sandboxNotice() ombox, all that is needed for {{high-use}} is as I've illustrated above (and <rant>no percent of all pages; that is just meaningless</rant>).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I've made some initial changes that (mostly) replicate what was suggested above. To follow the design of how it worked before, I've made {{documentation}}'s testcases text only display if it already exists, along with some minor wording changes, though I can change it to always show for testing if wanted (the red link might be awkward? most low-use templates wouldn't realistically need testcases anyways). High-use also now just gives the transclusion count when viewing from the sandbox, though I've left the pages% and colour styling in for now. You can see the changes more clearly on this page. Nothing here is perfect or final (especially from a code point of view), but its functional enough to at least hopefully get the idea across of how it'd look. Thoughts? Aidan9382 _(talk) 22:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

For the documentation ombox for sandboxen that don't have testcases (note that spelling; it's one word not two), what about not linking 'testcases' (and so avoid the redlink) and include a parenthetical 'create' link? Like this:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Implemented roughly what you suggested above as best as I could, with slight changes in wording while I try to work with the config system in a non-hacky way (specifically link positioning without writing the exact same long config message twice, though I may have to for simplicity or if link needs more moving). Changes visible on the same test page as before (this one). Aidan9382 _(talk) 14:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

(Sorry, lost track of indents) Have to agree with DePiep; it just isn't necessary to distinguish "live" and the template page itself because of who gets to edit it. And I say this as a template editor who frequently uses <noinclude> and <includeonly> to provide users (mostly) and template editors (less so) with a view of how a template would look in real use, instead of displaying some square bracket/pipe/curly-brace/param-number grawlix at the top of the page. (Example: {{Further ill}}; would look like complete crap without it). However in this case, it's just not needed; and it could even hurt, slightly, as the template editor would have to verify their intuition about what the "Live" was doing there. This is unnecessary, and doesn't clarify the situation for anyone, afaict, so I'm opposed to the change. Mathglot (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Please clarify. Forgive me, Mathglot, because I'm sure you already know much of this. Here is the present situation: the majority of High-use/High-risk (HU/HR) templates – HU = 2M to 100M transclusions and HR = 100M+ transclusions – presently have the HU/HR banner at the top of their documentation, and if they don't have a /doc page, it has been added to the doc directly in the template code or just noincluded directly in the template code. If the template has a sandbox page that also shows the documentation, then the exact same HU/HR banner appears on that page as well. A few HU/HR templates' /doc pages have been coded to exclude the HU/HR template on the sandbox page. That's where the situation is right now.

One editor, DePiep, does not see any benefit to showing the HU/HR template in the documentation, or at the most it should not be a full banner, only a thumb box notification to editors. Other editors have been working to make the sandbox version a little different from the version shown on the main template page, the "live template". And this to clarify for editors, both template editors and for editors who would like to make an edit request, that it is indeed the live template that is transcluded to thousands of pages and not the sandbox page. Those are pretty much what has been discussed here, so please clarify what you think is unnecessary and doesn't clarify the situation for anyone. To which change or changes are you opposed? If it is the usage of "live" template for the main template page, is there another name you would give it so as to help clarify to editors when they are on the sandbox page? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 01:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I acknowledge I wasn't clear, and need to look at your questions and respond, but can't do so now. If I don't in a day or two, kindly ping me. Mathglot (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Take your time, please, as this is just all of us working to improve WP without any immediate need for a deadline. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 02:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

To editor Mathglot: been a bit busy, and you asked to be pinged, so here we are. Hope this is kindly enough as requested. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 14:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Going forward

Will editors who have subscribed to this section please express any concerns so they may be addressed and we can perhaps go forward? Thank you all for your continued improvements! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 12:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, you've been more than patient, and I'll support whatever happens. I think there's an audience issue, a wording issue, and a placement/location issue, here. The last two are dependent on the first, so let's start with that.

Who is the audience for these messages? I'd say it is mainly template editors not users, as any highly used template will also be protected so the purpose of the banner is not to warn random users not to edit a highly used template, because they already can't do that. (Correct me if I'm wrong; and if there are some unprotected, high-use "stragglers", do we need a bot to run around and protect them as well?) There is, let's say, a small "curiosity factor" that is aimed, perhaps, at all editors who wander by and wonder about usage, regardless whether they have template editing privileges or not; do we still want this? (I'm curious, and enjoy seeing those numbers.) What I'm trying to do here, is first figure out who we are addressing with such messages.

High-use template: more than ONE ZILLION uses; click for template editor instructions.

Let's say we decide we are addressing template editors. In that case, is there a need for a HU banner on either page? Here's an idea: what about instead of a banner (whether live, sandbox, or both) we move whatever wording is needed into an Edit notice instead? That would only come up when someone edits the page, and maybe we could even version the notice wording (analogous to user warning 1/2/3/4 levels) depending how complex, intricate, or meta the template is. The wording could link to a project page aimed at template editors with further instructions reminding them what's expected wrt sandboxing, test cases, and so on (possibly sectioned to address "levels"). To flag the situation, the template page (and sandbox?) could have, instead of a banner, something very unobtrusive up in a corner, perhaps just a visual icon backed with a link (to said project page; perhaps also a tooltip), or if not an icon, then a tiny box the size of a template shortcut box.

If we still want to address users and the curiosity factor, then a small icon (or shortcut-thing) with a number in it, and a link and/or tooltip providing the number of transclusions, and a link to the explanatory project page, which will make non-template editor users' eyes glaze over and make them think they are in the wrong place (which is very much the point).

Advantages of edit notice idea: avoids template-page (or sandbox) banner blindness (the notice pops up in preview, and will be "surprising" to the viewer, except perhaps for someone who spends all of their time editing high-use templates, and they don't need a warning). Also, shown only to those who can edit the page, instead of taking up space on the template page.

Disadvantage: they don't appear in mobile view. Are there any users who would edit a high use template requiring sandboxing and test cases on their phone? I *do* edit WP on my phone, but I'd never try editing a HU template that way; too scary. (I know one user who might, but he wouldn't need to be reminded not to screw up a template while doing so.)

This, perhaps, doesn't directly answer your question, but more the underlying one about how to deal with highly visible templates, and I hope it's a helpful addition to the discussion. Feel free to ignore it, and I'm fine with whatever decision y'all come up with. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

First time

Resolved

Been applying this template for many years, and this is the first time I've seen this and cannot find an explanation. Normally, when this template is added to a template's /doc page, it shows the number of transclusions of that template. Or if the template is transcluded to fewer than 2,000 pages, then it just says "many pages". Came across template {{Contentious topics/list}} today, where as you'll see, the High-use template says "many pages"; however, both the link count and Jarry1250's show the template transcluded to almost 12,000 pages. Why isn't template High-use showing the correct transclusion count for template Contentious topics/list? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 02:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably because the template isn't included in Module:Transclusion count/data/C. Why that is I can't say but it may be some edgecase with AhechtBOT (ping to Ahecht). I speculate that this could be due to the parent page having 0 transclusions. --Trialpears (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It is very peculiar for a subpage to be transcluded to thousands of pages while the parent has 0 transclusions, so that's probably it. Did notice that if the "11980" is in the first parameter, the template reads correctly (when previewed): "This template is used on approximately 12,000 pages..."; however, it remains to be seen whether the bot will pick up on that or if the first parameter would have to be manually updated the old way (probably the latter). Thank you for your help on this, editor Trialpears, and I look forward to editor Ahecht's response. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 11:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Ahechtbot appears to only update the transclusion count pages weekly, and the most recent update seems to have been just a moment before it started getting used significantly. The count will likely fix on the 22nd (I don't suspect it being a subpage is any sort of problem). Aidan9382 _(talk) 12:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, updates are weekly. Ping me if it's still not showing up next week. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

To editors Ahecht, Aidan9382 and Trialpears: the correct count now appears in the HU template in the {{Contentious topics/list}} doc page. Thank you all and Happy New Year! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 18:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Round percentage

Apparently I have to discuss this per WP:BRD. I was planning on making the % round to nearest tenth for months when I was reverted :(

I figured a way how to do this but someone disagreed with my change.

This meant my change was CONTROVERSIAL (I have to discuss this as an OOPS defense). I was planning to discuss this but I decided to be bold and do it.

So I was wondering, "should we change the % to round to the nearest tenth or add a parameter where you can set the number of decimal places to round to?" Sheep (talk • he/him) 15:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

should we change the % to round to the nearest tenth or add a parameter where you can set the number of decimal places to round to? No.

Most often these days, the count value in the percentage calculation that you modified comes from one of the modules listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Module:Transclusion count/data/. If you look in any of those modules you will see that the values are listed as some multiple of 100. When the percentage is rendered by {{high-use}}, the percentage is qualified with the term 'roughly'. Rendering the percentage more precise than 1% is more-or-less meaningless.

Further, most use of this template is in Template and Module name spaces. Most templates and modules are used only in mainspace so calculating percentage use across every page in the whole of en.wiki is meaningless. At present there are 60,526,556 pages in the whole of en.wiki whereas there are 6,816,608 articles. If any improvement were to be made to this percentage rendering, it would be to replace {{NUMBEROFPAGES}} with {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} in the percentage calculation. I have said before that we should abandon the percentage calculation. My opinion on that score has not changed.

And yeah, 'twas I who reverted the change.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)