Even better, if there was a "totals only" parameter, then it could be wrapped in a template to make a wee indicator box for editors and admins to display on their userpages, just as many people display article alerts, WP:CENT etc. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)00:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS Even better: if there was a "month" parameter to tally just one month (e.g. "month=201901"), then we could build a combined totals indicator templates for all XFDs which the module support, with a column for the current month and each of the previous three months. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)00:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: The way the module is currently coded is incompatible with XfD forums that use subpages, so no. It could be theoretically expanded to support FfD and/or RfD ifAnomieBOT were updated to create the necessary/Old unclosed discussions pages.{{3x|p}}ery (talk)02:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery andBrownHairedGirl: well, I just discovered this thread, and thought I should share -Module:Sandbox/DannyS712/count has 2 functions, countMfD and countAfD, that return the total number of unclosed threads from those forums. Since those are usually processed faster, I didn't go through the trouble of splitting it up, but Mathbot updates the AfD count every few hours, and MfD is updated automatically (I think). Would it make sense to add an extra row, of AfD: #, and MfD: # or something? --DannyS712 (talk)08:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I get the "green light" to add these, I'll clean up the Lua code and separate out the functions so they cane be added to the lua module already used for the backlog template. --DannyS712 (talk)08:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I think it looks odd to include them so far to the right. Thats why I added the border, to delineate between the formats. That being said, I'm not particularly attached to my format, so if you think one-venue-per-line is better, I'm okay with that. However, can I suggest adding the border, and/or centering the totals? --DannyS712 (talk)08:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Please replace with thecurrent version of the sandbox (diff). This wraps the list outputs with{{Div col}} to reduce the height of the display and eliminate extraneous whitespace by using multiple columns. The results can be seen at the current#Testcases section above. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk)08:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome ... since the problem is clear, but I just don't know how to Lua. But, that may change by the end of this year. ☺️Steel1943 (talk)18:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: Well, I'd like to try writing it - given that there are only 6 "cases" total (A/M/R/T/C/F xd), I don't think its a big deal to have different code for ffd. Since it doesn't have backlogs like cfd and tfd do, it only needs a "total" count. --DannyS712 (talk)21:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: At one point,WP:FFD had a 6-month backlog, so just providing a "total" may not be sufficient, especially if the administrators moderating FfD at this time go on to other tasks.Steel1943 (talk)21:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@DannyS712: FFDhas had huge backlogs in the past. There's no reason to expect the backlog not to grow again. It makes much more sense to me to incorporate FfD into the main framework of the module, given that it is easily incorporable into the framework of the module, then to have to write special-case code for everything; that's why I wrote this module to begin with.* Pppery *the end21:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of section edit links in transcluded discussions is causing problems forXFDcloser, seeWT:XFDC#On Wikipedia:Files for discussion.... It also makes finding and editing these discussions a bit less convenient. I've added code to the module sandbox that will find the section number and add an edit link for each transcluded discussion. Testing in edit preview mode ofWP:FFD#Old discussions andWP:TFD#Old discussions shows only a slight increase in Lua time/memory usage. Is there any objection to adding these edit links, or any thoughts on how they should be styled? -Evad37[talk]01:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: unless and until the actual RFD values can be included, I don't believe that an empty row should be shown. Would you please revert your edit pending discussion and consensus regarding such inclusion? I'm not going to revert myself since it would be an abuse of template editor rights, though I guess the guidance atWikipedia:Template editor doesn't apply to admins? --DannyS712 (talk)05:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly useful to include RfD given that all other XfD fora are also shown, even if there are currently blank values. I agree that a more-perfect solution would be to have the actual values in place, but having that blank space would help to encourage development of the module to include RfD if someone who is technically capable would be so inclined. In the meantime, a convenient link to RfD is in place so someone who is curious about the backlog there can check to see what it looks like for themselves, and a fuller picture of the actual XfD backlog can be realized. --Tavix(talk)05:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RAN1, @Pppery, this misses the point of that link, which is to take you to the backlog. We already have a link to the top of the page at the left of the table. If you really think it's not generally useful for RFD to link to its backlog, just remove the link instead. Personally, I think it's fine if it's not perfect every once in a while.Izno (talk)21:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record it is including the original discussion, including the break, as well as a second unclosed discussion. Anyway there's nothing else I can do here.* Pppery *it has begun...18:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On occasion people doing mass nominations have used level-5 headings for the actual nominations, grouped under a level-4 heading. Is that something that the bot should continue to support?Anomie⚔19:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template-protected edit request on 22 February 2025
Then yes, when I click on it, nothing happens apart from a pop-up message on the top right of the page: "This topic could not be found. It might have been deleted, moved or renamed." I am using Google Chrome on desktop. Is it different for you?HKLionel (talk)07:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link brings me to the table of contents, partway down the page, just as with a section link. I don't get an error popup. Maybe someone atWP:VPT would know what's going on.jlwoodwa (talk)07:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done This is out of scope for the module; it should be added toWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure instead, if you can find consensus to do so there.* Pppery *has returned11:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done -Evad37 [talk]02:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]