Template talk:Size

Template:RightTOC To help, see Project Wikis By Size

See also: Category:Wiki Size.

formatting

I just reverted an anon change to put this table on the right. Maybe that's appropriate, if it's right underneath our main wiki template, but the way I'm visioning this right now, it'll be at the very bottom of the page, and centered. Of course this can change. Please discuss when changing again. Thanks! TedErnst

All comments on formatting welcome, including placement on the page. Should it be right-justified under the Wiki template? or centered like now? TedErnst | talk 19:28, 10 Mar 2006 (EST)

Since it overlaps the main template box on small screens when centered, I moved it to the left today. TedErnst | talk 17:23, 13 Mar 2006 (EST)

Why not use the same formatting as template:wiki, with the size template designed to go below the wiki template on the right side of the page? User:BlankVerse | talk 23:09, 29 Mar 2006 (EST)

User:Smiddle/sizeTest

Could some skilled person please apply this template somehow into this? I tried but it didn't work. – Smiddle/TC@ 15:46, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Do you like it raw?

When providing a link to a wiki's statistics, is the raw count preferred, or the more user-friendly version? Obviously, it's up to the editor's discretion, but is there any advantage to providing the raw statistics without the accompanying explanations? --MarvelZuvembie 16:16, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Raw is good for MediaWikis in rarely spoken languages i.e. Chinese, because raw is in "SimpleEnglish". --Wolf | talk 06:25, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Raw does not currently work on Wikia sites (it returns an unrecognised expression error message). And on non-Western language MediaWikis, raw does not always render numeric values in western digits - I end up looking up the data on the meta table. So my own personal experience is that raw is actually a detriment to the current template, and is currently serving no purpose! Hoof Hearted 01:57, 21 June 2011 (PDT)

The use of the raw version was only a suggestion and is not planned to be integrated here (as far as I know). So it can be decided on a case by case basis. Best --Wolf | talk 02:13, 21 June 2011 (PDT)

It definately had been implemented . . . on most of the Wikia sites, where the 'long-hand' size template was used (rather than the shorthand templates which are used on most Wikipedia/Wiktionary etc), the raw was used in the long URL entry. I've had to correct loads of these. And as for the Wikipedia/Wiktionary etc short-code templates, it seems to have been implemented into these too - though these don't seem to be causing a problem. Back to where raw has been used on the Wikia entries, it isn't a problem for experienced wiki editors to correct this, but for the causal wiki reader (like: what happens when I click here) - an error message doesn't look very good nor very professional - so we should both refrain from using raw on Wikia entries, and correct any existing Wikia entries which use it. Rgds, Hoof Hearted 04:22, 21 June 2011 (PDT)

parameters without underscores

Thanks to Speckmade who got it running with one edit[1] . Greetings! Wolf | talk 06:28, 21 December 2008 (EST)

wikiFactor

Hello folks, trying to leave a comment in the correct place - I would like the wikiFactor above the number of pages, both for aesthetics and because it is cool! Please point me to any discussion of this. Best, MarkDilley

I've found your original ping (at Template talk:WikiFactorCatText). The idea is very new (cool indeed). Let's give it a try. It's still open, if the value of wikiFactor can be understood easily (is it a criterion of quality, importance, "inner" size ?). In a few day we know more about that. I want to make a graph then with the first about 50 samples. So help with adding some more factors! ;-) Greetings --Wolf | talk 04:27, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Cool! Saw the proposal about moving this into a new updated Wiki template - sounds great! I want to also think about throwing the parameter of the size of the wikiFactor into the template, so that on the category page, they are ordered by size and not alphabetically. Best, MarkDilley

I agree; I think ordering by size is indeed more useful than by the wiki name. -- Carl McBride (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

"good pages" for MediaWikis

What should we do about this? It's an endless work to tell folks that only the value "good pages" (often called legitimate content pages) should be used here at wikiindex. I think it's time to discuss this point again. As an active contributor to some MediaWikis, I know the difference well - but, no wiki software but MediaWiki knows this difference. I suggest to [edit] this. --Wolf | talk 15:31, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm guessing you think "this" is a problem. What is the problem?

Yes, we agreed that "stubs don't count" on Talk:WikiProject:By Size and Category talk:Wiki Size, but I suspect many people using this template haven't read that obscure page.

Rather than tell individual users one at a time which number to use, I put instructions on what number to use here on Template:Size once and for all.

Does that solve "this", whatever problem "this" is?

And yes, I think wikis are cool, because "edit this" is often the solution to just about any problem on a wiki.

--DavidCary 00:03, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

I think the problem is, that, MediaWiki-based wikis are discriminated a little by doing so. Ok, the value All Pages is much too high indeed - because Images and Categories can be very poor in information. Let's keep that in mind. It seems to be a good deal to support two MediaWiki-specific property names within the to-do new template:wiki: mw_good_pages and mw_total_pages, displaing both values and autocategorizing only by the first one. --Wolf | talk 04:06, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

The easiest 'answer' to this issue is to add some 'hidden text' into the size template – something like <!-- use only the smaller 'legitimate content pages' number, and NOT the larger 'total pages in the database' number -->. Rgds, Hoof Hearted 04:29, 21 June 2011 (PDT)

As of

I'd suggest a new parameter for smart time stamping. This can be done unsing a template with the subst-syntax. Please have a look at {{now}}. Regards --Wolf | talk 04:10, 12 November 2009 (EST)

I like that, it looks very good - see Goatopedia. Maybe we can permanently include it into the size template? Or would that then cause the date to change on an article every time said article is editied (even when the stats arn't actually updated)? Hoof Hearted 05:25, 21 June 2011 (PDT)

OK, having tried to fix the {{now}} template without any success, I've now editied this {{size}} template to include (As of: DD Mmmm YYYY). Basically, every entry which uses the size template will now automatically be appended with '(As of: DD Mmmm YYYY)' – so hopefully, this should prompt editors of both new and existing articles to add a date. Hope this is useful. Rgds, Hoof Hearted 08:24, 26 June 2011 (PDT)

TOCright

I've tried to include a TOC, using the {{TOCright}} code, as in here – but despite my best efforts, this then includes the TOC on every article which uses this {{size}} template (or a substituted version of it). I'll delete it again from the template, but I'd appreciate some help in getting the TOC to show right in the template (because it helps with navigation), but not in the articles this template is used in. Rgds Hoof Hearted 04:59, 21 June 2011 (PDT)