Template talk:Page-multi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Module talk:PageLinks)

Impetus[edit]

This template and module was built because {{ln}} isnt good enough for {{Rfd2m}}. The initial notes are at Template talk:Ln#New stats tool. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 2 April 2015[edit]

This is actually a request to edit Module:PageLinks which has its talk page redirected here. The function StatsGrokSeURL is passing bad data to the stats tool. Page titles with spaces are being passed with the spaces replaced with "+" instead of (probably) "%20", so the stats tool shows zero hits for those pages. For example, Conspiracy theory (stats) vs. the proper stats link. I don't know the language well enough to suggest a fix. Ivanvector (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely passing underscores would be better? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Alakzi (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Stats" link displaying wrong month[edit]

I'm not sure what is going on, given that I do not see any recent edits on Template:Page-multi or Module:PageLinks, but in all instances where this template has been transcluded with substitutions of Template:Rfd2, {{Page-multi}} returns page view results for the previous month. Even in the example on Template:Page-multi/doc, the example is returning results for July instead of August. Is this intentional? And if not, how can this be fixed? (If it can be fixed, the link to be used for the template should be something like "http://stats.grok.se/en/latest30/PAGENAME" instead of utilizing a month.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is by design, as the current month's stats would self-evidently be incomplete. Perhaps we could show the stats of the last 30 days instead? Alakzi (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC) [Edit: Doh, that's what you linked to. Alakzi (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)][reply]
I always thought that behaviour was intentional, because showing stats from the immediately previous 30 days would inherently include hits resulting from the discussion itself, so the data would be skewed. Showing data from the prior month is a handy solution to that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request for "stats"[edit]

As mentioned above, could the "stats" link be changed to display the results for the previous 30 60 (Change made per discussion below. Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)) days rather than the previous month? (Disclosure: I am a template editor, but my knowledge of Lua is low, so I am not sure how to make this change. Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the change in the module sandbox. Alakzi (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there consensus to make this change? The comment from User:Ivanvector makes me think that there isn't. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh don't let me stop you, I could be entirely mistaken. Anyway I think folks who regularly participate in RfDiscussions are smart enough to account for our own impact on the stats. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the current situation is only really helpful when the discussion starts at the beginning of the month. Near the end of the month, it actually causes accurate page view issues since the previous days of the current month are not included in the view count provided. However, if others would rather that timeline be set for 60 days or 90 days instead, I don't care ... as long as all of the days leading up to the present day are included in the page view graph. Steel1943 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we doing this? Alakzi (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we are, my vote is for the 60-days option so that the current days and the previous month are covered. I'm okay with 90 as well. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be made so that it's 60 (or 90) days from the day before the nomination? That would eliminate noise from the nomination itself, but still be very accurate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not an option on the stats site. Alakzi (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I thought that might be the case. Go ahead with 60-days, then, and let's see how it goes. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: Could you copy and paste the code from the sandbox? Alakzi (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alakzi and Ivanvector,  Done. Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone wanting to verify this edit was successful, please see this page and click the "stats" link to the side of the nomination at the top for "Blaming". Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is successful, I have verified it. Like Sam Weller, I am so wery umble. User:Steel1943 did the courtesy of notifying me of this, over at WT:RFD#stats link. All works fine for me as a non-admin, as I said there, I tend to check for 90 days anyway to kinda knock out any spikes before saying "about one a day" or "below noise level" or something like that. Absolutely fine with me, with the exception that I still think 90 would be better than 60, but 60 is better than 30. WP:NOTPERFECT, but better. Si Trew (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've only just seen this discussion (a note at WT:RFD would have been at least courteous) and I very strongly oppose this change (to last n days) and ask it be reverted back to month -1. The last n-days (for all values of n) include the hits generated by the redirect being listed at RfD, which frequently grossly distort the figures to the point they are useless, getting more so the longer it appears on RfD. If stats.grok.se had a static n-days before date option we could use that, but it doesn't so instead we use the preceding month by design to avoid this issue. It isn't perfect towards the end of a month, but the next and previous months are easily navigable, and it avoids presenting misleading figures to those who don't immediately recognise this (it has come up many times over the years). Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated above, the reason why "-1 month" is not helpful is due to the results not being helpful if the nomination occurs near the end of the month, and the reason why "60 days" was a possible better option is so the previous month is still considered in the results. That, and if the closer cannot properly confirm the validity of statements made during discussions in reference to "page views" by reading the results, then they shouldn't be closing those discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's exactly why it is helpful as it shows the typical views unaffected by RfD. Redirects <1 month old do not have reliable viewing figures regardless of when in the month they are nominated as the first few days after creation often sees traffic from page patrollers and those people browsing other editor's recent contributions, and things that pop up on their watchlist. This should be known by admins closing debates (but isn't always) but more importantly it is not known by the vast majority of people who are not RfD regulars (and seemingly also by some who are). Any window that includes the day of nomination at RfD and any subsequent days it is linked on RfD, has distorted and therefore irrelevant and misleading page viewing statistics - this is not fair for discussion participants, particularly as it's a rolling window and so gets increasingly inaccurate. The only way around this is either month -1 (which it has been by consensus going back years) or a static n days (which is not possible at stats.grok.se or any other tool I know of). Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Has anyone asked User:Henrik or any of the other tool developers about adding a "30 days prior to date" function? --Ahecht (TALK
        PAGE        ) 00:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer this over the decided-upon "60 days from present" option. I understand Thryduulf's concerns, but I believe my concerns are just as valid. But, upgrading the tool would probably resolve all of these concerns. Steel1943 (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 5 February 2016[edit]

Over at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) it's been pointed out that the stats.grok.se tool has been effectively inoperative since January 20. MusikAnimal has created a replacement tool while we wait for an "official" tool to be deployed by WMF. Can this template and the underlying module be updated to make use of MusikAnimal's tool? See here for link. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to try to edit the Lua module as I have zero experience with that, but for whoever responds to this, here's the url structure:
//tools.wmflabs.org/musikanimal/pageviews#pages={{PAGENAMEE}}&lang=en
where {{PAGENAMEE}} is the escaped page name — MusikAnimal talk 15:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to specify a date range? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it is, using (for example) //tools.wmflabs.org/musikanimal/pageviews#start=2016-01-16&end=2016-02-04&lang=en&pages=Main_Page but it means doing some math in Lua. By default it shows only the previous two weeks, which is too short. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well then per the thread above, can we have links generated by the template specify the previous 60 days? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, what Ahecht has above is the correct URL structure if you would like to add a date range. It should show by default the past 20 days. The chart is a JavaScript library, nothing we wrote, and unfortunately a 60-day range does not come out very pretty :/ — MusikAnimal talk 17:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I see what you mean. Well, it's not too pretty, but it does get the info across. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal and Ivanvector: I switched over the stats.grok.se to use the toollabs page views. By default it shows the last 60 days to emulate the old view, but if you add a |date= parameter it will show the 30 days prior to that date (per the above discussion). The date string should either start with YYYY-MM-DD or YYYYMMDD (so you can use {{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}). I won't change {{Rfd2}} until I get consensus there (or at least no objection), but I put a note on the talk page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht: I've added support for all WMF wikis (that have the pageview extension, presumably all of them). So now instead of lang=en you will use project=en.wikipedia.org. This is not really a breaking change for enwiki because enwiki is already the default, but thought I'd let you know anyway — MusikAnimal talk 21:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal: Got it, thanks. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht: Another update... I've moved the tool to toollabs:pageviews instead of /musikanimal/pageviews. There will be a redirect soon, but you should still update the link. This is to unbundle the tool from my Ruby app, as they have nothing to do with each other and if the Ruby app goes down I don't want pageviews to go down too. Additionally the new home at /pageviews conveys that it's a tool for everyone, and not some proprietary product of mine :)
All you need to do here is remove /musikanimal from the link. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 16:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal: The links don't seem to be working correctly at the new location. When I go to something like https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2001-12-01&end=2001-12-30&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Talk:Main_Page it gets rewritten as https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/#start=2015-10-01&end=2015-10-01&project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&pages=Talk:Main_Page (note the date change) and the chart never loads. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht: Hit refresh a second time and it will work. Data from the pageviews API doesn't go back earlier than October 2015, which is why the date changed. The app correctly repaired the URL but it did break on initial load, which is something I will have to fix :) Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 18:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 July 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) The Duke of NonsenseWhat is necessary for thee? 20:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Make module names match template names {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 16:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Module:PageLinks has over 26,000 transclusions. Module:UserLinks has over 660,000 transclusions. Because we can't leave behind module redirects, this move would require over 685,000 associated changes. Wikipedia:Requested moves is not well-equipped to deal with requests of this type. A possible workaround was discussed at User talk:RMCD bot#Module RM and employing bots has been discussed, but I am not sure it is workable to do things this way, or sufficiently necessary that it would be worth the large amount of effort that would be involved. I am still not sure we should do module moves through RM. Dekimasuよ! 20:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak oppose: The current names show what the modules do. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think they need to have the same name as the template they use. @Dekimasu and Xaosflux: Correct me if I'm wrong again, but aren't those transclusions through the templates? We just change the link in {{user-multi}} and {{page-multi}} and eventually, all the relevant pages will purge and no other changes will need to be done. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dekimasu: I'm not very good at the techy stuff here, which is why I mentioned Xaosflux. Xaosflux, is there a way to see what templates call on these modules? Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:PageLinks & choose the Template namespace. -- Cabayi (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any good reason for doing this just because of the module title, it should be transparent to most editors to leave it alone. — xaosflux Talk 09:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think consistency with the template name is beneficial here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose trivial change, massive workload, zero improvement on the user-experience. Pointless. Cabayi (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Protected edit request on 4 May 2021[edit]

Change the edit and history links external links to their respective Special pages of Special:EditPage and Special:PageHistory. Code diffs:

From To 
local function makeEditLink()
    local url = p:fullUrl( 'action=edit' );
    return '[' .. url .. ' edit]'
end
 →  
local function makeEditLink()
    return '[[Special:EditPage/' .. p.fullText .. '|edit]]'
end

local function makeHistoryLink()
    local url = p:fullUrl( 'action=history' );
    return '[' .. url .. ' history]'
end
 →  
local function makeHistoryLink()
    return '[[Special:PageHistory/' .. p.fullText .. '|history]]'
end

Thanks, TGHL ↗ 21:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I completely fail to see the point of doing this. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: It would have changed the colour of the edit and history links from #3366BB for external URLs to the darker #0645AD for internal links. Not a significant change on its own, sure, but when put together as (edit | talk | history) or (edit | talk | history) when :visited the (internal) talk link stands out as its surrounding (external) edit and history links are lighter. TGHL ↗ 21:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. (I forgot that external links render in a different color). Now  Done * Pppery * it has begun... 21:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGoodAndHolyLord and Pppery: Any reason not to also do this with pageViewsURL? toolforge:pageviews/?start=2021-01-01&end=2021-07-27&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Example is a perfectly valid interwiki link. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht: correct me if I'm wrong but the visual output would be identical. The links are all given the plainlinks class so the removal of the background-image would be done anyways. The lighter blue colour #3366BB would still be preserved (as it should be). This option would definitely be more flexible, though, and easier to understand for at-a-glance readers of the Lua code. External interwiki links, however, are still relatively unknown IMO – they are discouraged from use on articles and have since fallen out of popular use, and this change may lead to some confusion early on. All in all, though, I support. TGHL ↗ 🍁 01:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 06:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broken[edit]

The recent changes seem to have broken the page views links. See the most recent RfD entries. Please revert until this can be fixed. Cc: User:Ahecht. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC) PS If this was intentional then it was poorly thought out. Using interwiki links may be fine, but the full link should be piped to reflect previous behaviour. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fixed - the page views link wasn't being piped as before, it is now. firefly ( t · c ) 11:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul 012: Sorry about that. It worked in all my offline testing, but I must've published my debug version by mistake. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bug with links for popups[edit]

Comparing the sets of links produced:

{{la|Example}}
Example (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
{{pagelinks|Example}}
Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If I hover over the links via 'la', WP:POPUPS gives me a preview, such as the page-history when I over over 'history'. That's typical POPUPS behaior for any bluelink on wiki. When I hover over the links via 'pagelinks', which uses Module:PageLinks, there is no preview. If I click on the links, everything works, and I get to the same targets either way. So this seems like a weakness in now PageLinks is generating the links. Maybe it needs a special CSS class, formatting detail, or other hint? DMacks (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoisted to Template talk:Ln, the centralized talkpage for 'pagelinks' and the 'l*' family. DMacks (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Page-multi&oldid=1130768056"