Template talk:AFC status

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:AFC status/original)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page. WikiProject icon
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Ipatrol's edit war[edit]

One could argue that it is bad if there are no submissions because that means IPs are not getting involved in creating new articles.--Ipatrol (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ipatrol, you seem to have violated WP:3RR. Please revert yourself. As someone who is not even in this WikiProject, I am struggling to see why this is so important to you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted one editor once and another twice, that comes nowhere near 3RR, also the reverts were over two seperate issues. I ask for dsicussion, not editwarring.--Ipatrol (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

1+2=3. It doesn't matter that it was different editors. You actually made the same edit four times in less than 24 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It does matter, read the policy; " Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances". Ironholds (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ipatrol, I restrict myself to 1RR when it comes to the appearance of a template, since there's really no point. If you're going to go beyond that, OK. But I'd advise you to adopt a similar policy. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we done here?--Ipatrol (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have sought opinions of others in the wikiproject. I still favour the earlier version. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Adding the picture makes the template bigger, taking up more space on my userpage! There is probably a little benefit (pretty picture), just a downside - slower to load, more screen real estate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I have now removed the space-waster. As Someguy liked the smiley this will appear inline if level 0 ever occurs :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely fail to see the point in a smiley, doesn't that make some browers tougher to load the page?--Ipatrol (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is to help confirm the shocking fact that there are no submissions pending, which if I recall has happened...twice in the last three years? And if it makes some browsers tougher to load, what was the point of your additions to the template? I still fail to understand why you feel so adamant about the appearance of this template you would edit war over it, even against the objections of those who actually use it. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen AFC clear, once after I cleared through the submissions. Is it really that rare that it's clear to deserve a smiley face?--Ipatrol (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ipatrol, stop this ridiculous behaviour. It is disruptive. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we just go back to how it used to be?--Ipatrol (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[1] I really don't understand the point of this revert. As before, I'm only going to revert once on this matter. But I'll still mention that edit warring to make a template look as you personally prefer it, and then edit warring to remove the changes another made for the same reason, achieves nothing but to reflect poorly on your own character. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Status numbers[edit]

With this (and technically this too) edit I changed the range of the AfC status template. Normal now applies only up to 40 (instead of 50), backlogged appears from 40 to 75 (instead of 50 to 100), and severely backlogged starts at 75 (instead of 100). I feel these numbers more accurately represent the state of things, such as this past week. ~ Amory (usertalkcontribs) 02:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Brutally backlogged.[edit]

Does brutally backlogged exist? And if it does what does it look like?--The Master of Mayhem 19:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah. That might explain the change of colours.--The wikifyer's corner 11:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Zach Vega (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Why >10000 as Question Marks?[edit]

Why did you say that "???" is for over 10000? Isn't this illogical? "Out of order" seems better. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

DEFCON style[edit]

I have changed this template's status style from text to DEFCON. Is this OK with you? PhilrocMy contribs 14:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the new style Philroc. I would rather have just the simply text back. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)