Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Recent

100 and 200

Hey MSGJ, I like the new formatting but was there a particular reason you removed the coding and expressions for WP:RFX100 and WP:RFX200 in the count? That's been there for quite awhile and a general practice at RFA. It'd be good to talk about removing it on a wider scale since most people don't really patrol some of the more obscure coding pages like {{Recent RfX}}. The template has undergone some fairly big changes with quite a bit of community input so any bigger changes can be discussed here. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 01:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed them because they are naff. (I forgot to include this in the edit summary though.) I always cringe when someone links to these pages. What exactly is gained from the link? If someone has 105 supports, I can work out that more than 100 people have supported them without having a link to a page which says that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No one else commented so I've removed them again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No one else patrols this page since at the time it was very new. Removing it should be talked about at WT:RFA. Even I didn't catch the comment. Mkdw^talk 12:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Automation?

It seems that this page could be automated fairly easily, and I've asked at User talk:Cyberpower678#‎Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Recent automation? about adding this to Cyberbot's routines as it already collects much of the data for ongoing RfA template. Any bot process would need to be able to accept human input to account for the nuances of RfA, of course. Please advise if there are any other considerations that need to be taken into account. –xeno^talk 14:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why not, but the bot may have issues parsing the closes to appropriately fill in the result column (most particularly in the case of failed requests). --Izno (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It's almost 2020, where are our robot overlords? –xeno^talk 21:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Tally and weight

I think this template and User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report give too much weight to tally counts. An alternative would be to display the total number of participants and the current percentage of those participants supporting. Those who want the individual counts (for what shouldn't be votes) can easily check the page. czar 23:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You might also want to raise this on WT:RFA. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• I actually prefer it the way it currently is. Lepricavark (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

They "shouldn't be votes", yet they are votes. (Yes, am implying that they are not !votes.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:100 and WP:200 and WP:300 and WP:400

See also: § 100 and 200

I am again seeking consensus to remove the links to WP:100, WP:200, WP:300 and WP:400 from this page. They are unnecessary and distract from the information in the table. Perhaps when this was first used, it was very rare to get to 100 supports. Now we are regularly getting over 300 in admin elections, I think it is time for these to go — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@MSGJ I agree, it's just more to maintain that adds little of value. Valereee (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I have removed the links. Hopefully no one will object, but we can take it to WT:RFA if necessary — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Oshwah: please see rationale for removing the links to WP:100, etc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

MSGJ - Ah, thanks for letting me know! I've removed the necessary code from the template. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes I really love this place. Valereee (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)