Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Rate"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Template:Rate still not working, looks like...) |
m |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[User:Terje|Terje]] ([[User talk:Terje|talk]]) 03:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC) | [[User:Terje|Terje]] ([[User talk:Terje|talk]]) 03:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC) | ||
| − | :See my last message, I still have the same problem with adding new ratings. I'm not sure if the problem is on my side or not. | + | :See my last message, I still have the same problem with adding new ratings. I'm not sure if the problem is on my side or not. [[User:Terje|Terje]] ([[User talk:Terje|talk]]) 08:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC) |
| − | [[User:Terje|Terje]] ([[User talk:Terje|talk]]) 08:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC) | ||
| − | ::It's | + | ::It's definitely a template problem; the '{' and '} don't even match. I'm not (currently) that bothered about the expensive CPU calls, since we have a lot of spare CPU. What ''is'' however a problem is that it's not setting the ratings properties correctly, so I'll revert it to when, although it gave those ugly warnings, it ''was'' actually setting the metadata correctly. ''Do add more ratings by the way, they're a good way to highlight our strong pages.'' -- [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 09:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 09:09, 18 December 2023
After fiddling around with it for a while now, I believe this maxes out at 99 ratings, then it gives the error message: "rating}" contains a listed "}" character as part of the property label and has therefore been classified as invalid. Could anyone increase the limit to, say, 500 ratings, since I use the feature a lot? Robin has a 167 ratings, does he get the same error message? Terje (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- See my last message, I still have the same problem with adding new ratings. I'm not sure if the problem is on my side or not. Terje (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's definitely a template problem; the '{' and '} don't even match. I'm not (currently) that bothered about the expensive CPU calls, since we have a lot of spare CPU. What is however a problem is that it's not setting the ratings properties correctly, so I'll revert it to when, although it gave those ugly warnings, it was actually setting the metadata correctly. Do add more ratings by the way, they're a good way to highlight our strong pages. -- Robin (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
