Wikipedia talk:Template limits

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] New template limits, Special:ExpandTemplates

The new template expansion limits, announced on wikitech-l and wikipedia-l, are now in effect on a trial basis. Keep an eye out for any broken articles. Note that there is some information to help track down problems in comments in the HTML source of the parser output. To help editors to substitute templates for literal text in problem articles, I've introduced a new special page: Special:ExpandTemplates. It works like adding subst: to all the templates, except you don't have to repeatedly save the page. -- Tim Starling 07:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Example [1]: Shows a test with inclusions of template:cite web, where the limit is reached at 267 example calls of cite web. The critical thing is the Pre-expand include size, which is now limited to 1MB (Look at the html source of the page and find the string "Pre-expand include size", which is included in a html comment). The html contains {{cite web}}<!-- WARNING: template omitted, pre-expand include size too large --> for calls that exceed the Pre-expand include size limit. --Ligulem 09:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
From the above link: "Example Shows a test with inclusions ..."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ligulem/work/sandbox&oldid=69549203] 
<!-- 
Pre-expand include size: 918900 bytes
Post-expand include size: 218100 bytes
Template argument size: 238200 bytes
Maximum: 2048000 bytes
-->
I'm not sure where to discuss this, but I have noticed several pages that use "Template:Familytree" include that template a number of times, and when it gets to about 26 transclusions they aren't expanded any more. Here's an example: User:Timc/Sandbox. -- timc talk 02:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Template:Familytree is large and ugly. You can either reduce its size, to allow you to fit more of them in the 1MB limit, or you can subst it into pages instead of including. -- Tim Starling 03:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Tim, how does the limit work with things bounded by <noinclude> tags (or everything not bounded by <onlyinclude> tags) on the template page? Do they add towards the limit or does only the info which is actually transcluded for evaluation counted? I'd assume they aren't included in the computation, but worth checking. Also, {{listadmins}} fails now, but lists the Pre-expand include size as 'only' 837703. I assume it stops counting at and doesn't include the item that puts it over the limit? --CBD 10:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but the relative size of the <noinclude> section is small compared to the rest of the template. -- timc talk 13:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
<noinclude> sections are included in the pre-expand size. If the documentation is large or frequently changed, I'd recommend that you move it to a subpage. Then you can transclude it into both the <noinclude> section and the talk page. It does indeed stop counting when an item puts it over the limit, this behaviour is intended to allow the bulk of a page to render correctly when there is a single large template present plus a number of small templates further down. The large template will be left out, but the small templates will still be included. -- Tim Starling 21:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. If I remove the <noinclude> part from template:cite web entierly and repeat the test I described above here in this section, I can do 380 inclusions of the cite web template code instead of 267 for that testcase. What a difference! I would strongly recommend that an admin edits template:cite web accordingly. (Cite web is currently included on 18,500 pages) --Ligulem 22:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I am glad I found this section, I was wondering what is happening to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. In this page, we transclude sub-pages for daily reports of copyright problems; everything was going well, but we currently have quite a large backlog, meaning that we seem to hit the limit. Any idea about what we should do ? Remove the backlog would be a good thing to do (but I can't help much with that), but it will come back at some point. Schutz 22:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I would say you need to completely redesign that page. Transcluding that much of stuff into a page is no longer working. --Ligulem 22:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hum... Ok, we could simply link to the pages for the individual days instead of transcluding them (the way it is done on WP:AFD); that would solve the problem in the short term. However, it could become a problem for pages such as WP:AFD too; looking at one random but recent example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 11, this page is getting close to the limit. In a "good" (or rather bad) day, there may be many articles listed for deletion, with a few of them attracting a fair number of comments, and it may be enough to get past the limit. Is the 1 Mb limit negotiable if we see that some of these articles get bitten by the limit ? Schutz 23:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The limit is negotiable, maybe we could raise it to 1.5 or 2MB if there was a solid case for that. But note that splitting these pages up does have a significant beneficial impact on server load. It might be better to analyse them and look at why they get so big -- maybe it's a big hassle to manage per-day pages like on AfD, and even more so to split them up further. Maybe new features in MediaWiki or bot-driven automation could help with that. I'm willing to hear your ideas. Increasing the limit might be good in the short term, but it's not going to solve the usability and performance problems that huge pages cause. -- Tim Starling 00:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_28 hits the limit with 13 debates un-transcluded. Pre-expand include size: 1047585 bytes Post-expand include size: 956640 bytes Template argument size: 4759 bytes Maximum: 1048576 bytes Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_26 is close, don't know about anything beyond 20060810224009 though.
The number of pages on AFD is only going to keep increasing, and I can see how the pages may not be managable for people as is... so I see how just increasing the limit doesn't really solve anything. However, can you have the template parameters listed and/or the transclusion linked? Would make AFD pages being cut off at least bearable still (but WP:AFD/Old's statistics and other bot run things are probably broken) until things are sorted out. Kotepho 01:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Having omitteded transclusions linked would be nice to have, but not critical, as those pages need to be fixed anyway by editors. I don't know how ugly it would be to implement in MediaWiki. If it is ugly to implemenet, I would say leave it as it is. --Ligulem 08:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
For WP:CP, as mentioned above, I am going to make subpages instead of transcluding so many pages; this should solve the problem (there aren't that many copyright violations). For WP:AFD, I don't know, but I am happy to help with any bot work (especially given that I found the problem on WP:CP while investigating my bot's work). Schutz 06:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not terribly familiar with what y'all are talking about in this thread, but is this what's going on in List of Hebrew names? —ptk✰fgs 03:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If you look at the source, you will see errors like "<!-- WARNING: template omitted, pre-expand include size too large -->". -- timc talk 04:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to subst template:unicode but that produced a section that looked like this (excerpt):
{{{1}}} {{{1}}}
    * {{{1}}} {{{1}}}, {{{1}}}, Tola. "Worm; grub." Masculine.
    * {{{1}}} {{{1}}}, {{{1}}}, Thomas. "Twin." Masculine.
Substing just some templates on a off-limits page doesn't seem to work. It looks like we can't use MediaWiki server for substing in this case (yes we could subst everything by Special:ExpandTemplates, but I wanted to try substing gradually). --Ligulem 08:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I fixed List of Hebrew names by substing template:unicode in several steps (per sections) in my sandbox. --Ligulem 09:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Tim, above you suggested transcluding documentation into a 'noinclude' section of the template page rather than having it reside there directly. That would seem to imply that the 'pre-expand' size of a template is only the size of the contents of that page NOT including the size of any templates called by it... otherwise there would be no benefit to the procedure you suggest. This almost seems to then become an argument for 'meta-templating'. For instance, wouldn't that mean that if an article contained {{example|param1=Fred|param2=Fish}} that 'template:example' could be set up to be just {{handoff|{{{param1}}}|{{{param2}}}}} with all of the complicated logic/text actually in the 'handoff' template? Thus minimizing the size of the template called while still having exactly the same logic/display - just once removed? Obviously, that's... silly... but I'm trying to understand the rationale behind the methodology here. We have been consolidating alot of things with sub-templates into single templates to avoid 'nested transclusions', but this change now seems likely to lead to the reverse.
Would it somehow be possible TO include 'sub-template' size in the 'pre-expand' size and NOT include 'noinclude' type materials? Since the goal (as I understand it) is to limit the amount of text being 'transcluded in for evaluation' I would think we would want to take these issues into account. For example, if a 900kb page is transcluded, but everything except the word 'frog' is bounded by 'noinclude' tags you are really only transcluding the word 'frog' and the evaluation is quite fast (I just checked)... so why count the full 900kb towards the limit? In contrast, if you call a template which is only six characters long, but those six characters are calling another page which is 900kb long it takes several seconds to evaluate but still only counts as six characters. I can imagine that there are technical difficulties in ignoring 'noinclude' info and including 'sub-template' info, but not doing so seems to give some results wildly inconsistent with the intent - and open an easy loophole for getting around it while page loads are still just as slow. --CBD 00:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Sub-templates are included in the size, just not sub-templates included from within <noinclude> sections. To put it another way, the <noinclude> sections are counted and removed, but they're not expanded. There's no loophole. Documentation subpages have been an agenda of mine for months, because at the moment, editing the documentation for a template adds an item to the job queue for every page that uses the template, and clears the cache of all those pages too. Documentation subpages are not registered in the links for pages using the template, so editing a documentation subpage only clears the cache of the template itself, not the pages that use it. There is a technical solution for this: some people have suggested stripping <noinclude> sections from the template before and after a change, comparing the two, and then only clearing caches and adding items to the job queue if the resulting stripped version has changed. It'll probably be implemented at some stage, but it's not here yet.
As for removing <noinclude> sections from the limit -- I did consider it when I was writing the feature. Although <noinclude> sections are among the cheapest things the parser has to process, they still do have a finite cost. One could easily imagine a DoS attack based on including thousands of templates consisting of only a 1MB <noinclude> section -- or worse, tens of thousands of small <noinclude> sections per template inclusion. Whether or not it has <noinclude> around it, the text still has to be loaded from the database. There are costs such as disk I/O, DB cache size, network bandwidth, and of course the CPU time spent removing the tags. It seems to be a good candidate for inclusion in the limit. -- Tim Starling 05:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been thinking about doc subpages for templates too, because people do like documentation on template pages and editing of documentation should be separated from editing template code (at least for heavy use templates). I image we could even have a doc tab for templates (we currently have "template" and "talk"), but I have no idea how ugly this would be to implement. Yet another namespace? In any case, it is very interesting that you are thinking of documentation subpages. --Ligulem 09:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that (only sub-templates in 'noinclude' sections are 'not counted') makes alot more sense. My primary objection to counting 'noinclude' sections is that I had just been discussing a change to featured lists to mark various sections of a list page 'onlyinclude' so that when the list page were transcluded it would produce a nice little blurb similar to an 'article of the day' page (see User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox2 for an example)... which could then be made into a 'List of the day' and/or 'random list' on the featured content page. Obviously, that is now untenable and separate pages would have to be set up for the blurb on each list and manually updated when the list info changes. While the 'resource cost' of unincluded sections is not zero it is clearly significantly less than the cost of included sections. If there are not significant technical difficulties in doing so it might be nice to somehow reflect those different impacts in the 'expansion limits' logic. --CBD 10:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If it aint broke, don't fix it

In relation to this template expansion limits issue I'd like to suggest that people hold off on 'fixing' things for the time being. If a page isn't displaying right then obviously we need to do something to get it back to working, but I'm seeing people mass moving documentation, substing templates, discussing redesigns, et cetera. We may end up adopting standards and wanting to do these things... but there is no rush. If it isn't causing a page to display improperly right now then changing things before this new limit is fully evaluated/understood and worked into our standards may end up needing to be changed back. Until yesterday it would have been inconceivable to have a 'documentation' sub-page transcluded in for every template (or many templates). Before we do that to hundreds of pages I think we should evaluate it a bit more. It might be easier to just make documentation on template talk pages standard (though I've always preferred it on the template page). Or there may be changes (per my questions above) which make this documentation problem moot. And there are other issues to consider. For instance, note that categories and interwiki links shouldn't be relocated to such a sub-page... which means a popular template that is interwiki'd all over actually becomes less usable because of the increased size from the interwikis - so maybe we want to consider a different way of doing template interwikis. Et cetera. --CBD 01:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In case you are referring to my edits (example): The benefits of the doc subpage for in template included noinclude parts is obvious. Templates which are by their nature intended as meta-templates (templates to be included in other templates), like those from Category:Date computing template or stuff like template:cite news which is intended to be included in pages multiple times (10, 20 times) clearly benefit from the extracted doc pattern. The MediaWiki parser has to parse the whole content of the noinclude, but it can skip templates included in noinclude sections. And per the change on template cite news: if we leave the doc inside the template page itself, it "eats up" from the pre-transclude-size of each page this template is included. Wikipedians will stop using templates like template:cite news if they encounter that the limit is crossed at the very moment they look at a broken preview of their edit, and they will skip that edit. Why should we risk that, if we know better? So what do you want to wait on? What do you need to "evaluate" further? What isn't understood? --Ligulem 07:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
What does discussion / evaluation help? Well, until I asked about unincluded sections people were talking mostly about recoding templates to save space... since they have been talking mostly about removing documentation. Until I asked about sub-templates it wasn't clear (to me at least) that while unincluded sections are counted sub-templates in unincluded sections are counted by the length of the template call rather than the template page... though the reverse is true for included sections (i.e. page size not call size).
What is there still to discuss / evaluate? Well, if we are going to do this 'documentation sub-page' methodology we should think about how best to work it. For instance, in your 'MONTHNAME' example above you left the categories and interwikis behind on the template page when you created the documentation sub-page. However, in my experience those are the two unincluded items which get updated most frequently. After thinking about it I wonder if it would make sense to also move these to the 'documentation sub-page' and place them inside 'includeonly' tags there so that they show up on the template page, but not the sub-page? Any drawbacks to that? Would it be a good idea to establish a standard that the 'documentation sub-pages' of protected templates should be unprotected so that anyone can add interwikis and the like? 'Look before you leap' is seldom a bad idea. You reference how removal of unincluded sections (arising BTW out of the discussion here) has increased the 'cite-news limit' from 267 to three-hundred something. Ok, but.... were there really any pages with more than 267 news citations on them? Or running over the limit because of this template in conjunction with others? It seems implausible to me... so what harm in fully evaluating and discussing the best way to handle this new limitation?
Sorry, I'm a 'ducks in a row' kind of guy. I like to get all the answers and general agreement on standards before implementation. Ohhh... another idea, could we standardize on using something short like <noinclude>{{/doc}}</noinclude> for all 'documentation sub-pages' so they can always be found at the same name? Also, if we made a ==Documentation== or somesuch standard at the top of all sub-pages then people who have 'section editing' turned on would see an edit link for the documentation on the main template page, but actually be editing the sub-page when they clicked it... rather than having to know how to find the sub-page at 'Name/doc'. --CBD 11:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I'm more the quick shot one :) (If I see there is no danger in doing so). BTW, I was fixing [2] by applying the doc subpage pattern. But I will hold off from further actions for now (but I do think I already catched some of the worst cases anyway). --Ligulem 11:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Found a casualty on meta

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:List_of_language_names_ordered_by_code --NE2 16:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed by replacing the template calls with the expanded wiki-source by using m:Special:ExpandTemplates (see project page). --Ligulem 18:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not very useful

Forgive me, but this isn't a useful feature, particularly without giving any kind of warning on Wiki (the mailing list is all well and good but basically invisible). It breaks WP:CP for a start, so the WMF can just live with noone being able to list, review or delete illegal text. Or, the devs can write us a bot that daily subst's the page. Or just get rid of this 'feature'. -Splash - tk 17:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"It breaks WP:CP for a start", well nothing new (see VPT), that's why I've added it to the new Category:Pages exceeding template inclusion limits. And I must say we shouldn't optimise MediaWiki for this kind of page. It is very atypical. I'm sure we will find another solution for this page. And the "feature" is not a feature per se, it helps running the servers smoothly and disables certain template DOS attacks. These limits make sense to me and I trust Tim that he installed it for good reason. And I also see no problem the way he introduced it. I have read the announcement on the mailing list and I was aware what he intended to do. And you can't get your feet wet by endless theorising upfront. These new limits do work astonishingly well. --Ligulem 18:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's new. CP wasn't broken until this was introduced. Adding it to a category does what, exactly? Does it allow AfD to function? CP? Does it break articles, processes, policies? And I suppose we're supposed to accept that, say, everyone reads VPT? I didn't ask for theorising, I asked for some advance warning that large numbers of things were going to be wilfully broken. In what sense do they "work astonishingly well"? They are invisible unless they break things, at which point things aren't working at all. I read the mailing list posts now and see that they are protection against a problem that never occurred, which is all very well, but it's a solution that is really a long way suboptimal. -Splash - tk 19:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes it's new. What I wanted to say is, it had already been reported on VPT. As such, it's no news. Which "large things are willfully broken"? BTW the problem *did* occur here, caused by such things (which demonstrated the attack vector). Or do you think server response times in the order of 10 or 20 seconds to update the cached html of a page are acceptable? Well, ok, I'm not a WikiMedia dev anyway and do have nothing to say about how this wiki is configured. Tim does. He's also co-responsible for keeping the site running. So probably I should better shut up on this anyway. But Tim has my support on this. --Ligulem 23:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limit increased, links added

I increased the limit from 1024KB to 2000KB and changed the code to add links to missing templates. WP:CP now works, although it takes 8.5 seconds to render and generates 1.5 MB of HTML, so I wouldn't like to call it "fixed". -- Tim Starling 23:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the edit conflict (did I overlook an indicator?), I just happended to have rechecked WP:CP at the same time. Yes, the page should and can be reorganised, iff Splash (and others) agree to reorganise this page. --Ligulem 23:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, the complaint in my edit summary was in jest, it's not late enough in the day yet for me to get angry at edit conflicts :) -- Tim Starling 23:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that page will inevitably exceed the limit again before too much longer if the methodology isn't changed. Though they have plenty of warning now. The links for suppressed templates is a nice addition BTW. --CBD 23:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I imagine "they" would be very open to suggestions about how to change "their" methodology if you'd like to give "them" a call. Although honestly, the only changes "they" can probably make are to not display the entries on "their" page. A methodology that doens't actually display the listing isn't so hot, really, but perhaps it's the only way if whatever the actual problem in MW is can't be fixed further away from the editorial frontline. -Splash - tk 00:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Please replace "they" with "we" :). Seriously: Splash, thank you for expressing your concerns with WP:CP. Now let's try to find a solution: Do you think it would be completely inacceptable to split up the page in subpages, and simply link them from WP:CP instead of transcluding each and every subpage into WP:CP? Please forgive me, but — while certainly very important for organising the project — WP:CP is not part of the encyclopedia material as such, so couldn't we try to be a bit less demanding there and save some resources in favor for computing power for the articles? --Ligulem 07:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It is less a concern with CP and more a concern with the 'solution' to the problem taken by the devs. (Who can of course solve problems however they choose, but they can still take criticism, too.) It appears to me that the 'solution' has been to 'fix' MediaWiki by breaking Wikipedia, and so the 'solution' is a bad one. I think you're over egging the pudding rather with the implication that CP is causing computational resource problems with article reading/writing/maintaining. Both were getting along dandy until this new (arbitrary) limit was invented. As to your suggestion, well, that's what I had in mind when I said above that a methodology that doesn't display the listing isn't so hot, but may be the only way. CP is a ghastly backlog because it's damn hard admin graft -- making it the harder is only going to work around the (new) technical flaw rather than actually make anything better. But I can't see any other way until MediaWiki is fixed. -Splash - tk 11:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I should be clearer on why non-transclusion is a poor approach. Apart from the admin-hate it will generate, it will make it rather much the harder for an editor to find their article's listing if it doesn't appear on the page the relevant links take them too. ({{copyvio}} isn't substed becuause....it's so much code, oh the irony.) Having to negotiate their way through several potentially large pages to locate their item is going obviously to cause them problems. Now not many copyvio listings are challenged, but really MediaWiki shouldn't have aspects that actually make life harder where before it was relatively easy. -Splash - tk 11:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't easy for the servers and Tim probably had to decide to do something about it. He sure can't wait until the servers are down before he does something. Furthermore, we probably cannot expect that pages like CP are explicitly excluded from the template limit logic. I know we editors are damn greedy when it comes to features (I was such a bad guy myself on that qif debacle) and the devs do have to give us some firm stops when needed (preferably done in the software and not with policies). And it is up to Tim to decide what stops are needed. Wikipedia is growing tremendously and it's in the interest of all of us that it runs well. Some collateral "damage" (from editors standpoint) is sometimes inevitable. As long as only some procedural pages like CP are effected, we are better off taking that bitter pill for the sake of the whole site. Ligulem 12:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#New template limits. --Ligulem 12:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it really is 'they'. The regulars at CP are the ones who will have to deal with whatever system is used there. As to suggestions... to keep generally the same functionality while reducing transcluded size I'd go with a change of archiving method. Currently alot of closed entries stick around for weeks until all the other entries from the same day are closed. If you instead had a monthly archive page (with headers for each day in the month) you could move each entry to the archive as it was closed and then delete the empty 'day' pages when they had been fully resolved. More manual archival process, but clears out closed discussions immediately and consequently reduces the size of the page. Making it easier to follow as a side-benefit. --CBD 19:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
There aren't any regulars at CP. Generally, 'closed' entries are removed from day listings as they are dealt with, and links that are blue are genreally un-dealt-with. This means that the day pages decrease in size as they are cleared. They don't get deleted because it then makes it hard for people to go and work out what happened to a given listing. Minor points aside, I'm not quite with you on how this reduces the size of the pages that don't transclude in the first place while leaving them visible; nor how it fixes the (should-be-non-) problem with the "current listings". But maybe I misunderstand something. -Splash - tk 21:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] let us remember

the limit is quite high, plain transclusion like used on the deletion pages etc really shouldn't exclude them without making the page insanely big, its when structures are used that recursively call templates or templates with large noinclude sections that problems may occour. Plugwash 13:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm sorry, but I don't completely understand what you want to say with your post (scratching my head ;-). Per the "quite high": WP:CP did hit the 1MB limit until I changed some transclusions to links (a reorganisation is still pending there). AIDS is currently at 363,088 bytes pre-expand size. So we can't completely ignore these new limits. Although 2MB is quite comfortable. And the new doc template pattern is neat anyway (example: Template:MONTHNAME). Templates that are called many times on the same page are also adding pretty much to the pre-expand size. Cutting down on hefty noinclude content on these templates by using the doc pattern is really beneficial. --Ligulem 17:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salaam

  • Lower the limit to about 512K. Gigantic transclusions are signs of something that's already broken. For example, WP:CP is already broken, from a social perspective; the backlog is enormous. Instead of catering to the failure, better to force a rethink, since nothing else has prompted one.
  • Transcluding template documentation onto template pages via noinclude is just plain silly. John Reid 18:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You contradict yourself. Could you explain please? What exactly is "silly"? And why? What does the heading "Salaam" mean? --Ligulem 21:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Salaam is Arabic for 'peace' and a traditional greeting. As to decreasing the limit to force things like WP:CP to slim down... it wouldn't work. The size of that page and others like it is a factor of Wikipedia's rapid growth. A smaller limit on transclusion would just force those pages to include the full text directly... no transclusion making the limit irrelevant. As to 'doc sub-pages for templates. With the details Ligulem has incorporated they actually work out quite well, especially for heavily used templates that are permanently protected. --CBD 09:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
<Off topic> I do know the word "Salaam", thanks ;-). What puzzled me is why it was used as a topic for a discussion. First "Salaam", and the "plain silly" ;-). What a contrast. But nevermind. --Ligulem 09:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idea for reducing size used by documentation/usage

Maybe what is needed is a "Template usage" namespace, which could be used for documenting the template and parameters along with example usage (and test cases, if needed).

I've tossed around this idea on other another wiki, but decided that with template limits being enabled it might be time to file a bug with the suggestion. (See bugzilla:7210). I'd like to know what others think of this idea. Would it be confusing to have a third tab for templates? —TheMuuj Talk 21:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Did you read Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern? We can already do a lot with that a the moment (See template:cite news for an example). --Ligulem 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a pretty good approach. I'll be sure to use it in the future. —TheMuuj Talk 17:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parsing problem

I had a problem with 1.8.2 which was fixed by removing the automatically-generated six-line HTML comment. See Cite.php page on meta.wikimedia.org. I can provide more detail if necessary, as I accept that my message on that site was a bit garbled! Best wishes Jonathan3 11:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/m/Wikipedia_talk%7ETemplate_limits_cd70.html"