![]() | This help page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 18 March 2022, it was proposed that this page be moved from Wikipedia:Template limits to Help:Template limits. The result of the discussion was moved. |
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)
{{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/?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 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)
{{{1}}} {{{1}}} * {{{1}}} {{{1}}}, {{{1}}}, Tola. "Worm; grub." Masculine. * {{{1}}} {{{1}}}, {{{1}}}, Thomas. "Twin." Masculine.
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)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:List_of_language_names_ordered_by_code -- NE2 16:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I hit the template limit recently on a page using templates to list mathematicians by date. I was directed to this article for an explanation, but I found it so confusing that I even thought it was self-contradictory! Judging from other comments on this talk page, I may not be alone. Anyway, I think I understand the issue better now, so I hope previous editors won't mind if I try to rewrite some of the article to clarify it for the benefit of non-experts. I will do my best not to introduce any incorrect statements, but I trust the experts to keep me honest ;) Geometry guy 17:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I've gone through it adding more structure and explanations in the light of comments that other editors have left on this page. Again, checking by experts and developers most welcome. In particular I'm not sure whether I'm correct to say that the length of the HTML is the figure used by the post-expand counter. Geometry guy 17:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently involved in helping to re-write the article general relativity, more specifically: in making a work-in-progress/sandbox version at Talk:General relativity/WIP for later inclusion in the article. Since we eventually want to bring the article to FA status, we're putting a lot of work into finding proper references, and since it's a complex topic, there is quite a number of references to be included for proper documentation (even if the article itself is, naturally, summary style, with lots of spin-off articles). I now appear to have hit the template limit, with a hundred-something references included, and the list of references not nearly complete (the sandbox so far contains only one of the article's sections, after all). From previous postings here, I gather that one attitude towards this is "if it has so many templates, it needs to be fixed anyway". In this case, I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. I'd certainly be loathe to throw out references and thus compromise the article's content to satisfy some technical limit that, as far as I can see, is rather arbitrary. Did I make a technical goof somewhere? Am I using more templates than I could be? If not, is there any way the template limit can be avoided, or changed? Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. -- Markus Poessel 08:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the updates to this page post the new preprocessor implementation. Can someone please explain how the preprocessor node count works? Geometry guy 11:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
OK it is against expectation. I am writing a template to produce possible Arabic verb forms from the verb root. I have run into the parser limit (the HTML source says so). Because Arabic is bidirectional and messes-up things when written within left-justified text, I created a subtemplate for the letter ta instead of using the unicode value for readability reasons. This worked partially, but but didn't parse for the more complex verb forms. So I tried to reduce template transclusion in my code by using UTF values instead. The strange thing is that even the verb forms that worked before don't work now. The current version is the older version with the {{/ta}} template. How can that be?.(I tagged the problematic code with ERROR HAPPENS FORM HERE)-- hɑkeem ¡ʇuɐɹ ɯǝǝʞɐɥ 10:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm shortly hoping to introduce optional date formating into the cite_XXX family of templates, with cite_web acting as the test case - see Template talk:Cite web#Working version and final discussion . In essence the various date parameters (date, archivedate & accessdate) may be optionally formated into non-linked dates (as per changes at WP:Dates) by use of a metatemplate (see proposed new coding at {{ cite web/sandbox}} and its use of {{ date style}}). Whilst I've been advised not to worry about use of metatemplates, I'm not so sure that is true, as cite_XXX templates are not used just once or twice in articles but sometimes a very large number of times and across a large part of all wikipedia articles.
So will formating citation template dates, using metatemplate {{ date style}}, cause a problem (if so would very ugly repeated direct date-format coding within {{ cite web}} help)? Further, would using a meta-metatemplate to simplify the coding in {{ date style}} help or hinder ? David Ruben Talk 14:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You might like to look at Wikipedia:Avoiding MediaWiki expansion depth limit. The question is very technical though, and you'll probably get a better response at either meta:Meta:Babel or mw:Project:Support desk. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 14:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
If there are going to be such template limits, then there should be limits on templates being unnecessarily expanded/rewritten with no regard to bytage; one consequence of a thoughtless substitution of a "new, improved" template ({{ cite bcgnis}}) for a completely easy-to-use and less-bytage one ({{ BCGNIS}}, although what's at that link now isn't waht it originally was thanks to its predecessor being "deprecated") is that existing pages which use lots of it are now damaged and require revision see Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Why_are_templates_not_working_on_this_page.3F and template talk:cite bcgnis. The advocate/creator of "cite bcgnis" claimed that coders are told that they shoudl write templates as if there were all teh server space and processor space in the world; but so long as there are limits on the size of pages, and these new template limits, then that's a conundrum. Why can't CONTENT also be written without regard to server/processor space/power? Or is priority being given only to making the INTERFACE as big and bloated as it wants to be, and page-content is to be sacrificed to make room for more code???? Skookum1 ( talk) 20:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added the counter Highest expansion depth as a section, but cannot describe it. Anyone? - DePiep ( talk) 10:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
If you encountered
<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->
you can increase $wgMaxArticleSize variable value, this will increase post-expand limits too.
At the end of the report it says something like: "Saved in parser cache with key xxxx:pcache:idhas..." etc, where "xxxx" is the database name. Does this represent a potential security risk?
See Draft:Template:Hybrid_motor_type/doc. 217.162.112.133 ( talk) 22:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I added this to WP:Template editor#Other considerations and this across several sections of WP:Template limits to encourage editors to pay attention to template limits before changing templates like {{ flagicon}} that are used many times on one page, as they can push a page over the limit.
Module:Citation/CS1 and the templates and modules that call it are another example. On pages with hundreds of citations, a seemingly minor change to the citation templates can push a page that has hundreds of citations like Donald Trump (700+ citations) over one or more of the limits. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 17:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Dealing_with_technical_limitations_of_WP:PEIS. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
00:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
If you need to reduce a page's post-expand include size, it would help to understand where that PEIS comes from. So is there a tool that, given a particular page, tells you how much different parts of the page contribute to the PEIS? One possibility would be to break it down by section (so, like the "Section sizes" template, but for PEIS instead of source size), but another would be to break it down by template name. (E.g., all of this page's calls to the "cite" template contribute X to the page's PEIS). Jmdyck ( talk) 18:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
<!--
Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template)
100.00% 13.596 1 -total
47.24% 6.423 1 Template:Resolved
25.82% 3.511 1 Template:Hmbox
24.92% 3.389 9 Template:Tl
18.80% 2.556 1 Template:Z48
-->
I was running into a problem when trying to transclude multiple sections in something related to the article 2020 in science due to the Post-expand include size limit.
I'd appreciate if somebody could answer it here or at the phabricator issue.
tl;dr: just read the text highlighted in bold.
Thank you.
-- Prototyperspective ( talk) 21:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks like a help page to me — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Will constrant expressions only be expanded once (until the template code is modified)? Trigenibinion ( talk) 18:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
It is very bad that whitespace is being counted. Trigenibinion ( talk) 14:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 7 § Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
17:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Template limits → Help:Template limits – Appears to be a help page. Pinging MSGJ, who originally proposed this. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Users interested in WP:EXPENSIVE parser functions, especially #ifexist, may be interested in the discussion WP:VPT#PAGESIZE as inexpensive alternative to #ifexist parser function. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 03:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This help page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 18 March 2022, it was proposed that this page be moved from Wikipedia:Template limits to Help:Template limits. The result of the discussion was moved. |
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)
{{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/?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 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)
{{{1}}} {{{1}}} * {{{1}}} {{{1}}}, {{{1}}}, Tola. "Worm; grub." Masculine. * {{{1}}} {{{1}}}, {{{1}}}, Thomas. "Twin." Masculine.
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)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:List_of_language_names_ordered_by_code -- NE2 16:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I hit the template limit recently on a page using templates to list mathematicians by date. I was directed to this article for an explanation, but I found it so confusing that I even thought it was self-contradictory! Judging from other comments on this talk page, I may not be alone. Anyway, I think I understand the issue better now, so I hope previous editors won't mind if I try to rewrite some of the article to clarify it for the benefit of non-experts. I will do my best not to introduce any incorrect statements, but I trust the experts to keep me honest ;) Geometry guy 17:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I've gone through it adding more structure and explanations in the light of comments that other editors have left on this page. Again, checking by experts and developers most welcome. In particular I'm not sure whether I'm correct to say that the length of the HTML is the figure used by the post-expand counter. Geometry guy 17:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently involved in helping to re-write the article general relativity, more specifically: in making a work-in-progress/sandbox version at Talk:General relativity/WIP for later inclusion in the article. Since we eventually want to bring the article to FA status, we're putting a lot of work into finding proper references, and since it's a complex topic, there is quite a number of references to be included for proper documentation (even if the article itself is, naturally, summary style, with lots of spin-off articles). I now appear to have hit the template limit, with a hundred-something references included, and the list of references not nearly complete (the sandbox so far contains only one of the article's sections, after all). From previous postings here, I gather that one attitude towards this is "if it has so many templates, it needs to be fixed anyway". In this case, I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. I'd certainly be loathe to throw out references and thus compromise the article's content to satisfy some technical limit that, as far as I can see, is rather arbitrary. Did I make a technical goof somewhere? Am I using more templates than I could be? If not, is there any way the template limit can be avoided, or changed? Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. -- Markus Poessel 08:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the updates to this page post the new preprocessor implementation. Can someone please explain how the preprocessor node count works? Geometry guy 11:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
OK it is against expectation. I am writing a template to produce possible Arabic verb forms from the verb root. I have run into the parser limit (the HTML source says so). Because Arabic is bidirectional and messes-up things when written within left-justified text, I created a subtemplate for the letter ta instead of using the unicode value for readability reasons. This worked partially, but but didn't parse for the more complex verb forms. So I tried to reduce template transclusion in my code by using UTF values instead. The strange thing is that even the verb forms that worked before don't work now. The current version is the older version with the {{/ta}} template. How can that be?.(I tagged the problematic code with ERROR HAPPENS FORM HERE)-- hɑkeem ¡ʇuɐɹ ɯǝǝʞɐɥ 10:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm shortly hoping to introduce optional date formating into the cite_XXX family of templates, with cite_web acting as the test case - see Template talk:Cite web#Working version and final discussion . In essence the various date parameters (date, archivedate & accessdate) may be optionally formated into non-linked dates (as per changes at WP:Dates) by use of a metatemplate (see proposed new coding at {{ cite web/sandbox}} and its use of {{ date style}}). Whilst I've been advised not to worry about use of metatemplates, I'm not so sure that is true, as cite_XXX templates are not used just once or twice in articles but sometimes a very large number of times and across a large part of all wikipedia articles.
So will formating citation template dates, using metatemplate {{ date style}}, cause a problem (if so would very ugly repeated direct date-format coding within {{ cite web}} help)? Further, would using a meta-metatemplate to simplify the coding in {{ date style}} help or hinder ? David Ruben Talk 14:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You might like to look at Wikipedia:Avoiding MediaWiki expansion depth limit. The question is very technical though, and you'll probably get a better response at either meta:Meta:Babel or mw:Project:Support desk. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 14:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
If there are going to be such template limits, then there should be limits on templates being unnecessarily expanded/rewritten with no regard to bytage; one consequence of a thoughtless substitution of a "new, improved" template ({{ cite bcgnis}}) for a completely easy-to-use and less-bytage one ({{ BCGNIS}}, although what's at that link now isn't waht it originally was thanks to its predecessor being "deprecated") is that existing pages which use lots of it are now damaged and require revision see Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Why_are_templates_not_working_on_this_page.3F and template talk:cite bcgnis. The advocate/creator of "cite bcgnis" claimed that coders are told that they shoudl write templates as if there were all teh server space and processor space in the world; but so long as there are limits on the size of pages, and these new template limits, then that's a conundrum. Why can't CONTENT also be written without regard to server/processor space/power? Or is priority being given only to making the INTERFACE as big and bloated as it wants to be, and page-content is to be sacrificed to make room for more code???? Skookum1 ( talk) 20:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added the counter Highest expansion depth as a section, but cannot describe it. Anyone? - DePiep ( talk) 10:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
If you encountered
<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->
you can increase $wgMaxArticleSize variable value, this will increase post-expand limits too.
At the end of the report it says something like: "Saved in parser cache with key xxxx:pcache:idhas..." etc, where "xxxx" is the database name. Does this represent a potential security risk?
See Draft:Template:Hybrid_motor_type/doc. 217.162.112.133 ( talk) 22:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I added this to WP:Template editor#Other considerations and this across several sections of WP:Template limits to encourage editors to pay attention to template limits before changing templates like {{ flagicon}} that are used many times on one page, as they can push a page over the limit.
Module:Citation/CS1 and the templates and modules that call it are another example. On pages with hundreds of citations, a seemingly minor change to the citation templates can push a page that has hundreds of citations like Donald Trump (700+ citations) over one or more of the limits. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 17:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Dealing_with_technical_limitations_of_WP:PEIS. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
00:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
If you need to reduce a page's post-expand include size, it would help to understand where that PEIS comes from. So is there a tool that, given a particular page, tells you how much different parts of the page contribute to the PEIS? One possibility would be to break it down by section (so, like the "Section sizes" template, but for PEIS instead of source size), but another would be to break it down by template name. (E.g., all of this page's calls to the "cite" template contribute X to the page's PEIS). Jmdyck ( talk) 18:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
<!--
Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template)
100.00% 13.596 1 -total
47.24% 6.423 1 Template:Resolved
25.82% 3.511 1 Template:Hmbox
24.92% 3.389 9 Template:Tl
18.80% 2.556 1 Template:Z48
-->
I was running into a problem when trying to transclude multiple sections in something related to the article 2020 in science due to the Post-expand include size limit.
I'd appreciate if somebody could answer it here or at the phabricator issue.
tl;dr: just read the text highlighted in bold.
Thank you.
-- Prototyperspective ( talk) 21:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks like a help page to me — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Will constrant expressions only be expanded once (until the template code is modified)? Trigenibinion ( talk) 18:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
It is very bad that whitespace is being counted. Trigenibinion ( talk) 14:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 7 § Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
17:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Template limits → Help:Template limits – Appears to be a help page. Pinging MSGJ, who originally proposed this. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Users interested in WP:EXPENSIVE parser functions, especially #ifexist, may be interested in the discussion WP:VPT#PAGESIZE as inexpensive alternative to #ifexist parser function. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 03:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)