Template talk:Rn

Resistance to the template

There can be some opposition to the template, I used it on William II of England and was immediately reverted. The discussion seems to be against it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I commented there to give my opinion that {{rn}} is only useful at Roman numerals. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Overhead

@Izno: Thanks for your work on template styles and I'm not complaining! I was just curious about what overhead was associated with using the new stuff in a template that is used 410 times at Roman numerals. The NewPP limit report from the page source follows, after I deleted the uninteresting lines where any difference was insignificant. I'm recording this for interest. The post‐expand include size increased by 69,226 bytes from 504,480 to 573,706. {{rn}} was not recorded in the old time report but occupies 13% in the new report.

Using old {{rn}} permalink 11:54, 17 July 2020 at Roman numerals.

CPU time usage: 1.708 seconds
Real time usage: 2.060 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count: 13102/1000000
Post‐expand include size: 504480/2097152 bytes
Template argument size: 7487/2097152 bytes
Unstrip post‐expand size: 169242/5000000 bytes

Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template)
100.00% 1498.070      1 -total
 33.18%  497.058      2 Template:Reflist
 14.20%  212.785     41 Template:Lang
 13.84%  207.369     23 Template:Cite_book
 10.66%  159.769     17 Template:Navbox
  6.83%  102.319      1 Template:Latin_alphabet
  6.59%   98.732      3 Template:Navbox_with_collapsible_groups
  6.45%   96.675      1 Template:Latin_alphabet/main
  5.68%   85.067      1 Template:Numeral_systems
  5.68%   85.064      1 Template:List_of_writing_systems

Using current {{rn}} permalink 00:24, 28 January 2021 at Roman numerals.

CPU time usage: 1.876 seconds
Real time usage: 2.244 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count: 21302/1000000
Post‐expand include size: 573706/2097152 bytes
Template argument size: 25059/2097152 bytes
Unstrip post‐expand size: 404480/5000000 bytes

Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template)
100.00% 1711.886      1 -total
 29.36%  502.572      2 Template:Reflist
 12.98%  222.151    410 Template:Rn
 12.94%  221.517     17 Template:Navbox
 11.92%  204.007     41 Template:Lang
 11.21%  191.947     23 Template:Cite_book
  9.23%  157.995      1 Template:Latin_alphabet
  8.82%  150.956    413 Template:Ifsubst
  8.79%  150.453      1 Template:Latin_alphabet/main
  6.52%  111.571      3 Template:Navbox_with_collapsible_groups

Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: You'd have to use the sandbox or something to get an accurate understanding of the overhead. That said, most of the overhead is probably due to the if subst use since that also appears 413 times in the expansion time report. You could maybe investigate that in the sandbox and swap all the Stuff on the page in question and see if that's why. --Izno (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, the 8.82% of Ifsubst is also counted under the 12.98% of Rn. I didn't say I wanted to do any work! Johnuniq (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: You volunteered when you did the first two! ;P --Izno (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)