Talk:Cebu/Archives/2017/February

Template errors
This article is displaying many "" errors. I alerted the main author of the templates here. Anyone interested may like to offer suggestions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The main problem is with the "Administrative divisions" section. Removing it from the preview changes the Lua time usage from 10 seconds to 2 seconds.


 * That section uses templates that include calls to Template:dtrif and Template:Lrwhitearrow, which are both simple Unicode character replacements. Those templates can probably be replaced by the Unicode characters themselves, although that is likely to make only a trivial improvement, given the complexity of, for example, Template:PH town table/mid.


 * Template:PH town table/mid5 includes nested calls to Template:sigfig, where it seems likely that only one call is necessary.


 * Template:PH wikidata is beyond me, but it looks like there is a lot of extra text in there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll mention the discussion at VPT for others although it's likely you saw it.
 * The table at Cebu is remarkable. Consider the first row which is generated by the following wikitext (the first and last lines are to make it a valid table):


 * Replacing all of Cebu with the above wikitext, previewing, then searching the html source for NewPP shows the above row calls Template:PH_wikidata 15 times. That is a lot of overhead. The template does that because it cannot store values in a temporary variable, and so needs to call wikidata repeatedly. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to split off the Administrative divisions table into a separate main article, List of cities and municipalities in Cebu (similar to List of municipalities of Bohol). This article is big enough to justify a split, and this will really help in processing time. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems unnecessary: the article is not too big, does not split in any obvious way and the table would not be worth its own article. Plus it would still have the same problems in another article. Better to fix the problems here. If that works out then similar fixes could be used in the Bohol table, and it would no longer need its own article (which looking at it does not make sense as a standalone article).-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 15:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)