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 is only useful at Roman numerals. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Overhead
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 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 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)


 * You'd have to use the sandbox or something to get an accurate understanding of the overhead. That said, most of the overhead is 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)
 * You volunteered when you did the first two! ;P --Izno (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)