Wikipedia talk:Requests for undeletion/Archive 5
Latest comment: 6 months ago by Qwerfjkl in topic Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I noticed a bunch of archives exceed the expensive parser function. This is due to the use of {{revisions}}, which uses {{#ifexist}}. Would there be any problems if I substituted the {{revisions}} to avoid this? See this diff for an example. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- This would stop it automatically updating, meaning that:
- If the page is created/deleted, the history link won't be shown/hidden
- If there are new AfDs, they won't be linked to
- If there's an MfD, it won't be linked to.
- Well I frequently make use of the afd link. I don't care what happens in archives, but is useful on Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. For TheImaCow's mass request, you could archive it early, or subst as it is completed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Graeme Bartlett, I don't plan on changing the current page, just the archives. Is that okay? — Qwerfjkltalk 20:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't mind about the archives, as they reflect the state at the end of the REFUND request. So substing in archive is OK by me. It would get a better result than exceeding the parser limit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll run my script. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't mind about the archives, as they reflect the state at the end of the REFUND request. So substing in archive is OK by me. It would get a better result than exceeding the parser limit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Graeme Bartlett, I don't plan on changing the current page, just the archives. Is that okay? — Qwerfjkltalk 20:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)