Tim Starling wrote: > On 07/01/11 07:50, Aryeh Gregor wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Alex Brollo <alex.bro...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Browsing the html code of source pages, I found this statement into a html >>> comment: >>> >>> *Expensive parser function count: 0/500* >>> >>> I'd like to use this statement to evaluate "lightness" of a page, mainly >>> testing the expensiveness of templates into the page but: in your opinion, >>> given that the best would be a 0/500 value, what are limits for a good, >>> moderately complex, complex page, just to have a try to work about? What is >>> a really alarming value that needs fast fixing? >> >> A really alarming value that needs fast fixing would be, approximately >> speaking, 501 or higher. That's why the maximum is there. We don't >> leave fixing this kind of thing to users. > > I think the maximum was set to 100 initially, and raised to 500 due to > user complaints. I'd be completely happy if users fixed all the > templates that caused pages to use more than 100, then we could put > the limit back down.
Doesn't it make much more sense to fix the underlying problem instead? Users shouldn't have to be concerned with the number of #ifexists on a page. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
