Template talk:FAC-instructions

message: Current instruction: 
:"You may want to list the article for Peer review first."
Proposed change:
:"Nominate an article only if you are reasonably confident that it is already featured-article quality — or very close to it; if you want feedback on how to improve an article to featured-article quality, or simply to check whether the article is suitable for nomination, you are encouraged to list the article on Wikipedia:Peer review."
Rationale for change:
: FAC exists to identify articles which are of the highest quality, not to generate articles of the highest quality. Of course, there will often be problems identified, typically minor issues, which are fixed, but that's a secondary process. Occasionally, pages are entirely rewritten after a stint on FAC — e.g. PaX — this is (of course) a good thing, but this is not the primary purpose of this page. Nominators should be encouraged to "think twice", and maybe run the articles through Peer Review, not as an obligatory requirement, but to double-check if they have any doubts about the quality. This change should discourage nominations where the article clearly isn't up to scratch. — Matt 00:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think we ought to link to peer review. It needs all the support it can get, and it was just refactored to resemble FAC (there's talk of even creating a template-based system like that on VfD to accomodate the possible numerous requests). We really need to dissuade people from making frivolous nominations on FAC. Johnleemk | Talk 10:49, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change to the instructions #1

message: I just got through with a major refactoring of the archived nominations, so I decided to attack the instructions next. Apologies if my being bold was a little too bold — revert where necessary, of course. • Benc • 14:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Apologies

message: I wanted to nominate an article. I went to Featured article candidates whereupon I read the instruction that are included in this template.
I then edited the page to add the article that I wanted to nominate.
I did it wrong and Mirv got huffy because he had to fix my mistake.
Now, I read instructions. What I did not anticipate is that lower down (below the table of contents in the "Nominated Articles" section) is the following:
:Add new nominations by placing  on the talk page of the nominated article. From there, click on the "featured article candidate" link. Then, place ===[name of nominated article]=== at the top. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/[name of nominated article]}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page.
Those instructions need to be integrated into these instructions. Furthermore, these instruction say, "After nominating an article, you may add this notice to its talk page: " which is not consistent with the instructions above which instruct you to place the  as the first step to nomination.
Finally, the instructions should give some guidance for people to look in the archives for prior nominations of a page to discern if it has been nominated before and if it has if the objections have been corrected. I would recommend the following text for that purpose (I tried to add something similar but User:Raul654 apparently didn't like it and ripped it out):
:When nominating an article it's always a good idea to check for previous nominations and check if the objections noted then have been addressed.
Also why are these instructions in a template instead of just being on the page, that doesn't make any sense.
Those are my two cents. Kevin Rector 01:38, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
:You make a valid point. I wrote the FAC instructions (in particular, I pruned them from the 3 page long monstrosity they used to be to the current template version). The bolded instructions were added later, and I haven't yet had the opportunity to integrate them. I'll make it a point to do so soon. →Raul654 02:09, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
::I've tried to do so, but I'm sure you can fix it up a little. Johnleemk | Talk 11:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Instructions are currently somewhat obscure. Several antecedents are confused (and confusing). these could be much better and in not much more space, either. I'll revisit in a couple of days to see whether there's any consensus on this, and if so, I'll have at it. ww 04:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion from a FAC newbie

message: This seems like an incredibly short sighted statement.  I had included an extremely short community standards section which, in its entirety, stated, "Please adhere to applicable community standards and conventions of writing and layout."  Raul654 decided to revert my edit, presumably believing that conventions of signatures, adding comments verticly, using UTC, etc., etc., etc. don't apply.  Pencil Pusher 22:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pure instruction creep. We don't need these kinds of garbage tips - signing your comments with ~~~~ is something you are expected to do, it's not a helpful hint to pick up sometime down the road. If you don't know about these things, then read the new user tutorial. We are not going to add a tutorial to every template and set of instructions. →Raul654 22:56, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
No, what is garbage is promoting a byzantine system where people do not immediately know how to contribute.  If you are already providing instructions to someone, then it only makes sense to provide them with a link to the full set of instructions.  People do not simply learn how to post by osmosis.  Why is someone "expected" to know how to sign their name, but not "expected" to know how to add a nomination or how to object or support a nomination.  Think about your target audience.  Edit: your little addition "we are not going to..." did not go unnoticed.  You may be an admin, but that does not enable you to speak for the community. If you abuse your admin status by insinuating that your opinion is shared by all, I can almost guarantee your status will not last very long.Pencil Pusher 23:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Where on earth are the threats coming from?  I can see both sides of the argument and think I'll side with Raul on this one.  violet/riga (t) 23:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Most new users don't go to FAC as their first action. By the time editors become familiar with behind-the-scenes work, they already know to sign their names and such. On the other hand, nominating instructions are very specialized and only apply to this one area of Wikipedia, so it's quite safe to presume unfamiliarity with them. Also, Raul does have authority in this area, as he is the Featured Articles director. --Slowking Man 08:34, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
You can't have it both ways.  Either your audience knows "If you approve of an article, write "Support" followed by your reasons" or it doesn't.  Either you audience knows "To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with ...) rather than removing it" or it doesn't.  If your audience doesn't know it, then you need to be helpful and attempt to further clarify.  Hiding behind "experinced people should know..." is elitism and, frankly, inapposite to the purpose of instructions.  Either make the page off limits to everyone but admins, or make the page accessible to everyone.  Hell, at the very least place a banner across the top of the page that states, "this section should only be used by editors who have become familiar with behind-the-scenes work."  The passive-aggressive mid-point of "these pages are only accessible to those who have braved their way through the labyrith of wikipedia" should not be an option.  You either believe your audience should be restricted or you believe your audience should be open.  Stand by your convictions, whatever they are.  But I see the admins already circling their wagons.  Passive agressiveness has apparently won the day. Pencil Pusher 09:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Community Standards have "nothing to do with the FAC"

message: Is it considered bad form to edit an article you have commented on in the FAC? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course not. The purpose of FAC is to improve the article. Raul654 (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good form? 

message: Tony, I agree that we need to keep this stripped down, but the change you made now leaves the instructions saying that the nominator should sign below the pre-loaded title, implying that they should write nothing.  I think that's incorrect enough to need fixing, even if the old text had redundancies. Mike Christie (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Mike. Fixed, I  hope. Tony (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll work for me.  It says to just write "Nominator" and sign.  I will continue to add links to other FAs that I think make worthwhile comparisons, at least while I work on obscure topics; I assume that additional notes like this are not discouraged, simply not required by the instructions. Mike Christie (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I included the plural option (Nominator or Nominators) to cover co-nominations. Yes, this removes the requirement, not the option. I've acted boldly, presuming that the change is acceptable to all. The "why I nominated this" texts have always seem fatuous or redundant to me. Occasionally there's need to say something substantive, but saying that a nomination has passed GA, or has improved markedly, is immaterial. Tony (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't working.  We're now getting tons of nominate and support, and I have to check the articlestats to find out if this is an independent support, or a support from a self-nom.  Puts the burden on me to sort it out, rather than having the nominator specify when it's a self-nom.  Makes my job harder.  I'd like to go back to some version of the earlier wording, where self-noms are identified, and the "nominated by" line isn't useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandy, I wonder why we need to know whether a nomination is self-nominated or otherwise. How does it affect the process? Tony (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there's some confusion from some nominators, who present "tallies", saying an article should be promoted.  In the "olden days", the nominator wasn't always an author (nominating for others was a tradition), so if the nominator entered "support", it carried as much weight as any other (independent) support.  If I have to promote on a slim margin, an independent nominator/support could matter, so it could help to sort out those that are self noms.  And that nominator line doesn't really help; editors almost all continue to enter their "reason" for nominating.  What I really need to know is self noms, rather than the "nominated by" since that's in their sig, and that is turning in to "nominate and support". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Much better, but I'd like to shorten it (too much of the instructions don't get read anyway).  How about something like this (link to article stats, and don't tell them so strongly not to do something, and the last sentence isn't necessary as long as self-noms are identified):
Below the preloaded title, write Nominator, or Self-nominator if you are the sole or a major contributor to the article. A reason for nominating is not needed. A self-nominator need not declare support. If there is a "previous FAC" link, leave the link in the new nomination.  Sign with ~~~~, and save the page.  
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *Would you like to do the honors?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but please check the minor change I made (didn't see why only self-nominators should be told that declaring support is unnecessary). Tony (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for nominating 

message: This is the current wording:
:I'm going to bold changed portions, to make review easier.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note; I'm not comfortable with several aspects of the change.  First, we weren't even consulted :-)  Second, the changes completely obliterated the reviewer role; why don't Raul and I just promote on our own then and bypass reviewers entirely :-)?  Third, instructions won't prevent votestacking. Fourth, I disagree with the removal of the wording on "consensus for promotion".  To avoid split discussions; shall we keep the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump %28policy%29#FAC instructions changed, or is it moving to here?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Might as well move it here. It is true, though, that the reviewers' input is basically advisory, rather than controlling, is it not? Raul654 can regard as inactionable comments that have no relation to the criteria, or that are ill-founded. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

text: (Double edit conflict) :I'm not convinced the change you want is good.  It's true the FA director can overrule a "vote", for several possible reasons, but that's not a reason to eliminate references to consensus, which is after all the desired outcome.  Also, can you give any examples of problems in FACs that this addresses?  (post ec): I suggest having the discussion here, or at WT:FAC, where most of the people who know the process well will see it.  Mike Christie (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that it's here, let's keep it here; I hate split discussions.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm uncomfortable with the proposed wording; in my view, I'm a judge of consensus except in instances such as invalid opposes, vote-stacking, canvassing, insufficient review, a few other things, and I don't promote without consensus. I don't want to make any change that minimizes the reviewer role.  But I'll hold on further comment until after Raul and others weigh in.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  that sock account has been blocked, so you'll have to wait for him to move onto the next one. regards Section31. --87.114.141.40 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of wording to reflect how FAC actually works 

message: "this method should be used sparingly because it affects FAC archives"
Sandy, your addition makes me wonder how it affects the archives, and just what I'm costing you or others in extra work by capping (therefore whether I should cap at all). Could you explicate here so we might consider expanding it just a little? Tony (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a recent discussion about that here. Essentially, the FAC archives only load a certain number of transclusions. The most recent archives reached this limit, and since caps count towards the limit, it is helpful to only cap when really necessary. Gary King (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  ack.  I don't want to spell it all out in our instructions, so don't know how to best solve this.  We can't have too many caps, or the transcluded limit is passed in archives, and we basically lose file info from our archives (unless I go back and edit a bunch of FACs to remove caps).  The bottom line is that caps should be used sparingly and only on very long resolved commentary.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, then can we spell that much out ("caps should be used sparingly and only on very long resolved commentary")? Otherwise, it leaves you wondering whether you should feel guilty about doing it at all. A nominator asked me to cap the other day on my talk page, a request I ingored, since I don't cap. Tony (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought we did spell it out (lenghty, resolved), so please fix :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edit (2) 

message: Hi there,
A suggestion for a change to the template, maybe add that you shouldn't use  or  either as I didn't know this when I nommed it for FAC, and got a shouting from Sandy ;)
The Helpful One Review 21:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to the template 

message: Hi, Shannon1. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your change to the template. Maybe all the negatives are confusing me? I'm not in the business of deleting your change, but, since you say it's important, it seems a shame that people may be failing to get it. Could you explain, please? Bishonen | talk 20:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bish, I'm pretty sure it relates to the many (many!) discussions at Karanacs' and my talk, that we have to archive noms that have been up for three weeks or so without gaining support.  That's already covered in the instructions.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But... but... [hopelessly ] Oh well. I must be coming down with flu or stupidity or something. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  'Zilla got your tongue?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dont think it was about having to archive unsupported noms, but being able to reinsert them without having to wait for the 2 week period. As far as I could see that is not covered anywhere else in the instructions. 189.105.6.140 (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, well it would be good if Shannon1 clarified the confusion.  (The 2-week wait is general.)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing the template

message: Can we move this paragraph to the end, under "Nominating instructions" or "Supporting and opposing"? It's much less important. In my opinion the first box (the blue one) should be more general and user-friendly, explaining the process itself, and then the technical information should go in the second box. Just a thought. —Designate (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed text change 

message: Can the link to vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl (text "significant contributors to the article") be changed to xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo? It's more useful in seeing editor contributions to a specific page, among other reasons. Rhinopias (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update tool link 

message: At the top of the template, add  (or something to the effect). Smtchahal (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ... a separate documentation page (/doc) has been created (which can be edited by anyone) and the Redirect hatnote placed there so as not to conflict with the existing hatnote that is actually a part of this template. Thank you for your suggestion!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  00:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 7 March 2018 

message: Please change:
:If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
to
:If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
per the discussion here.  Not many people commented but there was no opposition and one explicit agreement, which I think suffices. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Reflects long-standing practice. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Marking as done. Looks like I kind of ec'd with Ian rose :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request wording change per discussion at WT:FAC 

message: Please change:
:Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages, including graphics such as ,  and : they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives.
to
:Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages.  Graphics such as  and  slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives.  The only templates that are acceptable are , , and ; templates such as  that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and  and , used to hide offtopic discussions.
per the discussion here.  No exact text was agreed to there, but I think this is close to the spirit of the discussion.  A named list of acceptable templates seems the easiest way to avoid the recursive expansion problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: is template protection necessary? Semi-protection would seem to stop the very occasional disruptive edit. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   I doubt it... reduced to semi. --Laser brain (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change wording of proscription of templates 

message: This is kind of a follow-up on Mike's proposal above, but restricted to the issue of the advice about avoiding the use of graphics. Formally: please make the following change:
The reason in a nutshell, is that I doubt the advice about slow page load time is true, if it ever was, even when that advice  was added in 2008. Detailed support for this can be found at WT:FAC#Fast-loading check marks and X marks, in particular, this comment, and I should perhaps import a summary of it here, but the gist of it is, that a hundred such check marks on the page would have no significant impact on load time. That's a testable assertion, and perhaps I'll mock something up to test it. Mathglot (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Mathglot, it's not only loadtime.  It chops the FAC archives when template transclusion limits are reached; we discovered this years ago, it's serious, and it's real, and it wipes FACs off the FAC archive page.  Check the 2008 archives for when we first discovered it, and the explanation then. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  22:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if that hasn't been explained adequately at WT:FAC-- institutional memory inactive. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  22:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Graphics that are not templates only contribute their own size to the PEIS limit, doubled because they are transcluded from the FAC.  I don't imagine even the longest Unicode character is more than a few bytes, so these would not cause the problem that things like  cause.   was excluded because it's a template.  I think Mathglot is right to say as they do at WT:FAC that the original "page loading time" problem is not going to be affected by using these characters.  Personally I'm used to seeing the FAC page without graphic checkmarks and Xes and like it that way, but I'm not sure there's a usability reason to deny them any more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And to clarify for Mathglot: Sandy's talking about pages like the ones linked here, which can contain more FACs than the live FAC page, so the PEIS for FAC has to be well under the PEIS limit or those archive pages will fail to load properly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's not that mathglot misunderstood the template limits problem in archives, rather because I'm not reading FAC I missed a piece ? If that's the case ... the instructions are now hidden at FAC (for reasons that make no sense, except that they aren't being followed anyway) and are likely causing new participants to miss them, so making more prominent the templates that shouldn't be used, rather than less, would help per the kind of confusion here. The load time problems are more likely related to the page being overburdened by segmentation, subheads, and length, but the template transclusion problem is separate and real. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  22:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they're both real problems, and the template issue is not something we can ever get around except by reducing template use.  The page load time isn't really related to the template limits -- if you search WT:FAC for a post of mine to Victoria (search for "PEIS") you'll see a link to an example page that shows that. Page load time is just the raw size of the FACs -- I know you would like to see FACs be shorter and quicker, with material moved to the talk page, and although we disagree on aspects of that there's no question but that that would reduce page load time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, just making sure Mathglot had the full picture (who knew I still had this page watchlisted).  Not ready yet to go read FAC, and trust your representation.  What's not being heard is that some editors would return to review and writing if the page clog/stall would be dealt with, and some editors don't want and never will want to process FACs via nomination viewers or any such script or page that sorts them.  They want to review the whole page for the reasons I put on your talk.  Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk)  22:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, I don't yet have the full picture, and am doing the best I can, and learning as I go. Mathglot (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , I've figured out I need to write a guide; I'm not getting any younger, and institutional memory is being lost.  I recall reading recently about "onboarding new Coords" and a "new FAC Coordination page", and wondered what became of the detailed instructions and Coord page I moved to a different Coord a decade ago!  And on the ArchiveN thread, I'm fairly sure I'm the only who could have filled you in, given the background, walked you through it, as I helped Gimmetrow build all that. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  01:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

text:  Yeah, the test is not ideal and should be improved, because instead of varying only variable (namely size: X-mark image, vs. X-mark character) it also uses the  template in the table, so it's varying no-template vs. yes-template, which could cause issues for reasons Mike has explained. Redoing the 100-row table to include the X-mark image file directly, and not via the templat , would be a better A/B test. That said, I don't see a problem from that one test, so far. Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to run a test to determine whether adding one hundred "not done" X marks to the latest FAC page slows it down, any. I've only run one test, and it doesn't slow it down. The test could be improved, as noted above, and one test doesn't prove anything. Ideally, one would have to run it numerous times in various conditions. It might still be true that overloading the page with check marks slows it down, but it's not a "slam-dunk" or we would have seen that already, even from one test. As Mike points out, this test doesn't say anything one way or the other about the effects that templates have on the page load time, or whether it cuts off templates lower on the page; that would be a different kind of test. Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Mathglot. A couple of years ago Mike looked at a number of templates and determined that quotation ("tq") templates are the most expensive. Is it possible to run a test with some rows (not necessarily 100) of tq templates containing at least 25 characters? Thanks. Victoria (tk) 00:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, Victoria.  I updated the 100-row table to add a third column, containing 100  templates (rev. 1184687933). Transcluding this in rev. 1184674114 of the FAC test page took 1.582/2.007 seconds, or about 0.1 to 0.3 seconds longer than before, of which 121 milliseconds were due to the 100 added tq templates. Once again, one test is not a proof, and rerunning the same test may well have longer (or shorter) times. It is shown as Test 3 below. Mathglot (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I don't know if it will make a difference, but current FACs include WAY longer text strings than that ... and Mike explained years ago how those got multiplied ... test with strings of two long sentences in a tq template? SandyGeorgia (Talk)  01:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

text:  ... But it's important to transclude them within a transcluded FAC.  When you first added the new blurb to the top of the Philosophy FAC, you got it directly on the FAC page-- not within the transcluded Philosophy FAC (note the edit when I moved it in).  The transclusion within a transclusion matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  01:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sandy, see Test 4 below, with longer  remarks in the table. The total time of 2.2 seconds includes 0.28 seconds dealing with the  templates. Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Mathglot, this interesting. Thanks for running the tests. It looks to me like you have plenty of lipspans but I think that they (& perhaps the rows of graphics) have to added to the actual text of the review that's transcluded from the article talk page to the FAC page. My understanding from years ago was that the transclusions caused some multiples of expansions, which then causes problems. It's also possible, based on your tests, that these problems no longer exist. If you'd like a live sample, I'm willing to volunteer St John Altarpiece (Memling) to be reviewed - it can have some sort of a "test" added to the title - then we can add as many rows of graphics & of lipspans as needed. And, since it's not perfect people can review to add to the test. We've often found that a single long review can cause problems for the page as a whole. Of course the coords would have to agree. But if you think that would be a better test & can explain to them why it would be needed, then let me know & I'll submit the article for review. Victoria (tk) 03:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

text:  Mike, have a question about the validity of my test 4 for Sandy's test. I used  to create the "long tq remarks" in col. 3 of the transcluded 100-row test table where I'm trying to burden the transcluding mock FAC page with lots of content to see if it slows down page load. Should I subst the lipspans instead, so the table actually gets huge, or is the transclusion of lipspan good enough? Mathglot (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drop wording suggesting small graphics like "not done" should be avoided 

message: I haven't done comparisons yet, but the test page is here, and the data is below:
NewPP limit report
Parsed by mw2421
Cached time: 20231111224702
Cache expiry: 1645981
Reduced expiry: true
Complications: [vary‐revision‐sha1, vary‐revision‐exists, show‐toc]
CPU time usage: 1.245 seconds
Real time usage: 1.610 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count: 8372/1000000
Post‐expand include size: 1086921/2097152 bytes
Template argument size: 48870/2097152 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 32/100
Expensive parser function count: 4/500
Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20
Unstrip post‐expand size: 25400/5000000 bytes
Lua time usage: 0.247/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage: 20046326/52428800 bytes
Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400
-->




NewPP limit report
Parsed by mw2262
Cached time: 20231112012735
Cache expiry: 1636349
Reduced expiry: true
Complications: [vary‐revision‐sha1, show‐toc]
CPU time usage: 2.206 seconds
Real time usage: 2.649 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count: 14812/1000000
Post‐expand include size: 2074614/2097152 bytes
Template argument size: 312802/2097152 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 32/100
Expensive parser function count: 4/500
Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20
Unstrip post‐expand size: 60050/5000000 bytes
Lua time usage: 0.504/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage: 15332992/52428800 bytes
Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400
-->

thread_title:  Tests