Talk:Grade II* listed buildings in Powys

Page rendering problem

The page does not display correctly. Several of the all the of building listed in the source text are not displayed. Also, the bottoom of the article is screwed-up. The Notes, See also, References, and External links sections do not display correctly.

When I edit the page I get this error:

Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included.

This message is discussed in Wikipedia:Template limits. I haven't mastered all the issues discussed there, but our options may include:

1. Revise the Cadw listed building row template (may require technical knowledge Wikipedia internals)
2. Don't use a template for the 'date_listed' fields (may not work}
3. Split the article into multiple articles

Splitting the article may be be best solution. It seems sensible to split it geographically, into the ex-districts of Montgomery, Radnor and Brecknock. Doing this manually would take significant time (easier if the editor is very familiar with the area). Is there any shortcut? For example, does the 'HB Number' indicate the ex-district? Verbcatcher (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Help desk#Rendering_problem_in_Grade_II.2A_listed_buildings_in_Powys Verbcatcher (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been a problem for several other Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings pages, and the solution was to split the article based on district or in some cases alphabetically (e.g. A-H, I-P and Q-Z articles). It would be best not to revise the template without discussion with the editors who created it, or to remove the date_listed field as there should be consistency between all the Grade listed buildings articles. However, I'm not quite sure what the best way to split the article is, but into three articles based on the old counties of Montgomery, Radnor and Brecknock seems reasonable. But I don't think we can rely on the HB number for this. BabelStone (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there a risk that the total number of Grade II* listed buildings in one of the old counties would exceed the limit? Is the current list complete?

Until the page is fixed I suggest we comment out the last few rows of the table and replace them with a simple bulletted list, so that the article displays correctly and the references etc. are accessable. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have been playing with this some, and at least I've localized where the majority of the expansion is coming from. Namely the use of template:gbmappingsmall and template:coord in template:Cadw listed building row, which are used to populate the fourth column of the table, generates about nearly three-quarters of the template expansion, with coord responsible for most of that.

With neither the gridref nor the coord, the buildings section expands to about 562kb, with just the gridref: 825kb, with just the coord: 1768kb, with both: 2030kb (just under the 2mb limit - the other stuff on the page pushes it over the limit). Removing either the gridref or the coord from the page, there ought to be enough room, although we'd need to do a test if we use coord, it'll be close. But we should definitely be OK with just the gridref.

We could do this with a new template (perhaps template:Cadw listed building row no coord to remove to coordinate, and just change all the uses on this page to use the new template. Since all the entries on this page have both a gridref and a coord, and clicking on the gridref will display the lat/long coordinates at the very top of the geohack page, there would be minimal loss to the reader if the coordinate were removed. You can see what that would look like at User:Rwessel/t4, and the modified template is currently at User:Rwessel/Cadw listed building row (note that that I've not changed the name yet). If desired, we could add an "n/a" (and a footnote explaining that) in the places the coordinates were removed. Note that there would be no removal of the lat/long from the table, it just wouldn't get displayed.

If there were any entries that had lat/long but not a gridref, there would be no harm in using the "normal" template for a few entries. While there are no entries without a gridref on this page, I think I saw mention that this was a problem on other pages as well. We could also use the "normal" template for as many entries as possible (perhaps about two-thirds), and the smaller template for the remainder, although that would require someone to adjust that usage as the list grows in the future).

In a nutshell, I suggest removing the coordinate (it's available on the geohack page from the grid reference) by using a new template not formatting that information, and opening a discussion at the template:coord page to see if any efficiencies are possible there, or perhaps a reduced function version might be created. Rwessel (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Doing anything at all with that very long table is a problem. I have twice tried to remove one of the duplicate records for "Wegnall Old Farmhouse", getting "504 Gateway Time-out" and then "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem". I wonder if removing all the redlinks might help? Some process must be wasting a lot of time checking what colour to render them in. Maproom (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And, despite the error messages, my edit succeeded both times. I have put one of the Old Farmhouses back again, getting another "504 Gateway Time-out". Maproom (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the error is a timeout from the caching layer, mostly related to the very long rendering time on this page. While I don't know too much about MediaWiki internals, clearly the save of an update has to do (at least partial) a rendering in order to resolve subst's and to produce the "template too large" message. As it stands now these are the stand for just displaying the page:

CPU time usage: 20.509 seconds
Real time usage: 20.769 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count: 94007/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 82426/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 238095/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 10/40
Expensive parser function count: 4/500
Lua time usage: 7.005s
Lua memory usage: 1.6 MB

FWIW, the stats for User:Rwessel/t4 (without the coords):

CPU time usage: 12.229 seconds
Real time usage: 12.501 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count: 71465/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 72761/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 825290/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 191962/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 12/40
Expensive parser function count: 0/500
Lua time usage: 3.169s
Lua memory usage: 1.19 MB

So removing the template:coord ought to help a bit. There's a big chunk of LUA being executed in there. Note the actual numbers I was seeing were worse, but without the stuff outside the buildings section, more of the table was rendered. Rwessel (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If we did remove the template producing either the grid reference or the coordinates, could it be done for just this list? I'm not sure which one feeds information to the mapping template at the top of the page, but it would be nice to keep that working if possible (though not essential). Nev1 (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the coordinates for that come from template:coord. From studying the module a bit, I think it may be that the majority of the bulk is coming from the support in template:coord to handle the map thing. Rwessel (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

While simplifying the templates is a good objective, it is very desirable to maintain compatibility with the equivalent pages in other countries, particularly for England and Scotland which share the same National Grid. If you have not done so already, I suggest you compare the templates used in the these pages, and maybe contact the editors of those templates (who may have already resolved the same problem).

Even if the templates are improved, the Grade II* listed buildings in Powys article is inconveniently large, both for editors and for users. It takes along time to load and to navigate. Getting to the bottom of the page is very awkward on a tablet. So I favour splitting the page into separate pages for Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Breconshire, along the same lines as Grade II* listed buildings in Cambridgeshire. This would require someone to categorise the entries. If I did this I would start by separating all the entries that are north of the northernmost point of Radnorshire, using the coordinates. These are in Montgomeryshire. (This would be more difficult if the coodinates were removed from the template.) Verbcatcher (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Separate pages would be helpful for users wanting to explore the listing buildings in an area. It's a long way from one end of Powys to the other. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously if there is a good way to break this up, that would be the best way to solve the problem. Template:coord is doing a lot of stuff, I don't know how much it can be cut down, without losing function that's being used on this page (the template:GeoGroup map, for example).

Note that I'm not suggesting removing the coordinates from the source, rather just setting up an alternate template to ignore them. On the assumption that a split would be pursued, this would allow the page to render (minus the coordinates and GeoGroup) while that work was in progress. The only actual change to this page would be the template names - every spot where {{Cadw listed building row is specified (some 430 entries), that name would change to reference the new template (a simple global find/replace). After being split, those could be changed back easily enough. Doing this (removing the template:coord usage) as a temporary measure should be only a few minutes work. Alternatively we could try removing the template:gbmappingsmall usages (we could probably still include the grid reference as plain text), although that's marginal - it reduces the template expansion to about 1811kb, so there would be some, but not much, room to grow. User:Rwessel/t6 (That's the complete page and may get the categories smacked for being in user space, so if all that is missing, that's why).

I'd be willing to help with the mechanics of the split, but I have no idea where the categories should be. Verbcatcher suggested some above, but the organization of counties in Wales are pretty far outside my world (and just from reading the article, are those really current subdivisions of Powys?). Are the three shires listed the exact contents of Powys? IOW, are there any areas in Powys not covered by those three shires, and do those shires cover any area outside Powys? Do the locations specified in the table (second column) sufficiently identify the shire in question? And are there any good maps online showing the shire boundaries? One reference ( http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=47881#s4 ) states that the southern and northern boundaries of Radnorshire are 52° 2" and 52° 27". Converting those to decimal is trivial enough, and would make it easier to work with the source. A starting split for locations unambiguously north or south of those latitudes would not be hard (if a bit tedious), but someone (not me) would need to clean up the ambiguous ones. Rwessel (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Any comments or suggestions? The temporary solution I mentioned above (removing the link to the grid reference) would be quick, and would at least allow the page to render, and even allow a bit of room for expansion. Unless someone can make some progress on doing the split, the only alternative I see at the moment is to leave the page broken. Rwessel (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Template change implemented

I've decided to be bold and implement the last change I described above, and the page now renders correctly.

Basically all references to Template:Cadw listed building row in the article were changed to Template:Cadw listed building row no gridref. This new template is a copy of the standard one, except that it omits the code to emit the grid reference link (specifically the invocation of template:gbmappingsmall). The gridref is still rendered as text, and other than the loss of the link to the gridref/GeoHack function, the page is unchanged, and the link to GeoHack via the coordinates is still there. With this change the template expansion has been reduced to 1908kb, less than the 2048kb limit, allowing the page to render. There's even a bit of room for expansion.

Ultimately the correct solution is to either fix some of the underlying template to have smaller expansions, or more likely to split this article into several small pieces (some options have been discussed above). At such time as this article is reduced in size, simply perform a global replace of "Cadw listed building row no gridref" with "Cadw listed building row" to revert back to the standard template. See the documentation at Template:Cadw listed building row no gridref for some additional information. Rwessel (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wegnall Old Farmhouse duplicates

There were duplicate entries, and one has now been removed. These did have different HB Numbers (9332 and 8957), are there, in fact, two listings in the registry for Wegnall Old Farmhouse? Should both numbers be listed? Perhaps they could be coded in a single entry? Rwessel (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the remaining record so as to include both numbers (as confirmed here). I also observe that the picture for "LOWER CIL FARMHOUSE" shows a weir.

If I had time to sort out this page, I would copy the whole table to some local workspace, and save it there is manageable pieces. I would leave the original article with no table, so as to save people from trying to improve it, and leave a "work in progress" notice so that it doesn't get deleted. Then I would work on the pieces, removing the redlinks and trying to deal with all the missing images. Maproom (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Don't leave the page without a table while you work on it. Copy the page to your sandbox, making a note of the system time when you made the copy. Then work on the page in your sandbox. Then check for other editors' edits to the original page and merge them into the new version. Finally replace the live page with your new version. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"Caused Script Error" self reverts?

Plucas58, you've self reverted two edits with the comment "Caused Script Error". As I've been semi-monitoring this page for problems, I was wondering what exactly you were seeing. The edits you reverted don't appear to be malformed, or causing an obvious problem. Is it off in some of the mapping support? Rwessel (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate?

I note that there are two entries for Caban Coch Dam - is it because half is in one community and half in another - they've different record numbers. It would seem sensible to bring them together as one unless there are good reasons not to. Geopersona (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)