Last modified: 2011-01-05 09:48:52 UTC
I open this bug request to get the developers' feeling about installing the Labeled Section Transclusion extension on fr.wikipedia, as it has already been done on Wikisource (so it should be pretty stable). My motivation : we already have a "Référence:" namespace on fr.wikipedia, which is used for storing bibliographical entries. An idea has emerged to use this namespace as a "database", whose elements could be called via a template and inserted into articles (in the references section). The easiest (and maybe the only) way to do it would be to allow transcluding parts of "Référence" pages, which can be done with this extension. I don't know any other way of transcluding a selected part of a page... The drawback : back in June, Brion said (on http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2007-June/031855.html ) "Tim has some concerns about performance but thinks it shouldn't be a problem on Wikisource", I don't know how much it would affect the servers if put on fr.wikipedia ? It probably wouldn't be much used to transclude articles, though. Thanks.
Although I haven't seen specifics on the performance issues, I reworked the part that I believed to be the most significant bottleneck. If this didn't resolve the issue, please let me know.
Thanks. I can demonstrate the intended use on http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Korrigan/Article1, where the elements of the reference are transcluded from http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Korrigan/R%C3%A9f%C3%A9rence , through an appropriate template.
Thanks for the example. It wasn't quite intended to be used this way, to transclude different sections from the same page; this would cause a little extra overhead, equivalent to transcluding 4 different templates, instead of the same template 4 times. If this is an issue, it may help to add some caching. Currently, this isn't done because this was intended to transclude a section from lots of large pages, so caching all of them may not be worth it. Caching the last page used may be a good compromise. Although it's not up to me, it seems like it should be OK, although some small improvements may help. So unless someone else has an objection, I think you should post a link to a discussion on wikipedia to support this.
When you talk about "some improvements", is it about the extension's code or the way I intend to implement it ? I will talk to people involved with references and (hopefully) get their approval.
Ok, a poll has been organised (and advertised on the village pump). Results are here : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Sources/Chez_Manon#Mini-sondage . Not many people gave their opinion as this is rather specialised. So far : 8 support (+ me), none oppose.
Seems reasonable. It may help to make a small enhancement to the extension code to include a cache; if things seem to be going forward I'll find time to work on that. You may need to check on IRC (#mediawiki) or the wikitech mailing list for other opinions.
Removed "shell" keyword as long as Steve is optimizing the code. Please add the keyword again once the code is optimized and has either Tim's or Brion's approval.
(In reply to comment #7) > Removed "shell" keyword as long as Steve is optimizing the code. Please add the > keyword again once the code is optimized and has either Tim's or Brion's > approval. > I've replaced the keyword. I added the rest of the caching to the new preprocessor, and Tim rewrote part of the extension to utilize that.
Done.
