Last modified: 2011-04-14 15:10:17 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 10452 - Transcluding Special:Editcount yields a higher edit count than Special:Editcount itself reports
Transcluding Special:Editcount yields a higher edit count than Special:Editco...
Status: REOPENED
Product: MediaWiki extensions
Classification: Unclassified
Editcount (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Low enhancement (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Use...
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-07-03 15:50 UTC by Roan Kattouw
Modified: 2011-04-14 15:10 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Roan Kattouw 2007-07-03 15:50:50 UTC
Look at the edit count in the right box at http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/User:Catrope , which is rendered using {{Special:Editcount/Catrope}}. When viewing Special:Editcount/Catrope itself, however, (just click the edit count number) the number there is significantly lower (note that you have to select the table; it's white text on a white background), the difference being 49 edits at the time of writing.

I suspect this difference is caused by the inclusion or omission of deleted revisions, since that seems like the only logical explanation. I can't check that (I'm not a sysop), but I wouldn't know what else could cause it.
Comment 1 Rob Church 2007-07-03 15:52:39 UTC
There is no such special page in the core distribution; talk to the maintainer of the extension.
Comment 2 Brion Vibber 2007-07-03 18:42:47 UTC
The value on your edit page is cached when the page is rendered, so will not generally be up to date.
Comment 3 Roan Kattouw 2007-07-03 18:47:56 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> The value on your edit page is cached when the page is rendered, so will not
> generally be up to date.
On a closer read, you'll notice that the 'cached' number on my user page is *higher* than the number Special:Editcount reports.

(In reply to comment #1)
> There is no such special page in the core distribution; talk to the maintainer
> of the extension.
MediaZilla is also intended to report bugs for extensions, so please change product and component rather than marking INVALID. Reopening.

Comment 4 Rob Church 2007-07-03 18:48:55 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> MediaZilla is also intended to report bugs for extensions, so please change
> product and component rather than marking INVALID. Reopening.

No, this BugZilla is for tracking issues with extensions we use on Wikimedia or which the MediaWiki development team maintain in our repository.
Comment 5 Brion Vibber 2007-07-03 18:55:02 UTC
Rob, please note that it is in our SVN.

The transcluded case when no namespace is given calls User::edits(), which uses
the user_editcount field. This may report a different number than the counts
pulled from the revision table as it will handle deleted pages differently.
Comment 6 Roan Kattouw 2007-07-03 19:01:01 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> Rob, please note that it is in our SVN.
Exactly, also bug 4400, bug 8388, bug 8453 and bug 9498 were handled normally, and they were about Editcount too. Re-reopening :P

(In reply to comment #5)
> The transcluded case when no namespace is given calls User::edits(), which uses
> the user_editcount field. This may report a different number than the counts
> pulled from the revision table as it will handle deleted pages differently.
I suspected something like that. The real point here is whether the editcount should include deleted revisions. Currently, at least one of these methods is wrong.

Personally, I think deleted revisions shouldn't be included, since they, well, no longer exist. Special:Editcount should update the user_editcount field when it's viewed, as it has to recalculate the count anyway.
Comment 7 Brion Vibber 2007-07-03 19:55:11 UTC
The user_editcount field counts how many edits you've made, and exists as a heuristic for measuring use of the account.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links