Last modified: 2012-02-28 20:46:18 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 11025 - Specialpages: divulge total count
Specialpages: divulge total count
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Special pages (Other open bugs)
1.10.x
All All
: Lowest minor (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-08-22 13:26 UTC by Dan Jacobson
Modified: 2012-02-28 20:46 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

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


Attachments

Description Dan Jacobson 2007-08-22 13:26:13 UTC
Examining
http://radioscanningtw.jidanni.org/index.php?title=Special:Deadendpages&uselang=en
we see
 The following pages do not link to other pages in this wiki.
 Showing below up to 50 results starting with #1.
 View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).

Why can't the big secret that there is a total count of 235 be
revealed somewhere in the wording without requiring the user to go
clicking around to find out?! I'm not saying show them all, just
divulge the total number.

Same for similar Specialpages.
Comment 1 Rob Church 2007-08-22 13:29:42 UTC
The simple explanation is that, in quite a few of those cases, finding out that information is too expensive to be worth it.
Comment 2 Dan Jacobson 2007-08-22 13:36:57 UTC
Hurmf, getting a little COUNT(VARIABLE) more expensive
than SELECT(...) LIMIT 50, or however you write it?
Well at least it's many bytes less. But you are the pros...
Comment 3 Antoine "hashar" Musso (WMF) 2011-01-20 20:28:12 UTC
Will not implement this since COUNT(xx) is too costly in most cases.

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


Navigation
Links