Last modified: 2009-01-06 12:19:19 UTC
Hi, Please have a look at the following contribution pages in wikipedia. both users hae much more edits rather than the requested amount in url but mediawiki doesn't show either of them correctly. One of them is Jimbo Wales edits in en.wikipedia and the other is mine in fa.wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20011213170157&limit=500&target=Jimbo+Wales http://fa.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%98%D9%87:Contributions&offset=20060823081857&limit=500&target=Soroush Both the above urls have been generated by mediawiki software by clicking different links in contribution page. I don't think this bug is dependent to any platform or OS. But I have just tested wikipedia. thanks for your attension.
Well yeah, because they don't have any extra edits to display. I don't understand what you expect to see. Shall MediaWiki make up some edits to get us up to 500? ;)
(In reply to comment #0) > Hi, > Please have a look at the following contribution pages in wikipedia. both users > hae much more edits rather than the requested amount in url but mediawiki > doesn't show either of them correctly. One of them is Jimbo Wales edits in > en.wikipedia and the other is mine in fa.wikipedia > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20011213170157&limit=500&target=Jimbo+Wales > > http://fa.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%98%D9%87:Contributions&offset=20060823081857&limit=500&target=Soroush > > Both the above urls have been generated by mediawiki software by clicking > different links in contribution page. > > I don't think this bug is dependent to any platform or OS. But I have just > tested wikipedia. > > thanks for your attension. > (In reply to comment #1) > Well yeah, because they don't have any extra edits to display. > > I don't understand what you expect to see. Shall MediaWiki make up some edits > to get us up to 500? ;) > They both have more edits since their first edits and mediawiki should show them when I click at oldest edits and then at 500 in interface. But it doesn't show the first 500 edits of them. one user is me who has over 5000 edits but it doesn't show them.
Jimbo surely had edits prior to March 2001?
(In reply to comment #3) > Jimbo surely had edits prior to March 2001? > I brought you another example. me: fa.wikipedia/wiki/User:Soroush and this is another example in en.mediawiki:(en:User:Roozbeh, en:User:Behaafarid) Do what I told with these users. Just go to user contributions and...
Acording to helps of Andrew in IRC I'm rewriting this bug now. 1. Go to the followin link: http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%98%D9%87:Contributions/Soroush it is my contributions page. It looks normal. Now click the (Oldest contributions...) it gives you: http://fa.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%98%D9%87:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Soroush It's normal too. 2. Now click 500.(Attension I have over 5000 edits).Now I should see my first 500edits I've don in fa.wikipedia since I've come to Persian wikipedia.This is buggy. 3. It doesn't show you my oldest 500 edits. It just shows you about 50 oldest edits of mine. I tested this with Jimbo Walse contributions and it make the same mistake. :( 4. I think it should be an error in Special:UserContributions in such the followin version: http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/includes/SpecialContributions.php?revision=26283&view=markup and the problem might be solved if links get generated correctly. As a test just adding the &dir=prev to one of the generated links I mentioned above will solve the problem. Thanks for your attention, I reopen this bug according to this comment of mine.
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Jimbo surely had edits prior to March 2001? > > > > I brought you another example. me: fa.wikipedia/wiki/User:Soroush > and this is another example in en.mediawiki:(en:User:Roozbeh, > en:User:Behaafarid) Do what I told with > these users. Just go to user contributions and... > though I can't change this message. I correct it by the following sentense <s>I told with</s> I've told in comment#5 with ...
Currently, when you click the limit links (20, 50, 100, 200, 500), it comes back with an expanded list going from the same *starting point* -- the same topmost item in the list. That means if you're showing the last 50 items, and ask to expand the list to 500, you won't see any more, since there *aren't* any more. But, since you're already at the end of the list, you don't get offered another "oldest" link -- you're already seeing the oldest items. So if what you were trying to do was to see the oldest 500 items, you won't get what you expected; you only see the oldest 50. Note that you can get the behavior you were aiming for by _first_ expanding the limit to 500, _then_ asking for the oldest items. That will give you the oldest 500. It might or might not make sense to change the limit links to keep the same paging offset/direction rather than the same topmost item -- thus giving you the same *bottommost* item when you're paging in reverse (from the end), such as when selecting the "oldest" link or clicking through the "newer 50" links. That might be confusing in some circumstances, or it might seem cleaner.
(In reply to comment #3) > Jimbo surely had edits prior to March 2001? > (In reply to comment #7) > Currently, when you click the limit links (20, 50, 100, 200, 500), it comes > back with an expanded list going from the same *starting point* -- the same > topmost item in the list. > > That means if you're showing the last 50 items, and ask to expand the list to > 500, you won't see any more, since there *aren't* any more. > > But, since you're already at the end of the list, you don't get offered another > "oldest" link -- you're already seeing the oldest items. > > So if what you were trying to do was to see the oldest 500 items, you won't get > what you expected; you only see the oldest 50. > > > Note that you can get the behavior you were aiming for by _first_ expanding the > limit to 500, _then_ asking for the oldest items. That will give you the oldest > 500. > > > It might or might not make sense to change the limit links to keep the same > paging offset/direction rather than the same topmost item -- thus giving you > the same *bottommost* item when you're paging in reverse (from the end), such > as when selecting the "oldest" link or clicking through the "newer 50" links. > That might be confusing in some circumstances, or it might seem cleaner. > Yes, according to your explaination, displaying pages in reverse is expected when sb once click on "Oldest" and the vice versa is expected when sb clicks on "Newest".
