Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:04:55 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports are handled in Wikimedia Phabricator.
This static website is read-only and for historical purposes. It is not possible to log in and except for displaying bug reports and their history, links might be broken. See T4307, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 2307 - atribute OVERHEAD for each page;
atribute OVERHEAD for each page;
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Database (Other open bugs)
PC All
: Lowest enhancement with 1 vote (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2005-06-03 13:33 UTC by lɛʁi לערי ריינהארט
Modified: 2011-03-13 18:04 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

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


Description lɛʁi לערי ריינהארט 2005-06-03 13:33:37 UTC
as requested in bug 2294#c2

Please see

Pages like [[en:Template:ARTICLESPACE/]] are OVERHEAD pages.

It should be possible in the future to set an atribute OVERHEAD for each page
and mark similar pages. It would be a kind of equivalent to changes made with a
bot flag. OVERHEAD pages should not apear in [[Special:Whatlinkshere]] by DEFAULT.
Changes to such pages should also be marked as "minor edit" by default.
Please comment regarding other usage.

Regards Reinhardt
Comment 1 Rowan Collins [IMSoP] 2005-06-03 16:12:32 UTC
I don't quite understand what the need for this "attribute" is - from a brief
glance, most of the pages in the lists you link to don't have links in them
anyway, so there are no pages where they would show up on "Whatlinkshere".
Marking minor by default I can see, but this seems like a feature in its own
right ("ability to force a particular page to be minor-by-default") and a
potentially abusable one at that. So this request seems to me rather like a
solution looking for a problem, but maybe I'm misunderstanding something.
Comment 2 lɛʁi לערי ריינהארט 2005-06-04 04:05:53 UTC
in response to comment 1

Hi Rowan!
Please take a look at the pages in capitals at
and search for ".../to do" or and ".../to do/priority" in the other namespaces.

I would say that for the template namespace Nuka-Wiki has about 80% "overhead".

REDIRECT's could be considered "overhead".

Having the option to filter for "real" information saves time.

Best regards Reinhardt
Comment 3 Rowan Collins [IMSoP] 2005-06-04 15:17:00 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Having the option to filter for "real" information saves time.

But you still haven't explained *what* you want to be filtered - I understand
your definition of "overhead", but I'm not sure what you intend to do with that
definition. In your original comment, you mentionned whatlinkshere, but as I
pointed out, "overhead" pages won't generally show up in such places anywhere.
Perhaps you actually meant that they shouldn't show up in Special:Allpages? That
seems reasonable, as does your suggestion on bug 2318 that redirects be styled
differently. But given that with namespaces and sub-pages "overhead" pages
(other than redirects) can generally be grouped so they'll always appear
together alphabetically *anyway*, it's not all that hard to filter them out in
one's head by simply skipping past them. So I'm still unconvinced of the need
for a special way of labelling such pages.
Comment 4 lɛʁi לערי ריינהארט 2005-06-04 15:49:24 UTC
in response to comment 3

Hi Rowan!

Thanks for the answer. Probably you are right with whatlinkshere.
Nevertheless please take a look at

Most of the templates there which are *not* redirects are "overhead". Each
change apears in recentchanges, contributions and so on.

The sugestion "OVERHEAD pages should not apear in "Special:foo" by DEFAULT."
does *not* mean that you would *not* be able to track these pages or changes
made to them. The idea is that you need to make an action (change filter) to
*see* them and not to *hide* them.

Regards Reinhardt
Comment 5 Brion Vibber 2005-06-04 22:54:03 UTC
There is no logical reason to hide edits to such pages. Such hiding would be detrimental and would make it much harder 
to track both legitimate changes and vandalism. There is no possible benefit to such a change, only downsides.
Comment 6 lɛʁi לערי ריינהארט 2005-06-05 00:07:08 UTC
In replay to comment 5

Hi Brion!
I did *not* request to hide the changes completely. Maybe it is to early to
implement it now or to say if is logical or not. Similar with the bot flag issue
the comunity would request it or not if it hurts.

Regards Reinhardt
Comment 7 Brion Vibber 2005-06-05 00:26:24 UTC
The bot flag applies to edits by a pre-approved, trusted process expected to make massive 
numbers of trusted edits. It exists to increase the community's ability to see and react 
to events by keeping the recentchanges list clear of massive numbers of known-good 
preapproved edits.

This suggestion however would seem to apply to pages which would be very *rarely* changed. 
There is no benefit to automatically hiding those edits, since they going to be are small 
in number.

Hiding them would however be a very negative thing, because it would be harmful to the 
community's ability to self-patrol. Redirects, templates, etc could be silently changed by 
anyone and the community's ability to discover and react to this would be made much much 
more difficult.
Comment 8 lɛʁi לערי ריינהארט 2005-06-14 13:45:28 UTC
please read about benefits of *atribute OVERHEAD* at
bug 2409: "new toolbox item included (mainly) in the template namespace"

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