Last modified: 2014-11-15 13:35:55 UTC
On the English Wikipedia, Special:Unwatchedpages is practically useless because it only shows the first 1000 articles. There are tens, possibly even hundreds of thousands of pages that, unless their changes are caught by editors in Recent Changes, can be edited with impunity, without a single person being able to keep an eye on them. As was suggested in the comments of https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13062, I suggest that a page with the same behaviour as Special:Prefixindex would be the desired outcome, as opposed to individual pages for each letter of the alphabet and number, which of course is an unrealistic option because it would be monolingual to the English Wikipedia. Will.
You can reach this by adding the pages to a watchlist, maybe of a extra account. Every update you will get the next 1000 pages. The page is limited to the same count as all the other special pages on enwiki due to performance reasons.
That's unacceptable, and no excuse. We do far worse to our performance as a worthy project by having enormous numbers of pages that can be edited almost completely under the radar, than by making higher demands on WMF servers.
This is a valid wish. However, for the current status of MediaWiki core configuration settings, this request works directly against bug 15434 and it's quite unlikely that it will fulfilled before it. However, the number 1000 was chosen with unclear criteria and the comments question it: 'wgQueryCacheLimit' => array( 'default' => 5000, 'enwiki' => 1000, // safe to raise? 'dewiki' => 2000, // safe to raise? ), fr.wiki has the default 5000 and is worse than de.wiki for query pages; this may mean either that it's the reason why some query pages fail on fr.wiki, or that $wgQueryCacheLimit doesn't matter, or that there are other more important considerations.
Can anyone else confirm this, preferably with a link to community consensus?
(In reply to TeleComNasSprVen from comment #4) > Can anyone else confirm this, preferably with a link to community consensus? This doesn't need community consensus...
(In reply to Kunal Mehta (Legoktm) from comment #5) > (In reply to TeleComNasSprVen from comment #4) > > Can anyone else confirm this, preferably with a link to community consensus? > > This doesn't need community consensus... Agreed. Getting closer to the default is an obvious aim: the only question is if DB can sustain it. Sean, can it? Current settings were chosen many years ago, should we (you? :p) try incremental increases like 1500, 2000, 2500, one per month, and see what happens?
Incremental increases sounds like a plan.
For reference, Sean submitted https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/141652/
Change 168929 had a related patch set uploaded by Springle: Increase wgQueryCacheLimit for enwiki and dewiki. https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/168929
Change 168929 merged by jenkins-bot: Increase wgQueryCacheLimit for enwiki and dewiki. https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/168929
All patches mentioned in this report were merged - is there more work left to do here (if yes: please reset the bug report status to NEW or ASSIGNED), or can you close this ticket as RESOLVED FIXED?
