On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Thomas Luft wrote: Actually, as far as I know it only needs to be done on en: and de:, because only on those languages the functions have been switched off. Andre Engels

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Timwi wrote: Because that's the wrong way to go about it. The special pages should be rewritten to be faster so they can run live. If that's not feasible, then they should be rewritten to work off a summary table (so people can scroll to the next 50!) and which could be further improved to be updated as relevant changes occur rather than rescanning the entire set of articles at fixed intervals. Apparently no one is interested in these pages enough to fix them. If you are, then great! Do it. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Thomas Corell wrote: Magnus (Manske) fixed it. Thanks. -- Smurf smurf(a)AdamAnt.mud.de ------------------------- Anthill inside! ---------------------------

Tim Starling wrote: Oh, oops ;-) But thanks for the explanation :-) However, wouldn't it still be feasible to at least update it once during an off-peak hour? Just so people can use it now (it's *really* useless as out of date as it is now) until it has been performance-optimised. Lonelypages and Shortpages are not very useful, that's true; I only included them for completeness. I'm particularly fond of the other two; Longpages to see where I can help split up things when I'm looking for an easy task, and Wantedpages to see where I can help contribute a new article when I'm looking for something a little more challenging. I guess I'll convert this into another programming task, then :-) Thanks again, Timwi

There are no quiet hours. If there were I'd have access to them since I live in Australia. Wikipedia's quietest time is about 7pm here, but it's only about 1/3 quieter than the busiest time. -- Tim Starling.

On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 03:14:23PM +0200, Thomas Luft wrote: Lonelypages are very useful - article that's unreachable is almost an article that doesn't exist.