Forum:Ghost Category and Broken Category Found!!


 * Case 1 - Ghost Category [SOLVED]

Take a look at Category:Article management template (Note that the word "templat e " doesn't have a "s"). You should see two pages listing in this category.

Now look at Template:Outdated & Template:Stub. Their category is Category:Article management templates (It has a "s" at the end!).

Why do those two templates listed in the ghost category, but not in the actual category (Category:Article management templates &#91;link&#93;)? Any clues?


 * Case 2 - Broken Category [SOLVED]

It's similar to the above (probably caused by the same bug or problem). Category:Local template has been added to Template:Documentation/docname but that template isn't shown in the Category:Local template page. I have no ideas what's going wrong!

Does anyone get any clues? --MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 21:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: The above problems are solved! --MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 21:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I usully purge the server cache of pages that i really need to update faster.
 * Templates, categories, images, almost all things, wont necessairly update right away since all wikis page are cached on the server so it has less work to do. And you can add to this the local cache of your browser.
 * But in that case, i'm almost sure it has something to do with server side caching. And categories moslty never update right away. It might happen it the night and be ok the next day.
 * But if one is in a hurry for them to update, theres a few tricks to know.
 * First, i try to go on each page and add ?action=purge at the end of the URL then pressing Enter will ask the server cache to be refreshed.
 * But it doesn't always work for categories pages.
 * That is when i do a "null edit" on them. That is, clicking edit then save without changing anything.
 * But if the server is really overloading, even this will fail.
 * When all my tricks fails, i just go do something else, then to sleep and it's ok when i return. — TulipVorlax 01:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems i was right. I made a null edit on one of the templates (not the doc sub page!) and now there's only one page left on the "ghost category". — TulipVorlax 02:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. It seems this is the cause of the problem. I have thought about server caching problems. The reason why I still ask is because there are some entries which are updated instantly, some not. That's sort of weird. Anyway it's all solved now. BTW I couldn't find you have made any edit on any of the templates. Perhaps I miss something. --MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 16:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A null edit consist in editing an article and saving it without any modification. MediaWiki detects that no change was made and no edit is shown in the history. But it does a refresh of all links/templates/categories used in the page, so it's useful for that. --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) -WikiDex 18:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep! You are very right. Thank you for your answers. Wonderful trick about the null edit. Cheers. --MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Another test [SOLVED]
I have edited and changed Template:Stub to put all stub articles into a new category called Category:Article stub.

Currently there are still 29 articles in the old category (link).

I wonder if the server will update automatically or I have to make a null edit of each article. --MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 21:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a jobque (something like that) you can see it on the statics page, that does 1 process per a given number of page views (and in some wikis this gets force/done at certain hours by an automatic scrip). With time all this pages will become updated and the categories will move from one cat to another... but if you are desperate, you can always use the null edit to 'force' the update of that info --
 * Are you talking about "Job queue length" in statistics? After all 1 day has passed and no article is moved. I tried to manually purge the article "Combat" now to see if it will be updated the next day. It appears no article will be moved automatically in this case (i.e. the update has to be done via the template:stub) until, well, someone edits the page. If it's the case, is there any automatic method to do force updates without having to do null edit page after page manually? --MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 10:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * its a lot of views per 1 single update to advance, also there may be a funky work with the use of cache servers per view, Search at Meta the for more acurate info. If after 1 week there they have not been update then report it to wikia using the Special:Contact in your wiki and informing your issue so they can check and look for whats the issue --


 * I think it's also a case of bad timming.
 * The few images i've updated recently didn't want to update at all, no matter what i've tried.
 * So, i'm pretty sure that Wikia's cache servers just had some difficulties (or anything) and all things will update properly when this resolve itself.
 * Since i'm on Wikia, i saw this happen so many times that i dont count them. Wikis doesn't work like, says, a phpBB forum where any editing of a message is immediatly updated. Plus, on Wikia there's thousans of wikis where hundred of users are doing/experiencing the same, thus causing even more problem from impatience, eagerness.
 * That said, i perfectly understand that when working on something, we want it to udapte so we can confirm it is working. But aside from waiting for the servers upgrade to be completed, what can we do ? I gess for many, the only option left is complaining. Not my case since i know that in a few days, everyting will be updated. — TulipVorlax 19:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good! Relieved! Finally it passed the test. I think I will have more confidence on it and not be worrying about it in future.
 * Time is not really a problem in our site. I just want to make sure the patches or codes I applied/made is or will be working not buggy/broken. I will keep the caching/updating lags in mind in future. --MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 21:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)