Last modified: 2008-05-16 22:29:28 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 14031 - Provide other FlaggedRev boxes for the case of a template/image change, currently resulting in "0 changes need review"
Provide other FlaggedRev boxes for the case of a template/image change, curre...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: MediaWiki extensions
Classification: Unclassified
FlaggedRevs (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: High enhancement with 1 vote (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Aaron Schulz
:
: 14043 14060 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-05-07 23:03 UTC by Melancholie
Modified: 2008-05-16 22:29 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

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


Attachments

Description Melancholie 2008-05-07 23:03:53 UTC
Provide an other FlaggedRev boxes than the "Draft" and "[view draft]" ones for the case of a template change, what currently is resulting in "0 changes need review", see bug 13995!

1. If stable=0, do not show the current draft box then, telling something about "0 changes need review"
2. If stable=1, do not show "[view draft]", and do not show "The draft has 0 changes awaiting review."

Show a note instead, that mentions the change of a template!
Comment 1 Melancholie 2008-05-08 14:08:56 UTC
Bug 14033 ("Allow templates to get flagged; flagging should approve 0-review-needed articles") is more preferable, by the way!
Comment 2 Aaron Schulz 2008-05-08 15:41:45 UTC
*** Bug 14043 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 Aaron Schulz 2008-05-09 16:52:07 UTC
*** Bug 14060 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 P. Birken 2008-05-10 11:29:48 UTC
My suggestion: Do a quick fix so that if the current version is sighted and a template is changed, the behavior is as follows: i) The UI still shows that the version is sighted, but the exapanded box has a different message saying that in comparison to the sighted version, templates or pictures may have changed. 

In a future step, we add the template namespace to the flaggable namespaces and show the last sighted template in a current sighted version. 
Comment 5 Aaron Schulz 2008-05-10 16:41:54 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> My suggestion: Do a quick fix so that if the current version is sighted and a
> template is changed, the behavior is as follows: i) The UI still shows that the
> version is sighted, but the exapanded box has a different message saying that
> in comparison to the sighted version, templates or pictures may have changed. 
> 
> In a future step, we add the template namespace to the flaggable namespaces and
> show the last sighted template in a current sighted version. 
> 

So maybe just change "The draft has 0 changes awaiting review." to "Template/image changes are awaiting review" or something?
Comment 6 Melancholie 2008-05-10 16:57:37 UTC
Yes, would be enough.

But it would be nice to know *what* content has changed [where, name it]. How do you know whether an image has been just optimized, or a templated was modified by one single character only?
Comment 7 Aaron Schulz 2008-05-11 00:30:13 UTC
Done in r34606.
Comment 8 Melancholie 2008-05-16 22:10:25 UTC
Note: At [[:de:Blatt_(Graphentheorie)]] there is still shown "0 changes need
review"...
Comment 9 Melancholie 2008-05-16 22:12:59 UTC
#c8: This seems to have been caused by action=pure, as mentioned at [[:de:Hilfe_Diskussion:Gesichtete_und_geprüfte_Versionen#action.3Dpurge_setzt_gesichtet_Flag_zur.C3.BCck]]
Comment 10 Aaron Schulz 2008-05-16 22:29:13 UTC
Instance removed in r34946

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


Navigation
Links