Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:05:22 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 7062 - Auto-merge multiple edits of an article by the same user within a specific time
Auto-merge multiple edits of an article by the same user within a specific time
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
History/Diffs (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Lowest enhancement with 3 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
: 2957 7900 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2006-08-18 16:58 UTC by ASM
Modified: 2011-03-13 18:05 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

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


Attachments

Description ASM 2006-08-18 16:58:47 UTC
I anticipate this enhancement request has already been done before, but I
haven't found it.

It would be a very helpful improvement to make MediaWiki merge multiple edits of
an article by the same user which are done in a specific time span, say 30
minutes. Although experienced wiki users often use the preview function and
don't submit before the worked out their final version of the article, new users
tend to perform several edits, which do all appear in the history, of course.

My personal judgement says it'd be technically possible, but I might be wrong.
What do you say about it?
Comment 1 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2006-08-18 18:37:34 UTC
Well, to begin with, what would you do with the edit summaries?  And timestamps?
 And revision IDs?  What if you wanted to revert the last edit someone made but
not any preceding edits?  If someone makes a change and then self-reverts, do we
really want to obliterate all evidence of it?

What, in fact, are you asking for, exactly?  If clogging up the history is an
issue, then suggest that they be somehow visually condensed on the history page
and that they be considered a single edit for the purposes of deciding how many
revisions to provide.  If you just want an easy link to diff all consecutive
changes, then ask for that.  And if you want a way to count consecutive edits as
one for the purposes of editcountosis, ask Interiot or whoever.  This bug isn't
clear about what it wants.
Comment 2 Brion Vibber 2006-08-19 05:36:26 UTC
I'm going to go ahead and WONTFIX this since it would destroy history
information taken literally, and we couldn't accept that.

Collapsing consecutive items in history view would probably be considered nice
by some people, but would not destroy information or links. If desired, please
open a separate item for that to avoid confusion on this bug.
Comment 3 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2006-08-28 17:13:59 UTC
*** Bug 2957 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2006-11-12 23:21:07 UTC
*** Bug 7900 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 5 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2006-11-12 23:37:17 UTC
*** Bug 7900 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 6 Sebastian Helm 2008-12-21 05:00:34 UTC
I'm sorry, Brion, with all due respect, but in your rationale for WONTFIXing this, I don't see a reason why it is imperative that we make a difference between an edit that was done in one go or with intermediate previews, and one that was done with intermediate saves. As long as there's no edit by another editor in between, these two are for all intents and purposes the same. In fact, other wikis treat them the same. Why make things unnecessarily complicated?
Comment 7 Aaron Schulz 2008-12-21 08:26:40 UTC
Closing per serious issues in #1 and #2.

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


Navigation
Links