Last modified: 2006-10-20 19:57:50 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 7631 - "Irrelevent" flag for history
"Irrelevent" flag for history
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 3640
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
History/Diffs (Other open bugs)
All All
: Normal enhancement (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-10-19 12:37 UTC by Eden2004
Modified: 2006-10-20 19:57 UTC (History)
0 users

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


Description Eden2004 2006-10-19 12:37:19 UTC
Hello everybody,

Here is a little idea. History actually lists all vandalisms and tests that some
users/IPs made, at the same level as all the useful contributions (the one that
are really needed by GFDL). Although it is certainly useful for sociologists
studying Wikipedia, it is not for usual readers and it gives a bad feeling to
some people that come from time to time to request us, admin, to delete those
edits from article history.

But it is impossible to accept their request. We can't delete 10s of times an
article due to vandalism or kids testing, that would make maintenance impossible.

It would be cool to be able to set an "irrelevent" flag attached to an edit that
prevents it to be displayed among the others in the history, except for admins
who certainly need this kind of information.

For example, a revert could set auomatically this flag for the whole set of
reverted edits (and on the revert itself, probably). And for past edits, a
little link on the side of edits in history panel or under edits title when
viewing revision (like the one for patrolled edit) should do the job.

At the contrary, these irrelevent edits should still be listed in the editor's
list of edits, so that people can see whether the editor's usual work is correct
or not (for an adminship request, for example).

Crediting vandals is just weird and it makes history less usable (some users
even use javascript coloring on it, now).
What do you think about it?

Comment 1 Eden2004 2006-10-19 12:39:58 UTC
Oh, by the way, I know some people not administrators would want to see those
vandalisms. Maybe a preference settings would be useful...

Comment 2 Eden2004 2006-10-19 12:48:06 UTC
Ok, sorry, that just remind me we had a desision made half a year ago about
this, asking to not modify the history for these kind of stuffs by a wide
but maybe with a good description of what could be hidden, the result would have
been diffirent).

So this preference setting is really a requirement, in case you consider this
feature useful.

Comment 3 Eden2004 2006-10-19 16:49:22 UTC
Ok, here is a short summary of our discussion:

* "Irrelevent" flag can be set per edit.
* User can choose with User preference between complete history or clean history.
* On the history page, a link allows to see the list visible in the other mode
(so complete for the one who chose clean, clean for the one who chose complete).
* "Irrelevent edit" still accessible through permalink and still listed in user
contribution list.
* Admin's reverts automaticaly set "irrelevent" on reverted edits. Can also be
set on history page by admin and if possible, on diff.

Useful and flexible enough to permit different uses.
What do you thing of this proposal ?

Comment 4 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2006-10-19 21:11:53 UTC
I think bug 3640 would solve this, yes?  The flag could be auto-set on rollback
for the rollback and all rolled-back edits, and on manual reverts as well if the
saved version exactly matches the version edited.  Such edits definitely
shouldn't be completely hidden by default, though, even from page history.  They
should just be collapsed, perhaps, or grayed out and italicized, or whatever.
Comment 5 Eden2004 2006-10-20 09:19:46 UTC
Hi Simetrical,
Yes, I think it's the same idea. I was thinking at the fact that a real clean
history would be especially great for a DVD version (as we have to provide
history -or link to history- with articles).

But yes, maybe grayed or stricked out is enough. I let you make the wisest choice.

(Pretty incredible that we had a similar idea with just two weeks interval o_O)

Comment 6 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2006-10-20 19:57:50 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 3640 ***

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