Last modified: 2009-11-18 20:50:29 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports are handled in Wikimedia Phabricator.
This static website is read-only and for historical purposes. It is not possible to log in and except for displaying bug reports and their history, links might be broken. See T23352, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
First Last Prev Next    This bug is not in your last search results.
Bug 21352 - RevisionDelete interface messages (short)
RevisionDelete interface messages (short)
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Revision deletion (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal enhancement (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Aaron Schulz
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree / graph
 
Reported: 2009-10-30 06:23 UTC by FT2
Modified: 2009-11-18 20:50 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

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

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Description FT2 2009-10-30 06:23:18 UTC 
(Following bug 20913)

With RevisionDelete being intended for widespread admin use, the interface messages have had a lot of review by oversighters since February 2009 to make sure they are as clear as possible. A few edits may be worth porting back into the default messages.


rev-deleted-user: 

Highlighting that edit will _NOT_ be in "contribs" for most users, which is not otherwise obvious. May be worth adding a specific interface message for Special Contribs and any other places an edit "vanishes" completely, to note that most users won't see it. On enwiki we used parser functions:

{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Special:Contributions| [Username or IP removed. Most users will NOT see the edit in the user's contributions]| (Username or IP removed) }}


revdelete-submit: "revision(s)"


revdelete-success: "successfully updated"
Comment 1 Aaron Schulz 2009-10-31 20:40:47 UTC 
What's the point in changing revdelete-success?
Comment 2 Aaron Schulz 2009-10-31 20:45:36 UTC 
"{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Special:Con..." wouldn't be the way to do this. A separate message would be better.
Comment 3 FT2 2009-11-03 15:23:09 UTC 
(In reply to comment #1)
> What's the point in changing revdelete-success?

"Updated" is probably more intuitive than "set".
Comment 4 Aaron Schulz 2009-11-03 16:04:58 UTC 
Nervermind, it looked like the entire new message was supposed to just be "successfully updated"
Comment 5 Aaron Schulz 2009-11-18 20:50:29 UTC 
Done in r59211.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
First Last Prev Next    This bug is not in your last search results.

Navigation
Links