Open main menu

Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Admins and patrollers/Allow partial reverts for edits

 ◄ Back to Admins and patrollers  The survey has concluded. Here are the results!


  • Problem: There are edits of which a part should be reverted but the rest should/can be kept. In such cases you don't always want to time-consumingly edit/improve the source of the page. Instead the changes are either completely kept or completely reverted.
    Deutsch: Es gibt Bearbeitunen, bei denen ein Teil rückgänig gemacht werden sollte, der Rest aber behalten werden kann. In solchen Fällen möchte man nicht immer den Quelltext der Seite aufwändig verbessern. Stattdessen werden dann die Bearbeitungen komplett behaltden oder komplett rückgängig gemacht.
  • Who would benefit: Everybody who only wants to revert parts of an edit
    Deutsch: Jeder, der nur Teile einer Bearbeitung rückgänig machen will
  • Proposed solution: Add a link "Partially revert" next to the normal "revert", which would open a page which looks like the "new" version of Two Column Edit Conflict View. It'll show a "conflict" between the version which will be partially reverted and the previous version. The conflict resolution can then be saved normally.
    Deutsch: Einen Link (Teilweise rückgängig machen) neben den normalen (Rückgängig) - Link setzen, mit dem eine Seite, die wie die "neue" Version des "Two Column Edit Conflict View" aussieht, aufgerufen wird. Es wird ein "Konflikt" zwichen der Version, die teilweise rückgängig wird und vorherigen Version angezeigt. Die Lösung des Konflikts kann dann normal gespeichert werden.
  • Other comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: FF-11 (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC) (Old username: Honischboy)

DiscussionEdit

  • This would be cool, but I'm not sure how feasible it is. --Izno (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I love the idea too. Needs some brainstorming to come up with a good idea to make this work well. Thanks for submitting the proposal FF-11. I will rename the proposal to English and move it to the right category. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Related phabricator task at T108664. --Izno (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)=
  • I could use this. It would probably improved new editor retention, especially if you could use it through some of the editing tools. HLHJ (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't get the point. Using "undo" already allows altering, and so does using "edit". So what exactly would the change be? --Vogone (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
    • When you click "Revert" you do get the chance to edit the page before saving, but if you'd like to reinsert some part of the undone edit, you'll need to go back and forth between the editor and the diff view. The idea I guess is to use the edit conflict view so that the changed text is available in the editor and it's marked up so that it's easily seen. Uanfala (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks. With your explanation, it now makes much more sense to me. However, I would then think that all "undo"s should come with this feature, rather than adding an additional "partial undo" link as proposed. --Vogone (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
        • AutoWikiBrowser has a feature which is interesting for this: it allows one to click on part of a diff to discard those changes. I've attempted to create a similar feature using JavaScript: UndoFromDiff.js (it is not perfect, but works for most cases, even the diffs which appear when undoing edits). Helder 12:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't understand. Isn't rollback supposed to revert vandalism/spam? many wikis don't like their rollbackers to use this access to revert valid edits, which seems to be the case given in "problem". Matiia (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

VotingEdit