Last modified: 2014-03-17 14:48:32 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 T45581, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 43581 - Insert a null revision for wikibase changes
Insert a null revision for wikibase changes
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: MediaWiki extensions
Classification: Unclassified
WikidataClient (Other open bugs)
master
All All
: High major (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Wikidata bugs
:
Depends on:
Blocks: 40358 43578
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2013-01-02 09:06 UTC by Aude
Modified: 2014-03-17 14:48 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

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


Attachments

Description Aude 2013-01-02 09:06:51 UTC
We need to insert null revisions into the client for Wikibase changes.

This will allow changes to show up in the article history and display correctly in the watchlist.

In the simplest implementation, a null revision is treated as being done by IP user 127.0.0.1, similar to what Special:Import does. 

It's not pretty, so we'll need a separate to-do to handle displaying external users and changes in a nicer way, everywhere in the client.
Comment 1 Nemo 2013-03-22 08:05:13 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)
> We need to insert null revisions into the client for Wikibase changes.

Really? Will there be a way to filter them out? One of the most appreciated effects of Wikidata is that articles' history, especially on smaller wikis, gets much cleaner... If you add them again to history it might become even harder to read it than it was before, depending on how obvious it is that it's equivalent to a bot change.
Comment 2 Aude 2013-03-22 08:39:47 UTC
@Nemo: Yes I think we want a way to filter them out, yet having the null revision and the option to show (filter on) these changes is important also.
Comment 3 Ricordisamoa 2013-12-09 14:31:43 UTC
I agree with Nemo, we would be polluting page histories. And at least a very wide community consensus would be required for this change.
Comment 4 Lydia Pintscher 2013-12-09 14:49:18 UTC
Yes. Polluting page history is not ok. We have to find a way to get around that.
Comment 5 Lydia Pintscher 2013-12-09 14:49:51 UTC
One way to do that could be to just "merge" in those changes on-display.
Comment 6 Lydia Pintscher 2014-03-17 14:48:32 UTC
Closing this as we don't want to actually do it.

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


Navigation
Links