Last modified: 2013-03-06 09:12:21 UTC
Highly viewed articles, especially those on the main page, receive a high amount of traffic everyday, which results in a lot of edit conflicts. This issue is one of the main things which needs to be considered about enWiki:TAFI, which will be going to the Main Page soon. If there was a way to track just the number of edit conflicts (and maybe the percentage of those conflicts which were "resolved" - Resolved implying another edit by the same user within 10 minutes.), it would be really helpful in tracking down the efficiency of handling them, and to figure out how to deal with them. [Do I get informed of all replies to this page? If not, please leave a talkback on my talkpage at enWiki [User:TheOriginalSoni]] Cheers, Soni
(In reply to comment #0) > [Do I get informed of all replies to this page? By default you get them if you have not changed settings under https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email :)
(In reply to comment #0) > Highly viewed articles, especially those on the main page, receive a high > amount of traffic everyday, which results in a lot of edit conflicts. Maybe. > This > issue is one of the main things which needs to be considered about > enWiki: Definitely not. > TAFI, > which will be going to the Main Page soon. [[Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement]]? It's not on the main page, so there isn't any proof this is really a problem. > > If there was a way to track just the number of edit conflicts (and maybe the > percentage of those conflicts which were "resolved" - Resolved implying > another > edit by the same user within 10 minutes.), Your definition of resolved is weird: a resolved edit conflict is one which gets automatically merged or suppressed by MediaWiki, or one where the user manually merges the edits, in short any edit conflict resulting in a saved edit. Perhaps you're talking of edit conflicts where the user just saves the own version killing the last edit, only to recover it later? > it would be really helpful in > tracking down the efficiency of handling them, and to figure out how to deal > with them. What about telling users to write "edit conflict" in their edit summary when they do something as unkind as what above? Or maybe, if you better defined what sort of occasions you're talking about, we could find a way to automatically detect them and file another bug about adding a tag ([[mw:Manual:Tags]]) to such edits, but it seems unlikely. It's not clear what the stated problem actually is and the suggested solution (cluttering who knows what place with some obscure information of little or n interest for most people) is not acceptable, so I'm marking this rejected to save your time. Feel free to reopen if you can clarify the rationale, or to adopt the tagging proposal above and file a new bug.
