MediaWiki talk:Undo-summary

shorter?
We have a shortened summary edit box, and anyway, I've always thought the message too long. Would there be any objections to shortening it to ? Contribs would be one more click away (as would be talk), but you can actually see that there's space to add stuff after the. Any objections? -- ◄mendel► 01:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I approve. This gives more room for a reasonable edit summary when reverting changes, especially from an IP. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 01:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Examples: -- ◄mendel► 02:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Linking to the user page doesn't make sense. Having a link to the user's contribs makes sense because, if some user is getting reverted, you might want to check their contributions and see if they've made any other edits that need reverting (vandal/etc).  A link to the user's talkpage is also useful, in case you need to warn/inform them about their edits.  But a link to the userpage?  Why?  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 04:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of the edit box change, I see a strong incentive to have a very short message even if you need 2 clicks to get to contribs via the user page, and 2 clicks to get to talk via the user page. It's a matter of balancing interests: is it more important to get to these destinations with just 1 click (and please remember that in most cases, the original edit is in close proximity on RC and has these links you want), or is it more important to have a revert message that leaves room to start into the explanation on Monaco without needing to scroll? For me, the short message wins out, but since it's a matter of opinion, your view may differ. -- ◄mendel► 23:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you get to someone's contributions without a direct link? The only way I know is to hit "my contributions" and paste their username in there. A direct link to it is convenient to have in case of reverts, unless there's another way to get there just clicking from their userpage that I don't know about. It doesn't take long to go to someone's userpage and hit "discussion" to get to their talk, so that's not an issue and the talk link is not necessary, as the user link is a bit shorter (by 10 characters). RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 04:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, iirc, if you open someone's contributions, you can immediately link to their userpage and talk from there, so just the contributions links alone would be enough. RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 04:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The toolbox has a link to one's contributions (It's also a handy way of finding out if a User: page actually is registered; the Contribs link only pops up when the account is registered). Also, some time soon the summary bar is going to be extended, right? --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  12:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It will be extended to...500px I think? But still shorter than it used to be on Monaco. So it still makes sense to shorten the summary some way or other. Anyway, I personally think Userpage seems like the most logical thing to remove, for reasons the Doctor explained above. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 12:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said above, a link to the Talk page is not necessary either, since you can get there in 2 licks from the contribs page. I still don't know what Viper is talking about.  I can see MY contributions link fine, but when I'm viewing someone ELSE's userpage, can I get to THEIR contribs without opening mine and copy/pasting their username into the form?  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 19:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 2 licks, huh?
 * The toolbox is below the search box / Sponsors box in Monobook. It should appear on any registered user- and talkpages. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  19:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Bahaha, never knew it was there. And yes, I like to lick my mouse, it tastes like strawberries. So anyway, that's a horrible place for the toolbox imo (in Monobook, in any case), since you have to scroll to even see it. A user's contribs page has their userpage link right under the page header, hit userpage>discussion and tadaa! So of the three, contribs is by far the most pain in the @$$ one to get to and it puts the other two right in front of you. RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 19:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your mouse is supposed to taste like chicken. But then again, strawberries are supposed to taste like chicken too, so I suppose that's alright. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) We have the 200px summary box now, and the smallest window that supports the toolbar without wrap is 948 pixels. That means on 1024x768 even a wider summary is at only 280 pixels, and you'd need a 1248 px wide window to see the full 500. Or you could click "Enter Widescreen" and get an extra 200px. -- ◄mendel► 21:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've illustrated these sizes above, and as you can see, the contribs link doesn't fit the 280px summary either. -- ◄mendel► 21:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it would fit perfectly (give or take a couple px) if you leave the link raw and take out the "|Gene195" part. :P Of course, everything depends on how long someone's username is. But either way, of all 3 links, any of them will take you to the other two (now that I figured out where the contributions link is), so it doesn't much matter what one is put into the summary. Dealing with a vandal is always a case-by-case situation, and is always a pain, so an extra click won't make much difference, especially since it's usually the same people taking care of it, so they know where everything is. So, whoever does this the most should have the say on what link they prefer to have it. RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 05:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Raw link is bad because then RC looks ugly. There's no perfect solution, it's all a matter of balance. And ideally, I don't want it to "fit", I want there to be some inviting clear space in the summary box that is easy to click into.
 * Username length: well, obviously you never know, but it ought to work for IPs.
 * On another note, I'm a bit disappointed how long it takes to implement such a simple fix that can easily modified if it needs improvement. -- ◄mendel► 09:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I say just go with the shortest: Reverted User:Gene195 and be done. It doesn't seem like anyone had any strong feelings about the 3 choices here, and having "User:" there in front of the name won't make RC look ugly imo, it's just 5 characters, but saves the repetition of the "|Gene195."  If people complain, you can look into it at that point.  Plus, many vandalisms are obvious without needing to look at contribs at all.  If there is a warning on the userpage talk already, then request/execute a ban, if not, post the warning.  Maybe I'm over-simplifying the process, but that's my impression of how this works.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 20:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, another thing you can do is create a "Vandalism Warning" template which would put all 3 links there for you, since I think most vandals get a warning before a ban anyway. Just a thought.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 20:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd put it on, except I can't because I've been demoted. Explain the vandalism template for me: you'd put it on the vandals talkpage to get the three links that are already on it? -- ◄mendel► 00:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a 1 click link to a user's contribs from their talk page? --JonTheMon 00:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, i so haven't used the toolbox enough. --JonTheMon 00:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Post here if it doesn't work so well after all. -- ◄mendel► 03:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, to explain my template suggestion... If anyone is annoyed by having to scroll down to the toolbox to get to the user's contributions, the link can be included in the warning template. It would also be a more standardized warning, eliminating any NPA issues or the vandal taking out their rage on whomever commented on their actions, etc., since vandalism is vandalism is vandalism.  It would save you from having to write up your own warning every time.  And it could include a direct link to our policies regarding vandalism and the resulting ban.  I also think it would look a little more official and intimidating than a simple comment by a user/admin, and the link to their own contributions would show them that anything they do is tracked and can be undone.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 03:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * GWW vandal template comes to mind. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 04:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks useful. It's got all the links, but doesn't point directly to the vandalism in question.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 08:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Our own template is similar - it has link to the user's talk and contribs (although not as obvious), and it allows you to supply a general reason and the name of a specific article you can look at for evidence.  It's also a lot more wordy.  It probably just needs a redesign to make the user links more obvious.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 14:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen it, but I completely forgot that it had the links there. I think it could use just a little redesign to be a little more focused on the user it refers to, like telling them where to look for the policies that they violated.  It's not common, but sometimes vandalism occurs by accident.  Plus, even if it was intentional, if the user reads the policies and realizes that they won't get much attention from it and that all their "work" can be easily reverted, it may keep them from returning on another IP/Username.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Some things to consider: Anyways, just tossing those arguments into the pool of considerations to be weighted with the others. It's not a mega-big issue eitherway IMO. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 03:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Undos (unlike Rollbacks) aren't always used for vandalism, and generally I feel whatever we do to any templates doesn't uniformly help making the contribs link more accessable to the ppl not noticing the toolbox.
 * From the contribs page there are obvious non-trivial links to the user page and user talk page. While the User page and User talk page have links to each other and both link to the contribs page, the link to contribs page is less well-known.  The contribs page is also more useful to easily catch all the other vandalism in the same spree, or for catching chronic vandalistic behaviors.  Thus from a utilitarian perspective the link from contribs page is more handy for general ppl following the edit summaries IMO.
 * I use the "home"/"end" keys to jump around the summary text box, so it is harder for me to appreciate the issues faced by people inconvenienced by the length of the default text in the summary box. I'm not saying every editor should know how to do this, but rather because I don't regularly scroll in a tedious way, it is hard for me to really understand how bad not using "home"/"end" keys is.


 * Another argument for using the contribs link: it never redlinks, whereas userpage links in undo messages will often redlink, given that the edits most likely to be undone will be made by non-regular users who don't have userpages (for reference). Clicking the link in that case is annoying because it automatically goes to the edit view for that userpage.  I'd rather have a link that takes me to something useful immediately, rather than a useless edit box.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 14:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)