Help talk:Paragraph-based Edit Conflict Interface

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

Feedback and discussion page for the Paragraph-based Edit Conflict Interface.

Update: We completely revised the interface for this feature based on user feedback and user test.

Report a new bug in Phabricator

You can post in any language here, preferably English or German.

RoySmith (talkcontribs)

I just got the new beta interface for the first time. To be honest, I find it totally confusing. Some of it makes sense. There's two text boxes, highlighted in yellow and blue. I get that. The blue one on the bottom is what I wrote, the yellow one on the top is what somebody else wrote. So far, so good.

Then, there's a button with up and down arrows which flips those two. I don't understand this. It switches which is on top, but other than this trivial layout change, I don't see that it performs any useful function.

My text has two controls on it, a checkmark and an X. Again, I have no clue what these do. The checkmark has a tooltip, "Apply your changes to this text". I don't understand what that means. Does it mean, take this change and automatically merge it into the other text? The X tooltip says, "Discard all your changes to this text". I'm afraid to even click that one because I don't know what it'll do. Discard permanently with no way to recover the text?

Sorry, this is just totally mystifying. And I say that as a software engineer with many years of using merge conflict resolution tools.

RoySmith (talkcontribs)

PS, I did what I usually do. I copied my text to the clipboard, opened up the same page in another window, and redid my edit there. That seems much simpler and understandable than any of the automatic merge tools I've seen tried.

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @RoySmith:, we have seen your feedback and need some more time to discuss it with our team. I will come back to you at the beginning of next week. -- For the Technical Wishes Team

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @RoySmith:, thanks for your constructive feedback. Your comments are helpful for understanding where usability improvements could be made to the interface. To explain what the controls you mention should do, both symbols (the check mark and the X) only appear if you decide to edit your post (click into the textbox) in the talk page edit conflict interface. By clicking the check mark, you save any changes you’ve made to your post in the interface. By clicking on the X, every change you made in the talk page edit conflict interface is discarded and you will see the text of your initial post (which resulted in the initial edit conflict). --For the Technical Wishes Team

Reply to "This is totally confusing"

The new tool is missing the "Show changes" button

1
Alsee (talkcontribs)

The standard edit mode has three core buttons:

  1. Publish Changes
  2. Show Preview
  3. Show Changes

The third button is missing in the new tool. The button brings up a standard DIFF which shows what changes will be made, and it does so in a familiar, formal, and extremely precise format. My last conflict was a bit more complicated than average, I did resolve it correctly, but during the process I wasn't 100% sure I had solved the edit conflict cleanly. I was painfully hesitant to save without being able to verify it via the ShowChanges diff. (It happened to be a talk page edit conflict, and there is heightened feeling of responsibility not to screw up other people's comments.)

Reply to "The new tool is missing the "Show changes" button"

How to test this interface?

1
Aron Manning (talkcontribs)

I've tried to edit conflict with myself in the Sandbox, but it just overwrote my first change with the second. A demo setup would be helpful.

Help:Paragraph-based Edit Conflict Interface#Usage mentions to enable the beta feature. There's no such option in my Beta Preferences, though according to the roadmap it's still in beta.

Reply to "How to test this interface?"
Sheenbrino (talkcontribs)

it's good. I don´t hace problems with this tool

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Great, we are glad to hear it works for you. :)

Reply to "Good"

Editors are mixed together

3
Misibacsi (talkcontribs)

I edited an article today ([[:hu:Bismarck (csatahajó) ]]). When I intended to save my modifications, the "Two Column Edit Conflict View" warned me of a conflict with another editor. I have sent him a message, but he did not respond. I did not "save" my modifications yet!


Meanwhile I checked the differences between the two versions, and I noticed, that only I modified the article, the "other" editor did not. However, the article was somehow saved, with the name of the other editor, but the content was my modifications!


Here is the link to the differences: https://hu.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bismarck_%28csatahaj%C3%B3%29&type=revision&diff=22661743&oldid=22661703


The histrory says "2020. május 24., 15:22‎ Sepultura", which is incorrect, because editor Sepultura says he did not edit the article.

More importantly I recognize my text (under his name).


Robin Strohmeyer (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Misibacsi, we looked into your request last week and tried to understand what was going on here.

It is quite a head scratcher, to be honest.

After going through the version history, it seems to us as if you and Sepultura made very similar edits (maybe following a convention?). Thus, our best interpretation so far is that the text you thought to recognize as your own actually comes from Sepultura and just looks very similar to your edits.

Do you think that’s possible?

PS: Unfortunately, we don’t have any Hungarian speakers on our end, so we had to rely on auto-translation for our research. This might have led to misinterpretations of the situation - apologies if that is the case. If we misunderstood anything, please let us know. Robin Strohmeyer (WMDE)

Misibacsi (talkcontribs)

It seems you are right: we made very similar edits (following conventions and mostly correcting typos). When I saw the article some minutes later, I was sure that "these were my edits". Which was strange, because I did not save my edits.

Meanwhile I wrote to the other editor several times, but he did not respond.

As I did not receive answers from him, I thought, that the "History" of the article contains a mistake as those were my edits and not his.

Later he admitted, that he made modifications and when he finished editing he left his home, so he could answer to my questions. (Much later he returned and answered to me).

So, it is settled, sorry for the inconvenience, but I thought I found a serious software bug in the system... (fortunately it was not the case).


Reply to "Editors are mixed together"
ValeJappo (talkcontribs)

Today this tool does not work: when there is an edit conflict, starts the "old tool".

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

@ValeJappo: We disabled the tool for edit conflicts on talk pages. If your edit conflict was on a talk page, this is the reason why you saw the old interface. -- For the Technical Wishes Team: Max Klemm (WMDE) (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Dvorapa (talkcontribs)

Why? This week every day I've had numerous edit conflicts and all of them with the old interface. First I was thinking this is a cache issue or some bug, but after a week of seeing old bad interface I searched for any explanation (unsuccessfully).

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Dvorapa: We turned off the Two Column Edit Conflict Interface for talk pages, because it helps merging two versions of a page. This is not helpful for edit conflicts on talk pages.
I guess the reason why you still see the old interface is that it only is a default feature on the German, Farsi, and Arabic Wikipedia. However, if you want to use it already on the Czech Wikipedia, you should be able to enable it as a beta feature in your settings. --For the Technical Wishes Team: Max Klemm (WMDE) (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Dvorapa (talkcontribs)

I don't understand anything from your answer, I'm sorry, please be more specific. Why do you think it is more helpful to use the old interface for talk pages instead of the new one? Is there a way to turn it back on even on talk pages?

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Dvorapa: When an edit conflict occurs, the Two Column Conflict interface works in such way that it needs you to choose either between your edit or the edit of the person you are having the edit conflict with. On talk pages this set up does not make any sense, since you do not want to choose between the other persons comment or yours. Both should be on there. In most cases you only want to adjust the order of the comments. Is this more specific? As always, you can find more information on the Two Column Conflict Edit Conflict View project page.
No, there is currently no way to turn it back on. There will be an additional interface to help solve edit conflicts on talk pages in the future. --For the Technical Wishes Team: Max Klemm (WMDE) (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Dvorapa (talkcontribs)

Now I understand your response, thank you for the explanation. But still Two Column Edit Conflict interface also allows both compared versions to be edited, which several cswiki users used to merge both changes also on talk pages, choosing their order and putting them together. In the old interface there is just one edit window with the full page text (not just the conflicting parts), which makes such merge not an easy task. That's what I liked most on the tool's interface: The ability to edit only the conflicting parts, not the whole page and it seemed to me as a key feature of it. I hope this will eventually become the main interface and once again we could use Two Column Edit Conflict tool. Shame I have to turn the Beta Feature off because seeing the new interface in 1 of 10 cases makes me quite confused.

Dvorapa (talkcontribs)

I also hope the talk page edit conflict interface you mentioned will launch soon. It looks awesome on the screenshots.

ValeJappo (talkcontribs)
Ferdi2005 (talkcontribs)

And why isn't it working also on Wikipedia: namespace pages?

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Ferdi2005:, we temporarily disabled the Two Column Conflict interface for the "Wikipedia:" namespace, because there are many discussion happening in this namespace and the Two Column Edit Conflict View doesn't work as well on these kind of pages. We are working on an additional interface for talk pages and will enable it on these pages soon. -- For the Technical Wishes Team: Max Klemm (WMDE) (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Reply to "Does not work"
W!B: (talkcontribs)

das werkzeug ist schrecklich, wenn ich in den konflikt einfach manuell lösen will.

wie komm ich da wieder raus?

wie kann ich _nur einen_ von mehreren blöcken anders auflösen als durch pores überschrieben?.

wieso beschränkt sich das tool nicht nur auf _den_ abschnitt, den ich bearbeitet habe, wie das die alt versionsansicht schon konnte.?


Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi@W!B::, du kannst die Oberfläche in den Einstellungen abschalten. Dann kommst du zur vorherigen Ansicht zurück. Es sollten nur Textabschnitte, die sich unterscheiden, nebeneinander angezeigt werden. Du kannst diese bearbeiten, indem du auf das 'Stift- Symbol' in der rechten, oberen Ecke des Textfeldes klickst. Die Textabschnitte, die gleich sind, sollten über die volle Länge der Seite in grauen Kästen angezeigt werden. --Für das Team Technische Wünsche: Max Klemm (WMDE) (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

W!B: (talkcontribs)

danke. ja, wenn es keine möglichkeit gibt, schnell zwischen den beiden werkzeugen umzuschalten, werd ich es ganz deaktivieren.

der grund ist übrigens, dass ein editkonflikt auf einer diskussionsseite gänzlich anders aufzulösen ist als in einem artikel. bei zweiterem muss man zwei textversionen konsolodieren, bei ersterem aber meist einfach die selbe antwort nur anders plazieren. dafür ist dieses tool untauglich.

und mir kommen konflikte hauptsächlich auf diskseiten unter.

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)
W!B: (talkcontribs)

danke dir für den hinweis. nichtsdestotrotz wird das nicht helfen, auch hierbei gibt es mehrere häufige fälle: vor dem EK-beitrag des kollegen einschieben (direkte antwort zum vorausgegangenen); danach (mit hinweis EK, wenn das gespräch so weiterlaufen kann); meinen text aufteilen zwischen diesen optionen; nur teilweise neu formulieren; antwort gänzlich neu gestalten.

da ich kaum annehme, dass die "neue" skin das leisten wird, wird auch diese nur etwas bringen, wenn ich sie schnell ein- und ausschalten kann, um in reinem text-modus zu editieren, wenn das besser geht (ganz wie beim WikiEd und klassischem Quelltext-editor, WikiEd kann zb. lähmend träge laufen und ist mir viel zu überladen, weshalb ich ihn nur in ausnahmefällen verwende)

ein gespräch -- auch schriftlich -- ist halt wesentlich komplexer als nur eine simple abfolge von tweets und re-tweets. zumindest in der gesprächskultur, in der ich sozialisert bin, und die zum glück in der WP auch noch gepflegt wird -- weshalb sich auch diese hiesige form der "diskussionsseite" nie durchsetzen wird, da sie vereinsamte dialoge forciert, anstatt echte diskussionen in der gruppe: das hier ist _keine_ diskussionsseite, sondern ein "small talk", der es leicht macht, beiträge anderer effizient zu ignorieren -- besser, um echte zwiegespräche (dialoge) zu führen, also einer hilfe- und ratgeberseite durchaus angemessen.

und auch die "neue" skin leidet aber unter demselben denkmodell (gesprächskulturmodell), auch in ihr hab ich keinerlei überblick zum gesamtkontext des gespräches, weil die weiteren vorbeiträge ausgeblendet sind. in einem mehr-personen-gespräch knüpft man aber _nie_ nur an den direkten vorredner an. auch -- eigentlich insbesondere -- dann nicht , wenn man sich versehentlich gegenseitig ins wort gefallen ist. das wäre auch reallife eine der heikelsten gesprächssituationen überhaupt, und lässt sich nicht nach schema-f lösen.


Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @W!B:: wir sind uns der möglichen Komplexität von Diskussionen auf Diskussionsseiten bewusst und probieren die Oberfläche daraufhin zu entwickeln (T230231).
Es wäre großartig, wenn du dir die zusätzliche Oberfläche für Bearbeitungskonflikte auf Diskussionsseiten nochmals anguckst und uns Feedback geben würdest, wenn sie im späteren Verlaufe dieses Jahres bereitgestellt wird. --Für das Team Technische Wünsche: Max Klemm (WMDE) (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Reply to "way out"

Unacceptable replacement of <> symbols

10
Summary by Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE)
Andrew Davidson (talkcontribs)

I used the tool to resolve an edit conflict at Bob the Builder This munged the formatting by replacing < and > with ampersand codes. As these symbols are widely used on the English Wikipedia, this is unacceptable and so I'm no longer using the beta.

Ravensfire (talkcontribs)

I just ran into this myself. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Peterson_(criminal)&diff=950237197&oldid=950237182]. I had reverted the edit from an IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Peterson_(criminal)&diff=950237182&oldid=950231864], got the edit conflict, chose my revision and accepted and then see the lead messed up. The history showed a second edit from me that appears to have come from the edit conflict resolution. Something's not right.

Interestingly, I got an EC on a subsequent article, clicked preview and saw the same formatting issues. Clicked cancel, and in the history, my original edit was there. This is just odd.

Taste1at (talkcontribs)

The same happened also here:

The replacement occurred for all unchanged text and all text modified by the other user (which I have accepted in conflict resolution). Those lines I did change have not been affected by the bugous replacements.

Ysogo (talkcontribs)
Ravensfire (talkcontribs)

As someone noted below, this doesn't seem to happen if I press Enter when submitting the edit, only when I click on the save button.

Rich Farmbrough (talkcontribs)

We had this on a recent death page <,>," and & were affected. Because of the rate of editing I ended up fixing one character type at a time, which is not ideal. Because "Recent event" articles are more likely to create conflicts, this bug is more likely to express in these circumstances.

Is there a Phab for this?

Ysogo (talkcontribs)
Ammarpad (talkcontribs)

That's an old task, and the issue looks somewhat different. The task for the current issue is phab:T249986

Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

I'm able to reproduce the behavior and can confirm this is clearly a bug. I appears like the actual bug was introduced more than 3 years ago, but only surfaced now because of other changes. I'm really sorry this happened during the Easter holidays. We will backport a fix as soon as we can.

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

The issue was fixed and this fix is life on all Wikis. Thanks a lot for the report. --For the Technical Wishes Team: Max Klemm (WMDE) (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Falsches Dilemma

2
Summary by Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE)
Man77 (talkcontribs)

Wie ich gerade erlebt habe, ist die Lösung eines BK nicht immer, dass man sich für eine der zwei Versionen einer Zeile entscheidet. In einer Diskussion antwortet Benutzer B einzeilig auf einen Beitrag von Benutzer A, während Benutzer C selbst an einer einzeiligen Antwort schreibt und beim Speichern in den BK-Modus kommt. Dort muss er sich entscheiden, ob er seine Antwort oder die von Benutzer B speichern will.

In der früheren Softwarelösung war es so, dass man von der eigenen Version was kopieren konnte und in die momentan gespeicherte einfügen konnte. Das geht jetzt scheinbar nicht. Man muss die Zeile von B oder C nehmen und die andere verschmähen. Das ist eine Verschlimmbesserung.

Ich bitte darum, dass das Ding so weiterentwickelt wird, dass man auch bestimmen kann, dass beide Versionen genommen werden und der Text der eigenen über oder unter den der fremden Version eingesetzt wird. Bei mehrzeiligen BKs ist das vielleicht ein bisschen komplex, aber in meinen Augen ist da eine Nachbesserung unumgänglich. Ich arbeite lieber mit einem etwas mühsamen altbackenen Interface als mit einem hippen, das in der Praxis nicht verlässlich anwendbar ist.

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Man77:, entschuldige, dass ich auf diese Bemerkung erst so spät reagiere. Die habe ich leider übersehen. Wir haben die neue Oberfläche für Diskussionsseiten abgeschaltet, da wir von den Problemen, die du schilderst, auch schon gehört haben. Es soll in Zukunft eine zusätzliche Oberfläche für Bearbeitungskonflikte auf Diskussionsseiten geben. --Für das Team Technische Wünsche: Max Klemm (WMDE) (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Reply to "Falsches Dilemma"

Neuen Abschnitt hinzufügen

3
Man77 (talkcontribs)

Ich hab bisher gerne die Funktion "neuen Abschnitt hinzufügen genutzt", wo dies möglich war und BKs zu erwarten sind. Bitte bin ich damit in einen BK geraten. Mit diesem Ding jetzt schon.

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Man77:, wenn ich dich richtig verstehe, dann hast du das Gefühl öfters in Bearbeitungskonflikte zu geraten, als dies vorher der Fall war, richtig? Dies sollte eigentlich nicht der Fall sein, da wir nichts am Code verändert haben, der entschiedet, ob ein Konflikt vorliegt. Könntest du dies weiter beobachten und dich sonst nochmals hier melden, wenn du weiterhin das Gefühl haben solltest, dass du öfters in Bearbeitungskonflikte gerätst? --Für das Team Technische Wünsche: Max Klemm (WMDE) (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Man77 (talkcontribs)

Hi.

Ich hab diese Lösung jetzt abgeschaltet. Wenn sie funktioniert, ist es ja gut, aber momentan stört sie meine Kreise mehr, als dass sie mir das Leben leichter macht.

Dass ich öfter in BKs gerate als zuvor, würde ich gar nicht behaupten. Aber beim "Abschnitt hinzufügen" war das vorher nie der Fall.

LG!

Reply to "Neuen Abschnitt hinzufügen"