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.

in hebrew it's written אתה יכול עזור instead of אתה יכול לעזור when using it

Omer abcd (talkcontribs)

I said the issue in the title

Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Thanks for the report! All translations (except English) are done on I had a look, but can't find this exact sentence. The word "לעזור" appears a single time in twocolconflict-split-header-hint. The other words appear a few more times in these messages:

If you can't make the edits yourself, please let me know which message needs to be changed, and how.

Reply to "in hebrew it's written אתה יכול עזור instead of אתה יכול לעזור when using it"

wrong interlanguages WP links translations

TCY (talkcontribs)

I've translated the en.WP article Coordination Council (Belarus) on the French Wikipedia (Conseil de coordination (Biélorussie)). The good interlanguage links to Russian Wikipedia when the articles doesn't exist in the english WP have been wrongly translated in the French translation into English Wikipedia links to english WP articles which do not exist !

Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talkcontribs)
Reply to "wrong interlanguages WP links translations"
Seewolf (talkcontribs)

If I open the editor for an answer and then think long enough about my answer, the tool erases every answer which was saved in the meantime. I don't think that's the way it should work.

Seewolf (talkcontribs)

We just had a Sperrprüfung because of this behaviorand I could reproduce it easily. --~~~~

Robin Strohmeyer (WMDE) (talkcontribs)
Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

@Seewolf: We haven't been able to reproduce the issue. You said you could do that. Can you explain in a little more detail how you did it?

Reply to "Not for thinkers"

Interface for discussion conflicts is great

Wugapodes (talkcontribs)

I really liked the new edit conflict interface (the one with the radio buttons), but even with that, edit conflicts in discussions were still a pain. It was great for articles or editing the same text, but when adding to a discussion, I found myself, more often than not, just reopening the edit-interface and adding my text again because it was easier. I just got this new paragraph-based interface and it's amazing. I'm really excited about this feature and am thankful to everyone who is working on it!

My only suggestion is to add more helpful tooltips or labels. Having seen the previous radio-button interface, this one confused me a bit and it took me some time to figure out what would happen when I hit "publish". I think RoySmith gave a more detailed description below which was similar to my confusion. I remember when I first got the interface with the radio buttons that there were blue dots that were part of a tutorial or something? Could those be reintroduced?

Seewolf (talkcontribs)


Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Wugapodes:, thanks for your feedback. We are glad to hear you like the new interfaces.

Currently, there are no blue buttons in the talk page edit conflict interface, but we will take your feedback into consideration and see how we can improve the tooltips and help text as we roll out the interface to more wikis.  --For the Technical Wishes Team (talkcontribs)


Reply to "Interface for discussion conflicts is great"
Sunpriat (talkcontribs)
Reply to "False positive"

How to test this interface?

Summary by Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE)
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.

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Aron Manning:, thanks for your feedback. Unfortunately, there is no demo setup available for this feature. You can create an edit conflict with yourself if you make one of the changes from a private/incognito window where you aren’t logged in to your account.

Whether the feature is available as a Beta Preference depends on which wiki you are on. On MediaWiki it is a default feature already, so it’s not shown as a Beta Preference in the list. The reason it’s still a beta feature on the roadmap is because it’s currently only a default feature on dewiki, arwiki, fawiki and Group 0 wikis (MediaWiki is in this group). For all other wikis it remains a beta feature for now. --For the Technical Wishes Team

Aron Manning (talkcontribs)

> You can create an edit conflict with yourself if you make one of the changes from a private/incognito window where you aren’t logged in to your account.

Thank you for the detailed answers. To clarify: this means that if a user conflicts with themself, that case is ignored?

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Aron Manning:, yes, that’s right. But the fact that a user’s conflict with themselves is ignored is not actually something that is decided by this interface. It’s something that the MediaWiki core code does through the “EditPage class”. We didn’t work on that code in this project, so whether an edit conflict is detected and then shown actually depends on the same MediaWiki core code that has been in place for a long time, not on the new paragraph-based edit conflict interface. -- For the Technical Wishes Team

Aron Manning (talkcontribs)

I suspected that is the case. From one aspect it makes sense to avoid complicating editing with conflict resolution with oneself - probably editors just want their last version. Thank you for confirming this.

Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

I'm sorry to hear this is causing confusion. MediaWiki's behavior is underspecified and rather inconsistent when "conflicting with yourself". There are dozens of tickets discussing this problem for years, most notably phab:T36423, phab:T58849, and phab:T222805, as well as very recent incidents, see phab:T246726. When testing the conflict resolution interface it's important to do this with two different users. One of them can be an anonymous, not logged in user, as Max already mentioned. That can be done using an incognito window.

Reply to "How to test this interface?"

The new tool is missing the "Show changes" button

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.)

This post was hidden by Max Klemm (WMDE) (history)
Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Alsee:, thanks for your feedback. We decided to publish the feature without the ‘Show Changes’ option, because it actually is a very complex and resource intensive function to integrate into the feature.

However, we appreciate your feedback and will consider it in any further development of the tool. -- For the Technical Wishes Team

Alsee (talkcontribs)

@Max Klemm (WMDE) your comment did not match my experience. I did directly handle the text of the other person's comment. Below I will describe my edit conflict and resolution. (If requested, I could dig up a link for the conflict diff.)

In the tool I had three separated regions of conflict to resolve:

  • Top conflict choice: I had inserted a new line (a template). I resolved this conflict-region by selecting my version.
  • Gray unchanged text: Old comments from multiple people.
  • Middle conflict choice: One side had a new comment from someone else (I believe in yellow), the other side had a new comment by me (I believe in blue). I resolved this conflict-region by CTRL-C copying their text, clicking the edit pencil on my comment-area, and pasting their comment above mine. At the time I did not see any other way to resolve this conflict-portion. Either there was no other option present, or I missed it.
  • Gray unchanged text: The start of a ===subsection===.
  • Bottom conflict choice: Two people had added comments in this subsection. I resolved this conflict-region by selecting their version.

We decided to publish the feature without the ‘Show Changes’ option, because it actually is a very complex and resource intensive function to integrate into the feature.

Your meaning is somewhat unclear. Did you mean you would add the button in a later publication? Or did you mean you decided to drop the button from the end product? ShowChanges is probably used less often, but it serves an important function. ShowPreview and ShowChanges highlight or conceal essentially opposite aspects of the content.

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Alsee:, sorry, if the last answer was not clear. Based on your description, you did not end up in the edit conflict interface  for talk pages, but in the general edit conflict interface shown in all other cases. The edit conflict interface for talk pages or discussion-based edit conflicts appears in the talk or project namespace when two people insert a new line in the same single place on the page at the same time. The general edit conflict interface appears, when two people edit two or more parts of the same page at the same time. In your case, unfortunately, you ended up in the general interface since you added both a new line and added a new comment to the discussion on the page. This is of course not optimal, so thank you for letting us know about this case so that we can try to address it through future improvements.  

As for the ShowChanges button, currently we do not have plans to add the button. However, we will consider your feedback in any planning of changes we would make in the future and potentially come back to you for more input if you would be open to it? -- For the Technical Wishes Team

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

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"