Per-Site Option for Mandatory Description Of Changes

This section on the Community is no longer supported, in favour of Wikidot's Official Feedback Site.

It is retained here for archiving purposes.

Wish List

---

Template "template:wishlist" can not be found.

---

Tags

admin attributes backup boolean box button categories category change changelog changes characters clear_communication comma-separated comments conditional count custom description editor email feature features feeds files flexible form forum function graphic gui hide highlighting history if ifdef import include interface interwiki inverse invitations karma layout limit link listpages manager markup members meta-tags module name newpage notification objects one only option optional order ordering orphanedpages page pagelist parent password per permissions popular print private pro public random registration requests restore rss search search__one_category show showing site sort source specific syntax system tab tag tags template text title user variables view w3.org whitespace wikidot wish wishes wishlist wysiwyg zip

Posted by mattdm on 20 Aug 2008 19:26, last edited on 27 Mar 2009 23:10

This wish is open

Description

It's too easy to just leave the "short description of changes" box empty. I'd like, for my own good, to have a site option which makes it mandatory. Having to put something each time is a minor annoyance that really pays for itself when you're viewing the history.

For convenience, there could be a "minor change" checkbox above the textarea which would gray out the text area and automatically insert the text "minor change". Or, there could be a list of predefined descriptions like: "minor (typo)" / "minor (clarity)", "minor (spelling)", etc.

Links to forum Posts

http://community.wikidot.com/forum/t-82364/option-to-require-description-of-wiki-changes

---

Rate this Wish

We encourage you to "rate" the suggestions. The higher the rating, the better the chance of the wish being granted (well, possibly).

mattdm 22 Aug 2008 17:38

Someone voted this one down without commenting. What's not to like? You wouldn't need it on your own site.

Re:

Craig Macomber 22 Aug 2008 19:28

They likely voted it down because they thought it was not urgent or important in comparison to other options. There are tons of things here that would clearly be beneficial.

Re:

Phil Chett 22 Aug 2008 21:24

could be some dont like the idea because if you HAD to comment, it might take more time to write the comment, then make the change itself, including clicking boxes with predetermined comments.

Re:

mattdm 24 Aug 2008 12:44

Of course — that's why the metadata doesn't get entered in the first place. It's so much easier to skip.

But I'm not suggesting that it be forced on anyone's site — it'd be an option.

axebreaker 01 Sep 2008 13:03

Yes. As the admin for a society wiki, this would be fantastic. Here's a specific example, if that helps your case:

One of the reasons my group uses our wiki, rather than our official website, for termcards (termly 'what's on' lists) is that they automatically get archived. But if the person who updates the termcard forgets to include the term date in the 'description of changes' box, it becomes very difficult to find a particular term's entry in the page history.

---

þas ofereode, þisses swa mæg

Re:

axebreaker 01 Sep 2008 13:06

Whoops, forgot to add - could this be a per-page option, rather than a per-site option? Then you could only use it for pages where it's actually needed and the poeple Phil mentions are less likely to be bothered by it.

---

þas ofereode, þisses swa mæg