On 27 June 2010 21:07, Rob Lanphier <[email protected]> wrote: >> The guidance for reviewing multiple edits >> ( >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewing#Step-by-step_.22how-to.22_for_reviewing_multiple_edits >> ) >> says you have to go through them one-by-one (unless they are all by >> the same user), so I suggest eliminating the option of review multiple >> edits with a single click, unless they are all by the same user. The >> feature should be designed to fit in with the way it is used, after >> all. Once you've done that, the issue you raise goes away. > > > I think it actually gets worse. What should the reject button do in the > case that the reviewer is looking at A1 and P1?
It would function as "undo". In the event that the edit cannot be undone, it fails gracefully. The software can't be expected to do everything successfully. > However, I >> would suggest a "rollback" or "undo" button (which does that same as >> those buttons always do) rather than a "reject" button - don't >> introduce a new term when it does the same thing as an existing >> feature with its own name. > > > The confirmation page that is shown when the user hits "reject" tells the > reviewer that they are about to "undo" one or more revisions. We're not > wedded to the word "reject", but it's pretty clear that reviewers are going > to look around to the counterpart to "accept". There's already an "undo" > link on these pages, but people still feel that some sort of "reject" or > "decline" is necessary. I think if a button labelled "rollback" or "undo" were right next to the "accept" button they would recognise it as the counterpart to "accept". If I saw a "reject" button I wouldn't know exactly what it's going to do. If I saw a "rollback" or "undo" button, I'd know exactly what to expect when I clicked it since I've been clicking button (well, links) with those names for years. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
