Updating signatures is something I do from time to time but there are definitely some folk who frown on the practice. I'm pretty sure getting a bot to change your old signatures en masse would draw a lot of heat?

I'm a few days late but happy 10th birthday to this task. 🎂

This task became obsolete when the date selector was added to special pages that allow filtering.

That's fine with me, I always disliked the arrow anyway. One potential option is (In Section: Add content), where the "In: " is screen reader-only and heavy weight text is used to distinguish the section name rather than adding a symbol which is something that comes with its own issues.

Funny how you could have been that constructive with your commentary the first time around and yet chose not to be.

At some point the advocates of "compactness" are going to have to accept that wanting to use something that looks like a telephone directory circa 1984 is a position held by a minority of users.

Thanks @Samwalton9-WMF for mentioning this task back in December while I was complaining on Discord about our special pages, one of my perennial activities. I actually started producing something to reply with back then but various factors got in the way, so here I am now!

In T382749#10422800, @Pppery wrote:

(MediaWiki-Special-pages is only for special pages that don't have another more appropriate component - see its description)

I see identical filter options on both pages so believe this task should be closed as complete.

Trying to page through that log more than 42 results at a time causes an InvalidArgumentException.

Not sure why back in 2016 I felt this was somehow different from T139858 - see that instead.

Umherirrender wrote:

It is not possible to revision delete the page name only

In T139858#10351080, @Umherirrender wrote:

1. Log in as oversighter

Reopening; I meant to get around to this but never did.

Thanks @Aklapper! 🥳

Done, thank you @Zabe.

It was such a nightmare getting SUL sorted out back in 2012 and now it turns out that it was never truly finished 😂 I'll request the rename over there. Thanks!

This isn't blocking the rename, the Wikitech account can be attached to the global SUL for Hex after my account is renamed to that. Requesting a rename to Scott and getting it attached, only for it to be immediately renamed back to Hex would be pointless extra effort - not least for an account that I only ever made one edit with 11 years ago.

There's been no movement on this since I subscribed to one of the merged bugs nine years ago. Any chance of some priority being given to it? Especially since the namespace selector on search has had this capability for a very long time.

An approach has been missed in the discussion so far, which is to not make decisions over which namespaces have more abstract utility but to allow users to choose how they want the list to be sorted instead. Having the list as an antique plain dropdown makes that much harder, when it could be a panel containing items that can be sorted by drag and drop. Naturally in 2024 any such reordering should be instantly saved as a user preference to be applied anywhere there's a namespace selector. A "reset order" button would need to be provided as well. This would offer a gentle and straightforward way for motivated users to optimize a small part of their interface while not interfering with the status quo.

As a suggestion for how this could be implemented:

Thanks @Bugreporter! 👍🏻

I'm a couple of months late but just want to say happy tenth birthday to this task.

🎉

Thanks a million for this @Lens0021.

Another way to solve this would be a dynamic load of further history elements by the api and adding them the history page.

(Apologies all for bugspam)

It stopped being developed in 2015, but as you wish.

Marking as resolved as Flow is defunct.

@Addshore OK, great. Thanks for the info 👍

Just like that, without even a comment?

[New comment after refreshing my memory]

I think this is related in some fashion to T13181.

Done.

I've unmarked this story as being a duplicate of T72239 because that is different, specifically requesting "Add null revisions for page delete and restore events". This task as I envisioned it would be resolved by using database queries and sorting to produce a merged view of existing logs.

@Ammarpad - you've merged my task T62736 (created 6 months before this one in 2014) here as a duplicate. But I share the many concerns expressed by commenters above about the hacky nature of using null revisions. My task imagined using database queries to provide an integrated view of history and deletion events, and as such I don't think it's a duplicate of this at all.

Hi, great to see this suggestion finally being implemented 7 years after I filed it. However looking through the diff in an email I just had from Jenkins, the message "Displayed $1 {{PLURAL:$1|item|items}}." is using past tense. It should be in present tense, consistent with other comparable messages (eg. on Special:FewestRevisions, "Showing below up to 50 results in range #1 to #50.").

In T218872#5528015, @DannyS712 wrote:

To clarify, are you asking to

1. Create a new (null) entry in a page's deletion log, to leave the comment, or
2. Allow editing the comment in the original log entry, and log the editing?

In T47987#5278923, @dbarratt wrote:

I believe doing a re-block would create a new log entry with the altered text.

See also T13739, "Inverse selection for [[Special:Log]]".

Yeah - on enwp we can use RevDel to remove the visible traces of vandalism, but that's obviously not an option here.