I don't know where else to comment on this, but the two-step process for adding a page to my Watchlist that includes a confirm step is a real PITA in my opinion. I've never seen this on any other wiki. BlankVerse 05:25, 16 January 2007 (EST)
True, but it's difficult to avoid technically. This site uses a an extension called Cache404 which basically makes everything a flat page until you edit it. As you can imagine this really cuts down on bandwidth required, but has the disadvantage of making it impossible to set the watch/unwatch tab correctly when the page is rendered.
That would be quite a project though, so for now this is how it is. -- Mark 09:41, 16 January 2007 (EST)
The automated mechanism by which pages get "added to watchlist" seems haphazard. Although I have my preferences set to automatically add pages I create to my watchlist, only about 9 out of 10 new pages actually get on my watchlist. I've had to go back an add a lot of pages for which I am the only editor, and I just noticed this happen with the most recent new page I made, Udmurtia. Anyone know what's going on? --PeterfitzgeraldTalk 13:13, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
I haven't noticed that, but while we're on the subject, can we revive the 2 step confirm process conversation too? What's stopping us from using the single watch/unwatch button like Wikipedia does? – cacahuatetalk 14:54, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
One thing we don't do is twiddle the "watch/unwatch" button based on whether the current page is already in your watchlist. I think the two-step process is worth it, compared to the speed savings and complexity of working out another solution. --Evan 12:54, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Aha! I finally figured out why the watchlist problem described above occurs. If you are logged out and editing a page, it is not possible to have the "watch this page" box checked. So if you log in and then save the page, the box will remain unchecked, regardless of whether you were watching the page in question, and you will by default automatically "unwatch" the page. I'd file a bug report, but it seems kind of pointless to do so, as there are about 80 open bug reports, none of which seem to be getting any attention. And now if I could stay logged in longer than 30 minutes, this wouldn't be a big problem—but I've given up all hope of that ever happening. --PeterTalk 03:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)