Yes, it is wrong. When you add a collection you can select what type of entity you want it to be a collection of.
I have fixed the documentation, if you want you can add further fixes if needed.
Collections were created for releases and have remained release‐only for quite some time.
I see. I have only a single collection for my ripped CDs, which might well have been created at release-only times.
Alright, now that I’ve been active on MB a while longer and learned some new tricks I no longer think any of my suggestions are very necessary.
- controversial edits (at least 1 “no” and 1 “no” vote)
- almost rejected votes (2 “no” votes, no “yes” vote)
- almost accepted votes (2 “yes” votes, no “no” vote)
And one thing I found: The “almost accepted votes” (displaying from newest to oldest) is almost like a filter for merge-type edits, because those seem to gather yes votes fast if they are correct.
What I’m definitely still missing is a way to see only edits by new users.
Since the “editor flag” filter doesn’t include the options “normal user” and “new user” you can only search for edits by both by excluding all others and then you can’t specify it any further because you have to use the “do not match” option.
Probably because a number of editors have set up bookmarks, like yours, for certain types of destructive edits—like merges.
You can use the “Applied Edit Count of Editor” to get an approximation of “newness”. E.g., your “controversial edits” bookmark, but only for editors with <10 applied edits.
Only, I don’t know if it’s my internet connection, but this only seems to work in combination with other conditions that are very specific.
If I just try to search for all open edits I haven’t voted on by editors with less than n votes I always get this error:
Your search took too long and was cancelled. It may help to be more specific, or to try again.
Yeah, because the edit searches are, AFAIK, more or less direct SQL queries (@yvanzo or @bitmap can correct me if I’m wrong), and a look up of all edits by all editors with < X edits is a huge query. Keep in mind that far, far, far, far most editors/users have exactly 0 edits to their name, applied or not. I think there might already be a ticket for more optimisation for this edit search option, but I can’t be bothered to search for it right now.