Page history shows the revision text with current templates/images. Making exceptions for this would confuse people more, especially when trying to revert to an old version (the templates/images would be mysteriously older). Most readers don't go through the history, so this doesn't matter much. What I don't want to do is break the way history works for certain exceptions, which will greatly annoy editors :/
When you say:
ii) If current is stable, show the stable text, but the last image and the last sighted template.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. So when stable = current what would you like shown when: a) viewing the default version (no "stable=" in the url) b) viewing the stable version (&stable=1) c) viewing the current version (&stable=0)
> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 21:10:57 +0200 > From: firstname.lastname@example.org > To: email@example.com > Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Reverts > > Some thoughts: > > One thing that did surely confused me was that the version history > does not provide you with stable versions, but was so far left > untouched. This means that for example that although a version in the > history is marked as sighted > (http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5?title=Berlin&action=history), > clicking on such a version does not provide you with the stable > version. Furthermore, when seeing such a version, the GUI is not > shown. I think that showing the stable versions when possible would be > much better. And more appropriate anyhow since currently, all > templates are shown in their current versions instead of how they were > when that version was created. Showing stable versions solves at least > that problem. > > The next question is, how much do we want to sacrifice for templates? > I ask this because we are in the revert-thread here: automatic reverts > are an essential tool for vandalism-fighting. However, as its > automatic, people can't check the changes in templates. Thus, > vandalism in templates can be transported in stable versions. So, > what's worth more? Fast reverts or 100% accuracy in templates? > Personally, I chose the first one. > > All in all, I still think that the original idea is best: > > i) Stable versions are defined as now (with templates and images as > they were when created), but > ii) If current is stable, show the stable text, but the last image and > the last sighted template. > > Chosing then the appropriate text for the box is IMHO a solvable > problem, but all in all this is the most intriguing solution as is > still allows templates to change in current versions, but blocks most > of the vandalism in templates. > > Bye, > > Philipp > > _______________________________________________ > Wikiquality-l mailing list > Wikiqualityfirstname.lastname@example.org > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. Play Now!