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)

-Aaron Schulz

> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 21:10:57 +0200
> From:
> To:
> 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
> (,
> 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

Climb to the top of the charts!  Play Star Shuffle:  the word scramble challenge with star power. Play Now!