Recently, r22642 has added the list of deletion log entries below noarticletext. It was bug 7691, and while i understand the reasons for adding it, it injects ugliness into the wiki's 404.
Deletion logs are not politically correct, there are lots of "content was: <offensive text>", which are perfectly valid deletion reasons. But not appropiate for showing to the casual browser.
When someone searchs about Foo, we may be giving <s>insults</s>misleading information about it, as (while saying it was deleted) we put "vandal #325 opinion about Foo" It wouldn't surprise me that some blogger/journalist discovers that "Wikipedia says X" on a log entry. We already had problems with viewdeleted history.
If the user doesn't specify an ''editor interest'', page browsing shouldn't give information about wiki document managing. The log below newarticle text should be enough (though will show when arriving via red links... :s) If we still want to alert the user of deleted pages, i'd either make it a new message: "Warning: A page with this name was deleted [N times]" with the corresponding link to Special:log, or add it as a parameter to noarticletext for parserfunctioning it.
Opinions?
This could be shown to logged in users only, this solves most of the 'problems' you outlined.
On 07/06/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Recently, r22642 has added the list of deletion log entries below noarticletext. It was bug 7691, and while i understand the reasons for adding it, it injects ugliness into the wiki's 404.
Deletion logs are not politically correct, there are lots of "content was: <offensive text>", which are perfectly valid deletion reasons. But not appropiate for showing to the casual browser.
When someone searchs about Foo, we may be giving <s>insults</s>misleading information about it, as (while saying it was deleted) we put "vandal #325 opinion about Foo" It wouldn't surprise me that some blogger/journalist discovers that "Wikipedia says X" on a log entry. We already had problems with viewdeleted history.
If the user doesn't specify an ''editor interest'', page browsing shouldn't give information about wiki document managing. The log below newarticle text should be enough (though will show when arriving via red links... :s) If we still want to alert the user of deleted pages, i'd either make it a new message: "Warning: A page with this name was deleted [N times]" with the corresponding link to Special:log, or add it as a parameter to noarticletext for parserfunctioning it.
Opinions?
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 07/06/07, Robert Leverington lcarsdata@googlemail.com wrote:
This could be shown to logged in users only, this solves most of the 'problems' you outlined.
The idea is that when something is speedied, it'll be obvious. On en:wp, only logged-in non-newbies can create articles. Is this feature switched on for other Wikimedia wikis?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 07/06/07, Robert Leverington wrote:
This could be shown to logged in users only, this solves most of the 'problems' you outlined.
The idea is that when something is speedied, it'll be obvious. On en:wp, only logged-in non-newbies can create articles. Is this feature switched on for other Wikimedia wikis?
It's on all wikis.
On 6/8/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Is this feature switched on for other Wikimedia wikis?
It's on all wikis.
No, it's not on all wikis. At least not in Indonesian Wikipedia. Anon can create new article.
Ivan Lanin wrote:
On 6/8/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Is this feature switched on for other Wikimedia wikis?
It's on all wikis.
No, it's not on all wikis. At least not in Indonesian Wikipedia. Anon can create new article.
And in theory the English Wikipedia will be getting that functionality back someday. At least, so said Jimbo at one point.
Hello,
This is a *very* useful feature on Wikisource. It should make it easier for readers to understand why they can't find a popular modern text they were looking for, and help curb repeated recreation of copyrighted texts.
The deletion log has been publicly viewable for as long as I can remember (with a convenient link from the messages on inexistent pages), so it was always a bad idea to include personal attacks and other excerpts in the reason. This is a good reason to education administrators, not remove the feature.
If the English Wikipedia decides to disable the feature due to poor deletion summaries, please disable it on a wiki-by-wiki basis. I would hate to lose it on Wikisource.
Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) wrote:
Hello,
This is a *very* useful feature on Wikisource. It should make it easier for readers to understand why they can't find a popular modern text they were looking for, and help curb repeated recreation of copyrighted texts.
The deletion log has been publicly viewable for as long as I can remember (with a convenient link from the messages on inexistent pages), so it was always a bad idea to include personal attacks and other excerpts in the reason. This is a good reason to education administrators, not remove the feature.
If the English Wikipedia decides to disable the feature due to poor deletion summaries, please disable it on a wiki-by-wiki basis. I would hate to lose it on Wikisource.
Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
Wouldn't a different message serve for the same purpose? "This page has been previously deleted, please remember that Copyrighted texts can't be placed on Wikisource (more info on inclusion criteria) - View delete log"
Educating administrators is good, but we already have lots of logs with page content. Why should be the feature *so* verbose? Maybe the "content was" feature is now a bug?
Having a look to wikisource, i learn that julie is hated[1], Pride and Prejudice and Jane Austen are pretty cool[2] but the book is confusing[3]. Much more interesting, Declan Black found out that he was gay when he was born [4]
Pathoschild, your deletion logs are impressive.However, i should note that not everybody has a helper script to automatically fill the deletion summary (nor i'm sure it's a good idea).
PS 1: Ivan, we were talking about exposing deletion logs, not anon page creation. PS 2: GerardM, i found it active on every project i checked. Which ones don't have it?
1-http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Archy_and_mehitabel/the_hen_and_the_oriole 2-http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Talk:Pride_and_Prejudice/Chapter_1 3-http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Talk:Pride_and_Prejudice/Chapter_2 4-http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declan_Black
On 10/06/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Much more interesting, Declan Black found out that he was gay when he was born [4]
Bloody friends of gays...
Rob Church
Platonides wrote:
Educating administrators is good, but we already have lots of logs with page content. Why should be the feature *so* verbose? Maybe the "content was" feature is now a bug?
Does this still work? Perhaps it should be disabled, at least on wikis where it's caused problems.
-Gurch
Hoi, It is not on on all of the Wiktionaries. Thanks, GerardM
On 6/7/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 07/06/07, Robert Leverington wrote:
This could be shown to logged in users only, this solves most of the 'problems' you outlined.
The idea is that when something is speedied, it'll be obvious. On en:wp, only logged-in non-newbies can create articles. Is this feature switched on for other Wikimedia wikis?
It's on all wikis.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 07/06/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Recently, r22642 has added the list of deletion log entries below noarticletext. It was bug 7691, and while i understand the reasons for adding it, it injects ugliness into the wiki's 404.
I'm not too fond of it either, to tell the truth; I was more concerned about the one on the edit page for new pages, since that *was* horrible, and confusing for a new user, too, since there was no explanation. I've since cleaned it up quite a lot, and made it possible to remove it, although there's still some prettification to go.
I'm not sure if the logs added to the bottom of the corresponding "noarticletext" page should be removed outright, but something needs to be done.
Rob Church
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org