I undesrtand your point.
However:
What's to stop the author of a copyright-violating page from regularly going in and making "dummy edits", preventing the page from ever "expiring"?
The copyright-violating message clearly says that all user *must* discuss and reach a consensus before editing.
The {{Đang dịch 2}} will worth what Danny B. is asking for; but there are already other templates that can take benefit from {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}. They are *automatic* image tag templates: when user upload "unkown"/"somewebsite" image, they will be expired. That's the original drive for me to ask for {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} ({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} is not applicable here).
Trung.
----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:48:42 -0700 From: mxn@zoomtown.com To: wikivi-l@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikivi-l] [Fwd: [Bug 6092] add {{revisiontime:}}/{{lastrevision:}} colon/parser function or {{REVISIONtimeformat|<pagename>}} functionality to current magic words]
I suppose it works, but it doesn't really solve our problem with the expiring templates. What's to stop the author of a copyright-violating page from regularly going in and making "dummy edits", preventing the page from ever "expiring"? Or how about templates like {{Đang dịch 2}}, where we fully expect that the page will be revised after the tag is added, but we might not want the timestamp to change when that happens? (I might, for example, go in and add a {{Thời gian sống}} tag, but that doesn't mean the translation is any closer to being finished.)
We're left with the same problem we began with: whether we use {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} or {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}, we need some way of substituting the timestamp *only* when the template is being included, not when the template is being edited. That's why we have the current {{Đang dịch 2}} / {{Đang dịch 2 (nguồn)}} setup, right? We don't *really* want the last revision date; we want the date of the revision where we tagged the page. This is why Danny B. is suggesting a new "revisiontime" magic word.
Tran The Trung wrote:
I have tested it. It works: we got the last revision date of the page that includes the template.
Trung
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:27:34 -0700 From: mxn@zoomtown.com To: wikivi-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikivi-l] [Fwd: [Bug 6092] add {{revisiontime:}}/{{lastrevision:}} colon/parser function or {{REVISIONtimeformat|<pagename>}} functionality to current magic words]
Oh, I forgot, this is the same problem we've been having: magic words aren't enough. We need a way to get the last revision date of the page that included the template, not the last revision date of the template itself.
-- Minh Nguyen mxn@zoomtown.com AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn@myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/
-- Minh Nguyen mxn@zoomtown.com AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn@myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/
_________________________________________________________________ Try the new Live Search today! http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM...
Tran The Trung wrote:
The copyright-violating message clearly says that all user *must* discuss and reach a consensus before editing.
What I mean is that someone could regularly go in and add a space at the end of the line, or do something ostensibly harmless, like tweaking the source URL in Vi phạm bản quyền to have a # at the end, then removing it. For now, it won't be a problem, since we can easily monitor these types of changes and block them if it's really necessary, but when we start getting busier, it might not be practical to monitor these pages this way; someone making dummy edits like that would probably escape our attention, and the violating article wouldn't ever make it into the delete bin.
The {{Đang dịch 2}} will worth what Danny B. is asking for; but there are already other templates that can take benefit from {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}. They are *automatic* image tag templates: when user upload "unkown"/"somewebsite" image, they will be expired. That's the original drive for me to ask for {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} ({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} is not applicable here).
I realize that you did get what you asked for originally, but Danny has changed the bug to ask for something that, in my opinion, is more flexible. I find no problem with using {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} in templates where it can be useful, but I'm just hoping that something like Danny's request gets answered eventually.