MediaWiki talk:Editingold/Archive 1

message: I only just noticed that "...any changes made since this revision will be lost" was changed to "...any changes made since this revision will be removed"  Perhaps it should instead be "...any changes made since this revision will be reverted"?  'Reverted' is really what we're trying to say here; and often if people are editing an old version, it's because they want to revert, so it can't hurt to provide them a link to the relevent policy page. --Aquillion 07:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost-removed-reverted

message: Does anyone else want to discuss changing the verbiage on this template?  I think revision is a little esoteric for new editors. xaosflux Talk/CVU 06:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would "version" in place of "revision" work? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am more in favor of version then revision, it is a more universal term; as for out of date this could be referencing a one min old article, or a recently vandalized version as well, is out of date the best term as well? xaosflux Talk/CVU 06:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the other suggestion of prior (instead of out-of-date) would work. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: Proposed addition: If you are reverting an article, please be aware of the three revert rule.
- Evil saltine 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me. --TantalumTelluride 05:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure it's necessary, especially considering this is a warning for when people may be accidentally editing an older version, not something to stop revert warriors from continuing their crusade (and besides, if any of the proposed language above is used, we'll be linking to Wikipedia:Revert, which has a section noting the harms of edit warring as well as linking to 3RR). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed 3RR text 

message: I just added the latest "pinkish" version of this message.  Please report any issues with it here. xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going forwards, might I ask other admins to NOT PLAY AROUND WITH THIS, save to revert to the earlier version? We don't need another set of escapades where everyone tries there favourite colours, shapes, fonts, spellings, punctuations and pictures. (Xaosflux, this isn't directed at you, although you might have waited for some indication of agreement in the above discussion.) -Splashtalk 02:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He posted this to the village pump a week ago I believe; you can't really fault him for not trying. Further, altering MediaWiki messages shouldn't require the same level of interaction as is required to enact policy. I do however agree that changes shouldn't be made too quickly; I think the amount of time we invested in this is a good example of how long people should wait before moving forward. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Altering MediaWiki messages should require a high degree of future stability is my point. Being bold does not apply, since your actions have an effect so widely. I see too many MediaWiki messages flitting around endlessly, live, and it is unprofessional (I know, I know) and unnecessary. -Splashtalk 02:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Splash, I understand that having these interface messages stable is important, and believed I took due dilligence in time and posting requirements prior to enacting this.  If you feel this is an inapproriate change, please revert my edit and we can drag this back here.  I noted that the prior formating change to the last "Stable Version" did not appear to go through any discussion or change control that I can find, but it wasn't an issue then.  I agree that WP:BOLD shouldn't apply to these areas as well, and also considered past issues relating to corruption/vandalalism related to transclusions and images before going with this version. xaosflux Talk/CVU 02:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implemented 

message: I realize that we want to keep the current version stable for a while, but when we're ready to consider further improvements, what about including an edit link for the current revision of the page?  Something like "Warning, you are not editing the current revision of the page; if you want to edit the current revision instead, click here"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmm, I see this was tried out and then reverted because it didn't work on all pages.  Which pages did it not work with? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Curious about this as well. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 21:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I implemented the same on cs:, I guess you've had too much E's in it, just  seems to work fine. --Mormegil 15:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you know the reason why this does not work on all pages? --Siva1979Talk to me 04:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the issue was for page titles with spaces in them. — xaosflux Talk 05:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested enhancement: edit link for current? 

message: Please remove bold formatting, as well as the pink border and background, from this message. It was added to catch the user's attention, but now it is unnecessary – when it was added, MediaWiki:Revision-info was just plain text, but now that is also bold and on a pink background. Both appear when editing any old revision. There is no need for two pink boxes when you edit an old revision; one is quite enough – Gurch 10:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Back to this version, maybe? Riana (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't want to change the warning back to the old version, but that's just my opinion. Either way, this message has a high visibility, so consensus is needed. Maybe bring this up on WP:VPR or somewhere else? I've disabled the editprotected request until there's consensus. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, not "back" to any version. Just take out the background color, border color and bold formatting. Is there a particular reason why you don't want to change it back, or are you just being difficult? – Gurch 19:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it should be changed back because it's not explicitly clear in the other pink box that any changes since the version you are editing will be lost.  Yes, I know it's completely obvious to all of us and most computer-literate people, but some people might not think it through and accidentally replace newer changes. —METS501 (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never suggested we get rid of the message altogether – Gurch 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove bolding and pinkness 

message: A discussion to standardise the styles for boxes of this kind has been started at Template talk:Fmbox#New type?.
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardised styles