MediaWiki talk:Revision-info

message: I'm sure this'll turn some heads; why not remove this text? With the message as it currently stands (though, when you read this the link MAY NOT BE THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE PAGE - you have been warned) the two messages seem to clash somewhat. Not sure how that would be done, something along the lines of "if(revision-info)=yes then(wikipedia)=no". Bah. I'm no programmer — Jack · talk · 05:03, Saturday, 17 March 2007
:In fact - why is "from Wikipedia.." displayed on any page but the article namespace? Seems odd that the site would be proud to show off a bit of code or a talk page — Jack · talk · 05:04, Saturday, 17 March 2007
::It is better that way and easier. Cbrown1023 talk 02:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"? 

message: :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Revision-info&oldid=115731697&useskin=cologneblue
The current version with the larger font/line spacing looks really terrible with Cologne Blue. Unless there is better solution, I'd revert it to the previous version. -- User:Docu
: Nothing special about Cologne Blue... it looks bad in all the skins – Qxz 07:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I changed it to something nicer. It needs to stand out more though. Prodego talk 02:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just how it is now, but with black-colored text instead of gray. Thanks for changing it; I disliked the larger text. WODUP 02:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used gray because it is the same color used for other subheaders - Special:Whatlinkshere, for example. I do think it needs to be noticeable, but can we make it less ugly? Any other suggestions anyone? Prodego talk 02:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grey has the disadvantage that it is invisible. --Carnildo 04:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all well and good in theory, but let's actually see what happens to the OTRS. GracenotesT § 04:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent update (March 17) viewed in Cologne Blue skin

message: I, for one, preferred it the way it was before (without the red box). It was pretty obvious to me that you were viewing a past version of a page. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think the big red box is too big and too noticeable. WODUP 06:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned in a couple of places above, you can hide it and replace it with the old version by adding the following to your custom CSS (see Help:User style for more info on this process). --bainer (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I just realised that I made a mistake and used the CSS selector for CSS classes and not element IDs :( But I've fixed all the references on this page. Adding the CSS code immediately above to your custom CSS will work, I use it myself and it works fine. --bainer (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the reasons I supported the CSS hack was because I was happy enough with the regular version :( Not that I'm complaining about it... but still, consensus is consensus. GracenotesT § 14:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Using a CSS hack to change it for your own style isn't sufficient-- it's ugly for everyone now, and unless they know to come to a random-ass MediaWiki page, they won't know how to change it back. So, while I appreciate the backwards-compatibility, I still think it should be changed back, for everyone. And having two or three people agree with you on a Village Pump page (which is the "consensus" that I found by perusing the links on this talk page-- there might be wider discussion somewhere else that I haven't found) about a feature that everyone uses every day is not consensus. Your change may be well-intended, as I expect it is, but it needs to go-- or at least, have wider discussion before implementation. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If there were some way to combine the two boxes when doing so, it'd look better... —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Making is not display while in editing screens would do that, not sure where to make that change though. — xaosflux Talk 15:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would require js hacks. Prodego talk 19:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version 

message: Good morning; I appreciate you are trying to improve this function, but I was just looking at a prior revision and there were three different "This is an old revision" notices at the top. Could you please settle on one design, or take this to the sandbox. It is disrupting the encyclopedia.
Thanks a lot guys, and keep up the great work.
Kind regards,anthonycfc [talk] 05:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that you can't see what a sandbox would look like at the top of the page. Prodego talk 14:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that it would be great to merge the "Revision as of $1 by $2" and the top notice, because there's verbosity, then there's accuracy, then there's aesthetics, then there's simplicity, then there's... this is complicated for a stupid MediaWiki page :) GracenotesT § 14:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. Actually seeing the current version in action (even with the red box), it looks okay, although I think that we can remove the $1 from the first paragraph. GracenotesT § 15:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox? 

message: I've noticed a few people on here saying things to the effect of "ew, the red is ugly, let's make this more discreet and less noticeable". There's a reason we're trying to make it stand out.
In the last few months, there has been a trend for people to vandalise articles, then email large numbers of people (including members of the press) the link to that (vandalised) revision of the article, as though it was a link to the current article. We get piles of emails to OTRS from concerned people demanding to know why we're allowing the obviously defamatory etc. material to remain in our article. Sure, we had a notice before that explained it, but people are stupid and don't read things like that.
By making the "this is an old, possibly vandalised, revision" notice stand out as much as possible, we hope to stop this sort of thing from happening in future. Aesthetics are a secondary concern. The primary concern is making people see it and read it before anything else on the page. - Mark 15:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What brought me to this conversation?  It is ugly!  Maybe it will work though, I've changed it again, removing duplicated information in the header, inlcuding all the extra line breaks, but left the horrific color in place :) — xaosflux Talk 15:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I understand the "form over function" philosophy, may I suggest a "form before function" approach? In other words, once the technical details have been worked out, could we work to pick a different hue? Perhaps one which is much less abrasive? --Aarktica 22:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for making this message stand out 

message: I've hesitated to bring this up, because it's an ugly .js hack the relies heavily on CSS and other MediaWiki elements, but am anyway, just because I don't think that it's fair to not throw the option into the open. Here may be a way to check if the revision is the current one:
if (document.getElementById('mw-revision-nav') != undefined) {
  var ifCur = document.getElementById('mw-revision-nav').getElementsByTagName('a')[2];
  
  if (!(ifCur && ifCur.firstChild.nodeValue == 'Current revision')) {
    var revName = document.getElementById('mw-revision-name').innerHTML;
    var revDate = document.getElementById('mw-revision-date').firstChild.nodeValue;
    document.getElementById('mw-revision-info').firstChild.innerHTML = 'This is the current version of this page. The most recent edit was made by ' + revName + ' on ' + revDate;
  }
}
This would go in MediaWiki:Common.js, if it works. Although, we definitely need to replace one instance of $1 with $1, and one instance of $2 with $2. It may be incorrect, but I can't test it, although if someone added the span ids (which can't hurt), I would be able to. GracenotesT § 15:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: just added the span ids, and I can confirm that the js code works in Firefox. Although, I'm not sure how IE deals with nodes and the DOM... GracenotesT § 16:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If people want, actually, we can use De Morgan's laws and replace (!(ifCur && ifCur.firstChild.nodeValue == 'Current revision')) with (!ifCur || ifCur.firstChild.nodeValue != 'Current revision'), since the latter is what I had originally. But it doesn't make a difference, really. GracenotesT § 16:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hint: If we've reached the stage where we're discussing applying De Morgan's laws to a snippet of JavaScript in an interface message, we went wrong somewhere – Qxz 19:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lol. Or we could just put in a bug request. Now, I haven't programmed javascript in about five years, so suddenly using innerHTML is evil. Or at least that's what AzaToth told me :) So this may be better, based on what I wrote in a sandbox somewhere else that he improved (with his knowledge of efficient javascript, and the like):
Code
addOnloadHook( replaceRInfo );
function replaceRInfo( ) {
 if ( document.getElementById( 'mw-revision-nav' ) != undefined ) {
 var rev_navs = document.getElementById( 'mw-revision-nav' ).getElementsByTagName( 'a' );
 if( rev_navs.length > 2 ) {
 return;
 }
 var userLink = function( text, page ) {
 var linky = document.createElement( 'a' );
 linky.setAttribute( 'href', wgServer + wgArticlePath.replace( '$1', page ) );
 linky.appendChild( document.createTextNode( text ) );
 return linky;
 }
 var revName = document.getElementById( 'mw-revision-name' ).firstChild.nodeValue;
 var revDate = document.getElementById( 'mw-revision-date' ).firstChild.nodeValue;
 var box = document.getElementById( 'viewingold-warning' );
 while ( box.hasChildNodes() ) {
 box.removeChild( box.firstChild );
 }
 box.appendChild( document.createTextNode( 'This is the current version of the page. The most recent edit was made by ' ) )
 box.appendChild( userLink( revName, 'User:' + revName ) )
 box.appendChild( document.createTextNode( '( ' ) )
 box.appendChild( userLink( 'Talk', 'User talk:' + revName ) )
 box.appendChild( document.createTextNode( ' | ' ) )
 box.appendChild( userLink( 'contribs', 'Special:Contributions/' + revName ) )
 box.appendChild( document.createTextNode( ' ) on ' + revDate ) )
 }
}
--GracenotesT § 20:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  .js hack 

message: Currently, the text reads as follows:
:"...as edited by 86.138.91.133 (Talk) as of 12:45, 18 March 2007."
It would read better if presented as follows:
:"...as edited by 86.138.91.133 (Talk) at 12:45 on 18 March 2007." 
(The bold/italic text is for emphasis here only, not for the actual message. It might also be worth adding the time zone, since some lists are as per preferences and some are based on UTC.) --Ckatzchatspy 19:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's would be nice, but it's impossible, since the $1 variable comes directly from the PHP and is thus embedded in the HTML. It correlates to the user's preferences with dates. As always, we could make the text into the latter with javascript, but that seems a bit too much for merely a language fix. GracenotesT § 20:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you could append something to the end. BTW, I just found this. Deja vu. Prodego talk 21:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request - minor change in the wording 

message: Let's please revert back to how things were a few days ago.  While I support improving Wikipedia interface, please work out bugs and refine the implementation on a test wiki elsewhere.  
Two critical flaws with the pink box.
# When I go into edit mode for a previous version of a page, I see two pink boxes that are largely redundant.  The other one says "You are editing a prior version of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this version will be removed." which I think is sufficient.  The two boxes are extremely obnoxious.
# Second critical flaw with the pink "archived version" box is that it displays on "current version" too.  The pink box displayed when you are viewing an older version of a page also appears when you are viewing the current version (if you pick the last version from the history page), such as this .  This really isn't appropriate to display and may be confusing to some people when they are in fact looking at the current version.
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Octalswiki (Talk | contribs | block) as of 13:52, 18 March 2007. It may differ significantly from the current version.
I strongly suggest reverting back to how we had things a few days ago, until time that something is developed that does not have these two critical flaws, and addresses any other problems with it. --Aude (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is anyone here?  working on this?  Maybe the developers can come up with something that makes the implementation of the notice look more clean and professional, and not show up when you are looking at the current version of the page or in edit mode.  For now, we need to go back to how we had this a few days ago. --Aude (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  *crickets chirp* —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both have been discussed above, and both were true (minus the pink part) on the old version. Prodego talk 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something like this version , without the pink box.  The text can be made a darker grey to be more obvious.  I think the pink box only makes these flaws too obvious and annoying.  --Aude (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Note: I submitted a bug report (of okayish quality) here... GracenotesT § 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very helpful.  I don't think it would be all that difficult for them to implement it. --Aude (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh devs, no rush, but... GracenotesT § 13:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Err, what is gone? All looks the same to me, unless I am missing something. Prodego talk 02:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When editing the current version (history-->most recent version-->edit) the boxes don't show up. When editing past versions, both boxes show up. Not much, if anything, has changed. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I could be wrong, but I think it was always that way. Point 1 was that you see two boxes when editing old versions (as you said), but the second point was that when using "Permanent link" you see the "archived version" box . Prodego talk 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pink box needs to be removed 

message: Now, MediaWiki:Revision-info-current can be used for permanent links for current revisions of a page ( example), so the wording of this template can be made less ambiguous. Would anyone object if an admin replaced "archived" with "old"? GracenotesT § 04:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  Done. Neil ╦ 11:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem fixed 

message: Reduce the top margin of the box to 1em. 2em is excessive and leaves a large gap above the box. Other messages that appear in the same place (protected page notice, long page notice, talk page notice) all have a 1em margin. Thanks – Gurch 06:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: — xaosflux Talk 08:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Margin 

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 

message: To reflect changes to the software, please replace the page with the following:
Revision as of $1 by $2$7
Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, tested, working. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 13 June 2014 

message: I intend to change the text to read:
:This is an old revision of this page, as edited by $2 at $1$7. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the [ current revision].
This will help educate editors about how to use fancy stuff like old revision URLs while also helping to match the text at MediaWiki:Revision-info-current. If you have any comments or concerns, please make them in the next day'ish.  Jason Quinn (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me — xaosflux Talk 05:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  intend to add info about permanent link  

message: I found myself wanting to make a link to a revision in history, and was aware of Special:Diff. It would be logical—contextually relevant—to provide the revision ID number in the text of this message so that it can be copied or referred to. It is after all a user-facing aspect of MediaWiki, if indirectly, through link mechanisms like Special:Diff, and thus to have to copy a piece of the URL is hardly ideal. (The current-revision message would be similarly altered.) As simple as adding "The revision ID is nnnnnnnn." to the end of the current text. Thoughts? [p[User:Outriggr|Outriggr]] (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: when you navigate to an old version the &oldid=nnnn should be right at the end of your URL already.  It could be added here, and the variable for it is $3, but I'm not seeing how it will help over the URL text. — xaosflux Talk 01:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point was that having to resort to copying the trailing text of a URL (and think of mobile, which also uses this message I believe) for a piece of information that is sometimes relevant to the front-end use of the site is not ideal design. I think this would gain support in a broader forum where people reiterate the annoying substring-of-a-URL grabbing process by which they currently have to construct something like "Special:Diff/nnnnnn". Outriggr (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to mock up a new message below and open an edit request. — xaosflux Talk 02:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  request to add revision ID 

message: It seems others above have identified the potential abuse case where someone vandalises a page, then links to that revision. But what if someone vandalises, then links to a specific section, so that the page automatically scrolls down below the notice? I think the solution is to make the notice persistent, so that it remains at the top of your screen even as you scroll.
As a side note, I think the message is probably also due for a design revamp. It'd be good to add a yellow caution symbol as a visual cue, and to add a header saying "Old revision" in larger font so that people don't have to start reading all the details about "as edited by..." etc. to get the main message. (I'm not sure if this page is the repository for the message's visual design; if it's not, could you point me to the right spot?)  talk 18:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: that suggestion seems like it should be done in the software, not as something only here at enwiki.  You can file a feature request here. — xaosflux Talk 20:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . Let me know if I messed up the feature request or need to add any tags to it.  talk 21:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: make this sticky, so that it remains as you scroll down the page