Eww, eww, ewwwww... get rid of that long-winded message. It looks horrible in context. It shunts the timestamp and editor – the parts you actually need to see – right off into the other corner of the screen. Also, there's already a "current version" link right below this message, and there's a message in the footer (where this sort of disclaimer belongs) on old revisions that says almost exactly the same thing, only in more detail – Qxz 20:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
...you folks should probably go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Viewing old revisions. I personally like it, although it could be changed to sound less diclaimer-y. The term "archived version" is entirely appropriate for people unfamiliar with Wikipedia culture and unfamiliar with the MediaWiki interface -- i.e. basically the large audience who just reads and uses, but does not contribute to, Wikipedia. And that is why, arguably, the message is entirely appropriate. -- Iamunknown 06:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The current text says that an "archived" version of an article might contain errors -which is true, of course - and that these errors might not be present in the current version. That's also true, but it also leaves the impression that the current versions of our articles aren't as vandalism-prone as the archived ones. Could we find a wording that doesn't create this false impression? -- Conti| ✉ 21:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the message probably should not be a disclaimer. The current message fails to indicate that both the old revision and the current revision of any page may contain "vandalism, inaccuracies or errors." I think that the message should be there for the benefit of readers and users unfamiliar with the MediaWiki interface. As such, it should not be "as inconspicuous as possible," but should be just as conspicuous enough to be noticed and useful and no more conspicuous than that. Is there a way other than using red text (CSS, of course) to do that? I personally like Ckat's version. Let me copy it (slightly modified) here.
<span style="color: #F00; font-size: 120%;">This is an old version of this page from $1. It may differ significantly from the <a href="/info/en/?search={{FULLPAGENAME}}" title="{{FULLPAGENAME}}">current version</a>.</span>
That would render as
Of course, editors have expressed that the colour red is too conspicuous. Are there any, however, any other suggestions? -- Iamunknown 01:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Please, please reduce the size - the current version is
It's wrapping on a 19" monitor... bigger is not necessarily better. -- Ckatz chat spy 05:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
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 this version, the warning-style message can be hidden and a plain text version (just how it used to display) can be displayed instead by adding the following to one's custom CSS:
#viewingold-warning { display:none; } #viewingold-plain { display:block; }
The warning-style version, which is displayed by default, is styled the same way as MediaWiki:Editingold, the message that appears when one edits an old revision, in order to be consistent. The warning doesn't reference problems or errors, it just says that the revision may "differ significantly", an approach that seems to be preferred currently. Additionally, the info about the date of the revision and the editor is shown on a separate line since some people have found it difficult to locate this information. -- bainer ( talk) 06:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
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
A lot has changed since the first edit request, so I'm moving the template. Could we merely append
<div id="viewingold-plain" style="display:none;">Revision as of $1 by $2</div>
To the end of the template, so that
#div.viewingold-warning { display:none; } #div.viewingold-plain { display:block !important ; }
Will get the regular version in place for us simple folk? And also possibly add a link to this MediaWiki talk page with instructions about how to achieve that effect, but... nah, it's probably not worth it. Gracenotes T § 04:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
#viewingold-warning { display:none; } #viewingold-plain { display:block; }
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)
#div.viewingold-warning { display:none; } #div.viewingold-plain { display:block !important ; }
The red box looks pretty bad when editing old revisons( example). Prodego talk 14:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 <span id="mw-revision-date">$1</span>, and one instance of $2 with <span id="mw-revision-name">$2</span>. 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. Gracenotes T § 15:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
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 ) ) } } |
-- Gracenotes T § 20:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure where the flaw is, but when I view this in Internet Explorer the box and coloring are absent. The wording is there though. It appears ok in Firefox. In Lynx both sets of messages are displayed. — xaosflux Talk 16:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Currently, the text reads as follows:
It would read better if presented as follows:
(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.) -- Ckatz chat spy 19:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you could feed it into the #time parser function like this: as of 12:45 on 18 March 2007? -- Tgr 10:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
On a totally different note, shouldn't the first {{FULLPAGENAME}} be {{FULLPAGENAMEE}}? -- Tgr 10:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)
Well it's gone, but where did it go? — xaosflux Talk 00:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
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"? Gracenotes T § 04:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
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)
Currently, when I go through articles history, I often have to see how an article has improved since a certain date; but there is no easy way to do so using the existing message. (I.e. I have to insert "&diff=curr" in the address bar) Is it possible to update the message to read as follow (Without it having the external link icon, of course)? G.A.S talk 06:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
→Discussion to be continued at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#MediaWiki:Revision-info. G.A.S talk 14:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
{{
editprotected}}
The latest version of this messages contains a self-link in "[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}|the current revision]]". It should be replaced with "[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} the current revision]".
iAlex (
Talk)
07:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
<span class="plainlinks">
and </span>
around the link, and moved "the" out of the link so as to be consistent with the earlier "old revision" link. {{
Nihiltres|
talk|
log}}
15:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)<span class="plainlinks"></span>
is not needed, since this message box uses {{
fmbox}} that already uses the plainlinks
class. But it also doesn't cause any problems to use it an extra time like this.This is just to explain and document why and how I am doing this change. No action needed from anyone else.
I am planning to change the CSS ids used in MediaWiki:Revision-info and MediaWiki:Revision-info-current, to be in line with how we do for other such messages. Currently both use "id=viewingold-warning". I will change them to use "id=revision-info" and "id=revision-info-current" respectively. Thus making it possible to detect and handle these messages separately, when using CSS or JavaScript.
I will also change the name of the ids for the "plain" versions from "id=viewingold-plain" to "id=revision-info-plain" and "id=revision-info-current-plain" respectively.
I will update the /monobook.css files for the six users that currently use these ids, thus they should not see any difference.
And while I am at it: Since this is just a simple box with no image, I will change from using {{
fmbox}} to instead use the more efficient <div class="fmbox-warning"></div>
. (At the time we deployed {{fmbox}} here that class was not available.) This will cause a slight decrease in margins and padding in some browsers since some of them treat margins and paddings differently in tables and divs.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 05:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To reflect changes to the software, please replace the page with the following:
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by $2 at $1$7. It may differ significantly from the current revision. |
Jackmcbarn ( talk) 01:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I intend to change the text to read:
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)
It's unclear to editors viewing old revisions, at least of articles, that replacement content, such as templates and images, would not be of old contemporary revisions but are of the latest revisions. I propose adding a sentence like "[t]emplates are present-day revisions, not necessarily those in use at the time of this page's revision." The link to Help:Permanent link appears in the linking text's context to be about URLs although it happens to cover this point, so it would not be followed by an editor, who instead would see a template and misunderstand which template revision is being viewed. I discussed this at VP(T), where disagreement was expressed. If agreement is reached, since I apparently don't have the authority to edit the box, perhaps someone else can. Nick Levinson ( talk) 00:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
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 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. Replacement content, such as images and navigation boxes, is what is in effect now, not necessarily what was in effect at the time of the old revision. |
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)
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?) {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Eww, eww, ewwwww... get rid of that long-winded message. It looks horrible in context. It shunts the timestamp and editor – the parts you actually need to see – right off into the other corner of the screen. Also, there's already a "current version" link right below this message, and there's a message in the footer (where this sort of disclaimer belongs) on old revisions that says almost exactly the same thing, only in more detail – Qxz 20:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
...you folks should probably go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Viewing old revisions. I personally like it, although it could be changed to sound less diclaimer-y. The term "archived version" is entirely appropriate for people unfamiliar with Wikipedia culture and unfamiliar with the MediaWiki interface -- i.e. basically the large audience who just reads and uses, but does not contribute to, Wikipedia. And that is why, arguably, the message is entirely appropriate. -- Iamunknown 06:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The current text says that an "archived" version of an article might contain errors -which is true, of course - and that these errors might not be present in the current version. That's also true, but it also leaves the impression that the current versions of our articles aren't as vandalism-prone as the archived ones. Could we find a wording that doesn't create this false impression? -- Conti| ✉ 21:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the message probably should not be a disclaimer. The current message fails to indicate that both the old revision and the current revision of any page may contain "vandalism, inaccuracies or errors." I think that the message should be there for the benefit of readers and users unfamiliar with the MediaWiki interface. As such, it should not be "as inconspicuous as possible," but should be just as conspicuous enough to be noticed and useful and no more conspicuous than that. Is there a way other than using red text (CSS, of course) to do that? I personally like Ckat's version. Let me copy it (slightly modified) here.
<span style="color: #F00; font-size: 120%;">This is an old version of this page from $1. It may differ significantly from the <a href="/info/en/?search={{FULLPAGENAME}}" title="{{FULLPAGENAME}}">current version</a>.</span>
That would render as
Of course, editors have expressed that the colour red is too conspicuous. Are there any, however, any other suggestions? -- Iamunknown 01:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Please, please reduce the size - the current version is
It's wrapping on a 19" monitor... bigger is not necessarily better. -- Ckatz chat spy 05:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
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 this version, the warning-style message can be hidden and a plain text version (just how it used to display) can be displayed instead by adding the following to one's custom CSS:
#viewingold-warning { display:none; } #viewingold-plain { display:block; }
The warning-style version, which is displayed by default, is styled the same way as MediaWiki:Editingold, the message that appears when one edits an old revision, in order to be consistent. The warning doesn't reference problems or errors, it just says that the revision may "differ significantly", an approach that seems to be preferred currently. Additionally, the info about the date of the revision and the editor is shown on a separate line since some people have found it difficult to locate this information. -- bainer ( talk) 06:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
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
A lot has changed since the first edit request, so I'm moving the template. Could we merely append
<div id="viewingold-plain" style="display:none;">Revision as of $1 by $2</div>
To the end of the template, so that
#div.viewingold-warning { display:none; } #div.viewingold-plain { display:block !important ; }
Will get the regular version in place for us simple folk? And also possibly add a link to this MediaWiki talk page with instructions about how to achieve that effect, but... nah, it's probably not worth it. Gracenotes T § 04:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
#viewingold-warning { display:none; } #viewingold-plain { display:block; }
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)
#div.viewingold-warning { display:none; } #div.viewingold-plain { display:block !important ; }
The red box looks pretty bad when editing old revisons( example). Prodego talk 14:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 <span id="mw-revision-date">$1</span>, and one instance of $2 with <span id="mw-revision-name">$2</span>. 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. Gracenotes T § 15:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
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 ) ) } } |
-- Gracenotes T § 20:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure where the flaw is, but when I view this in Internet Explorer the box and coloring are absent. The wording is there though. It appears ok in Firefox. In Lynx both sets of messages are displayed. — xaosflux Talk 16:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Currently, the text reads as follows:
It would read better if presented as follows:
(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.) -- Ckatz chat spy 19:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you could feed it into the #time parser function like this: as of 12:45 on 18 March 2007? -- Tgr 10:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
On a totally different note, shouldn't the first {{FULLPAGENAME}} be {{FULLPAGENAMEE}}? -- Tgr 10:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)
Well it's gone, but where did it go? — xaosflux Talk 00:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
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"? Gracenotes T § 04:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
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)
Currently, when I go through articles history, I often have to see how an article has improved since a certain date; but there is no easy way to do so using the existing message. (I.e. I have to insert "&diff=curr" in the address bar) Is it possible to update the message to read as follow (Without it having the external link icon, of course)? G.A.S talk 06:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
→Discussion to be continued at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#MediaWiki:Revision-info. G.A.S talk 14:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
{{
editprotected}}
The latest version of this messages contains a self-link in "[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}|the current revision]]". It should be replaced with "[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} the current revision]".
iAlex (
Talk)
07:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
<span class="plainlinks">
and </span>
around the link, and moved "the" out of the link so as to be consistent with the earlier "old revision" link. {{
Nihiltres|
talk|
log}}
15:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)<span class="plainlinks"></span>
is not needed, since this message box uses {{
fmbox}} that already uses the plainlinks
class. But it also doesn't cause any problems to use it an extra time like this.This is just to explain and document why and how I am doing this change. No action needed from anyone else.
I am planning to change the CSS ids used in MediaWiki:Revision-info and MediaWiki:Revision-info-current, to be in line with how we do for other such messages. Currently both use "id=viewingold-warning". I will change them to use "id=revision-info" and "id=revision-info-current" respectively. Thus making it possible to detect and handle these messages separately, when using CSS or JavaScript.
I will also change the name of the ids for the "plain" versions from "id=viewingold-plain" to "id=revision-info-plain" and "id=revision-info-current-plain" respectively.
I will update the /monobook.css files for the six users that currently use these ids, thus they should not see any difference.
And while I am at it: Since this is just a simple box with no image, I will change from using {{
fmbox}} to instead use the more efficient <div class="fmbox-warning"></div>
. (At the time we deployed {{fmbox}} here that class was not available.) This will cause a slight decrease in margins and padding in some browsers since some of them treat margins and paddings differently in tables and divs.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 05:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To reflect changes to the software, please replace the page with the following:
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by $2 at $1$7. It may differ significantly from the current revision. |
Jackmcbarn ( talk) 01:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I intend to change the text to read:
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)
It's unclear to editors viewing old revisions, at least of articles, that replacement content, such as templates and images, would not be of old contemporary revisions but are of the latest revisions. I propose adding a sentence like "[t]emplates are present-day revisions, not necessarily those in use at the time of this page's revision." The link to Help:Permanent link appears in the linking text's context to be about URLs although it happens to cover this point, so it would not be followed by an editor, who instead would see a template and misunderstand which template revision is being viewed. I discussed this at VP(T), where disagreement was expressed. If agreement is reached, since I apparently don't have the authority to edit the box, perhaps someone else can. Nick Levinson ( talk) 00:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
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 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. Replacement content, such as images and navigation boxes, is what is in effect now, not necessarily what was in effect at the time of the old revision. |
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)
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?) {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)