MediaWiki talk:Revision-info

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Requested edit

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)

I found this through looking through an archive, and then doing a text search at Special:Allmessages upon finding this text, and I agree with Qxz. And perhaps we might want to take a look at this, an "article" that may not contain inaccuracies or errors, but is nonetheless obtrusive and excessive. We don't have disclaimer messages on articles, and while this certainly applies to current revisions, it should also apply to past ones. Gracenotes^T § 20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a point... realistically, the current version of an article is just as likely to contain inaccuracies and errors as any other version. Yet we don't put a big disclaimer at the top of every page, because it would look stupid. Same applies here – Qxz 23:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, avoid the wording "archived version". People might confuse it with talk archives, and furthermore it's completely unnecessary. If you see a page with the words "Revision as of... " followed by a date in the past, it's obvious that you're viewing an old version. Finally, an argument for binning all changes to this message and going back to how it was – it's just plain wrong. Try viewing the current version of a page, and you're told it's an archived version that may contain errors not in the current version. This message is more misleading than it is useful – Qxz 23:49, 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)

"archived" was a deliberate choice - the message is intended for readers, not editors. If you can thik of a more elegant way of saying "we're keeping this old version around on file in case it proves useful to refer to", please do. Shimgray | talk | 20:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and been bold, making one word big and red, and adding "vandalism" to the list. While I agree with some of the concerns and points raised above, this should, at least for now, be temporary - we're having some problems with people emailing previous versions of an inaccurate page, and this should help make it obvious to those people that this isn't the current page version. Thanks for your understanding! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's still invisible. How about

<big><font color="red">This is an old version of this page from $1. It may contain problems not present in the <a href="/wiki/{{FULLPAGENAME}}" title="{{FULLPAGENAME}}">current version</a>.</font></big>

Which would look like the following:

This is an old version of this page from 20:33, 14 March 2007. It may contain problems not present in the current version.

--Carnildo 17:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. It's less disclaimer-y, more noticeable, and is entirely appropriate. --Iamunknown 18:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

But is rather anoying when you spend a lot of time looking at old revsions and doesn't exactly encourage people to revert vandalism that is in the existing current version.Geni 19:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What about something like:

This is an older version of this page from 20:33, 14 March 2007. It may differ significantly from the current version.

That way, we're not suggesting that the older version is vandalized, or has problems - it may well be the case that the older version is better than the current one. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see finally putting the idea into practice got a debate going! For what it's worth, what I originally planned was something akin to MediaWiki:Editingold with plain text inside, but I never got around to putting the box in place... what do people think of this?

I strongly feel that some kind of clear, visible, message is needed; as it was, the small grey text was virtually invisible unless you knew the MediaWiki UI enough to be expecting it, and nothing else would indicate - if you've just stumbled across this page from an external link - that this was an old revision of the page. It's not really an attempt at a "Wikipedia content" disclaimer - having it worded so not as to sound like one would be nice - since it isn't imposed with regard to any worries about the specific content; think of it as more of an interface message from MediaWiki, to remind readers that this is not the live version. Shimgray | talk | 20:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Drop the red text. rember if I want to reduce the chances a click through viewer will see it that is fairly trivial to do:

see.Geni 20:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We need something to differentiate the header from the rest of the mass of text on the page. Red text might be overkill, but making it larger than the rest would help. --Carnildo 22:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hence my fondness for a "message box" style display - it's clearly metadata, clearly directed at the reader, and clearly prominent. Editors can, if they so wish, happily modify their CSS to not show it or to anull the effect. Shimgray | talk | 00:47, 17 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)

Aarrgh! Who added that big red text! GET RID OF IT! – Qxz 22:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And another thing you're forgetting, this message shows up on the current version if you view it in oldid mode. Then all the junk you've added to this message is COMPLETELY WRONG – Qxz 22:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Qxz, please consider that using all capital letters and categorically qualifying the text as "junk" may not add significantly to the discussion but may instead serve to add unnecessary intensity to it. --Iamunknown 23:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping that this text was more friendly and less obtrusive. I'm sure that I could find consensus for this opinion somewhere... [Gracenotes looks up] Gracenotes^T § 00:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

...--Iamunknown 00:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Admonishing me for using capital letters while trying to get <big><font color="red"> removed from an interface message... hmmm... – Qxz 01:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I should probably note at this point that if you use <big><font color="red">, CSS will become sad. If anything, <span style="color:red; font-size:%120;"> is better, if anything. Gracenotes^T § 01:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! And yet which is being used at the moment? Go view the source and see for yourself. I'd make an {{editprotected}} request, but... my original one is still there, so I can't really – Qxz 01:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I frankly have absolutely no idea what is going on in these past five/six-or-so posts. My ellipses were merely an expression of confusion. --Iamunknown 01:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, what's happening right now is I'm pointing out that not only does the message look horrible, it's also using outdated markup; it should be using CSS like the rest of the interface, not <big> and <font> – Qxz 01:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, showing up on current-revision is conceptually a bit flaky, but it's hard to get around this problem - I guess if we referred to "subsequent versions" you could claim it means "any versions as yet unwritten"! (It also appears to be an edge case - people sometimes generate the current version to cite it, but usually by the time a reader follows that link, there have been subsequent edits. Very few people will generate the current version of an article and then start reading it...) Can we do something whereby it checks if there is a later revision and if not suppresses the note, or replaces it with "This is the most recent version of the page Revision-info, revised at [etc]" with cunning hackery, or would it require a MediaWiki patch to enable this? There must be something elegant going on in the background we could adapt, as it's able to determine the next and previous links and grey them out in inappropriate - modify this to alter the displayed text? Might be a bit beyond the immediate scope here... Shimgray | talk | 00:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't think we can just shunt it aside and claim "people don't do it very often", given that we have a link in the sidebar on every page dedicated to doing just that. Also, if you have to invent non-existent versions of an article in order to make your argument stick, I think there's a flaw somewhere :) – Qxz 01:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I see why admins want to wheel war. And of course, that they shouldn't :) Could we please make this notice, if it absolutely has to be included, as inconspicuous as possible? I would also appreciate if those that advocate the longer message actually explain their reasoning for doing so. Gracenotes^T § 01:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody please revert these changes, they look silly. Matthew 08:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New thread: let's start fresh with ideas

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="/wiki/{{FULLPAGENAME}}" title="{{FULLPAGENAME}}">current version</a>.</span>

That would render as

This is an old version of this page from 20:33, 14 March 2007. It may differ significantly from the MediaWiki:Revision-info.

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)

What happened to the second variable? I actually use that to track revisions. Of course, if we want to paint the template red, that's one thing, but removing useful functionality is another. My compromise: create a help page explaining searching through revisions, and link to it using the same formatting that was there before this MediaWiki page was created. Don't be verbose. For God's sake, use variables $1 and $2. That's all. Gracenotes^T § 01:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The audience for this message is casual browsers: people who have been given a link to a page and haven't a clue that it isn't the current version. --Carnildo 02:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The rest of us, however, also have to put up with seeing the message every time we view an old revision. You could say "well, go customize your CSS then"; however, if the interface is designed in such a way that a significant number of experienced contributors find it so annoying they have to customize it, then we're doing something wrong.

How about putting the message back exactly as it was – same colour, same font size – except add "This is not the current version of the page (more info)" at the beginning of it. Then create a page with as much explanation as you think is needed (personally, I understood old revisions the first time I saw one, but there we go). Would that be acceptable? – Qxz 04:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Between the size and the font color, the original version is completely invisible to people who aren't looking for it. --Carnildo 05:07, 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)

Yes, please do. At least reduce the font size back to that of normal text; (i.e. the same size as what I'm typing now) – that's quite big enough to be visible. Also, lose the lines top and bottom. The top one clashes with the line under the page title – Qxz 07:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove "from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"?

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)

[edit] How about this

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)

A bit big and pink, but actually better than the current version; the extra-big font looks awful – Qxz 07:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say this is better too. The consistency helps, and the smaller font size is much more pleasant. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of "stored version" is probably not clear to people unfamiliar with how page histories work. Would "old version" or something else be more understandable? --Cherry blossom tree 11:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The custom CSS modification is a great idea. Let's definitely implement it (although, if possible, make the text smaller). And of course people might have no idea what "stored version" is, but that's why there's a link. Come now. Gracenotes^T § 14:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't that they might be forced to click the link, but that they might make incorrect assumptions about what it means and not click the link. Is "there's a link" really a compelling reason to use unnecessarily confusing language? --Cherry blossom tree 15:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, there's a link to Help:Page history on the history page itself. If people don't understand it, and don't find the link, it's really too bad. Now, the notice is (in my subjective opinion) verbose already, and as we discussed earlier, "old revision" is not always true. "Archived" or "stored" is technically correct, and saying anything other than a synonym of those may be simpler, but incorrect. I don't think that we should sacrifice truth for clarify. Page history is complicated.

In addition, I would appreciate it if you gave an example of one way people could misunderstand the text "stored revision". And also keep in mind that some people just don't get it, and will email the OTRS anyway. (The OTRS is the only reason why I'm supporting a notice different than the one that previously existed.) This will probably bring the complainers down, but just like people dying, there's no way to bring to number to zero. Gracenotes^T § 17:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My main problem was people who do not come to the old revision via the history. There was some discussion a few days ago about people vandalising pages and sending out links to the vandalised version, which we couldn't change. I want it to be clear (whether people understand how page histories work or not) that the version they are seeing is not the current one.

I hadn't seen the discussion over 'old version' possibly being misleading and I take the point. My problem with 'stored version' is that it doesn't suggest to the uneducated reader that it is not necessarily the current version. I appreciate that the second sentence does this, but I'd like ti to be as clear as possible and my experience shows that a significant number of people won't read the second sentence. I prefer the current 'archived version' wording for this reason (I don't see the problem with regard to talk page archives.) Of course, the ideal solution would be to have a different message come up on the current revision so our language could be both simple and accurate. --Cherry blossom tree 11:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent update (March 17) viewed in Cologne Blue skin

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)

Which is why I changed it to something nicer. It needs to stand out more though. Prodego ^talk 02:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Grey has the disadvantage that it is invisible. --Carnildo 04:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good in theory, but let's actually see what happens to the OTRS. Gracenotes^T § 04:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested CSS edit

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)

I've altered the page as outlined above at #How about this. The version I've changed to will allow people who don't like the warning-style version of the message to hide it, and replace it with the "old" version, as you have mentioned. --bainer (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw that discussion, although it sort of changed focus, so I wanted to make a new edit request to actually implement it. Thanks! Gracenotes^T § 14:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

When I use this, I still see the big red bar. When I use

 #viewingold-warning { display:none; }
 #viewingold-plain { display:block; }

from MediaWiki talk:Revision-info#How about this, I get nothing. Will Revision as of $1 by $2 display properly if we remove style="display:none; from -plain? Wodup 17:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Make sure to add the !important (shown earlier in this section.) This will limit cascading, which is what you want. Gracenotes' left sock 19:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! Wodup 19:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New version

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)

I agree. I think the big red box is too big and too noticeable. Wodup 06:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

 #div.viewingold-warning { display:none; }
 #div.viewingold-plain { display:block !important ; }

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)

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. Gracenotes^T § 14:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

The red box looks pretty bad when editing old revisons(example). Prodego ^talk 14:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

That would require js hacks. Prodego ^talk 19:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox?

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)

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)

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 :) Gracenotes^T § 14:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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. Gracenotes^T § 15:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for making this message stand out

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)

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)

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)

[edit] .js hack

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)

Wizardman (talk · contribs) 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... Gracenotes^T § 16:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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. Gracenotes^T § 16:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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):

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)

[edit] Browser compatibility

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)

Why are people implementing god stupid notices? The previous was perfectly fine. --Matthew

Because they feel the need to be 'helpful' to inexperienced users, while ignoring the needs of the rest of us :) – Qxz 19:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it relates to the large amount of email OTRS receives in which an old revision is mistaken for the current one. Prodego ^talk 19:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the IE6 shading bug, where in IE6 the background of shaded divs, etc., sometimes doesn't show up for no particularly good reason. It happens to me with the border of <pre> blocks and in many other shaded messages to. --ais523 11:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request - minor change in the wording

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.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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. Gracenotes^T § 20:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you could append something to the end. BTW, I just found this. Deja vu. Prodego ^talk 21:21, 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)

[edit] Pink box needs to be removed

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.

1. 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.
2. 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 [1]. This really isn't appropriate to display and may be confusing to some people when they are in fact looking at the current version.