Extension talk:FlaggedRevs/archive 1

Here are my initial thoughts.

The contribution list for a user could include the reviews done.

The text of the box on a non-reviewed page when there is a reviewed revision could be:

This version has not been reviewed. The latest reviewed version is available here.

There could also be no mention of any review notes on a non-reviewed page.

When I log in, I get the latest version. I would normally like to see the reviewed version. Perhaps there should be a user preference option to say which version is initially displayed.


 * Thats on the wishlist - see the specs.txt file --Jhb 19:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I protected the main page but there was no message indicating that it was protected.

Also, after protection, it would not be possible for many users to edit the page which goes against the text

The current revision is editable

These comments are pretty cosmetic.

I found no bugs. Well done. Eiler7 21:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Just found a bug.

If you visit the main page, you get one version. Click on Permanent Link you get another. Eiler7 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This was fixed by a small change to trunk but brion reverted it. Ideally, there will be a Special:Stableversions page with an oldid= param to parse it as a stable page, as even giving the right perma-link Id can still be a tad misleading (old rev, current images and templates). Voice of All 00:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed something else. If you do a change when not logged in, you arrived at the reviewed page, not the version you just created. This is unnatural. In my view, neither of these issues should hold up deployment on the English wikipedia.

I wonder if we need a requirements document. Certainly, the current interface meets my main requirement. Namely, it allows people to avoid seeing a vandalised version of a page, which happened with the Tony Blair page in an external review. See this link  Eiler7 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When editing a page that has a stable version, the tag should probably be clear about this and suggesting the use of preview. Voice of All 23:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Another thought. If reviewed versions use the current images, then this might not be a good thing. Perhaps reviewing a page should cascade to reviewing all images and templates which have no reviewed version. Eiler7 22:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reviewed pages clone the images and place them in the /stable directory.Voice of All 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP concerns
Will the threshold for displaying versions (i.e., non-vandalized, checked for accuracy, etc.) be a universal namespace setting, or can it be set for individual articles and/or classes of articles? It will be useful if this feature could support a "living person" tag for biographies of living people, and all articles with that tag have a higher threshold for public display than simply "non-vandalized". Will it be able to work that way? -- ragesoss


 * I understand what you are saying. I suggest that BLP pages have a different definition of vandalised. So, if the George Bush page were changed to say that he was involved in the Kennedy assassination without proof, that would count as vandalism in my book. Eiler7 11:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The main issue is that it may be desirable to have a more select group of editors who can review BsLP (and things like the main page, if it becomes open to editing) than those who can review other articles. --ragesoss
 * I've set up two review groups, editor and review. By configuring what tags they can set to what level and what tags/levels are needed for page overriding (by the latest stable version), this can be dealt with. Voice of All 23:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No reviewed revisions
I just created a page Eric Clapton and reviewed it. However, clicking on the page now, we find it says "There are no reviewed revisions of this page". This is a bad bug. Eiler7 12:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure why that is, but that site is still running an older version. Voice of All 17:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)