Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:04:48 UTC
I want to propose to make the old versions of pages request the versions of images and templates applicable to the datestamp. Basically, when an old version of any page is opened, it should be displayed as it was at that time period, without the templates being current.
Example: Let's consider an article named "Article" in Wikipedia. It uses the "Template:Sample" on it. The template gets moved to another name, suppose to "Template:Name". The "Article" page gets updated with the move. Then a template with totally different content is created and placed at "Template:Sample". Now when a user accesses the past version of the "Article" page, he/she sees it with "Template:Sample" in it. But since the current version of the template is displayed, the subject of this template is totally different from the subject of "Article", despite the fact that when the "Article" page was using the "Template:Sample", the template actually was on the subject of "Article". What I propose is in this case, when the past version of "Article" is opened, the version of "Template:Sample" applicable to the datestamp of the past version of "Article" is shown instead of the current version, as it is now.
And the same for images.
Then a user can really be sure that the page he/she is viewing is exactly how it looked in the past.
I am not sure the way I explained it is understandable enough, a simple idea turned out to be hard to explain :-) If there are any concerns, feel free to contact me!
This would be impractical to implement; not really worth the effort. It was a pain enough getting FlaggedRevs to do that for reviewed revisions.
WONTFIXing this bug as nearly-impossible to implement.
(поверьте мне это действительно пркатически невозможно реализовать)
Another problem is that as templates change the current revisions looks different. When the current becomes old, this proposal would only show how it was when first created, not the other ways it looked.
Also note that template may contain deleted information
*** Bug 13008 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***