Last modified: 2010-05-24 18:25:17 UTC
Example: In page history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:FT2/test3&action=history In contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20100518202644&limit=5&target=FT2 An admin should see the first revision as a link with a grey strikeout line through it, as in other places. Instead they see a greyed-out non-link.
Other example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smile_Foundation_of_Bali&action=history The date/time field should be a struck-through but still clickable link for admins, as they can see the deleted revision.
They can click the show/hide links to see the content
Page history doesn't have explicit "show/hide" links. More generally a user with administrator access to the revision can normally click the date or revision field directly to view it. Disabling the link for admins doesn't do anything useful except force them to go via a different (intermediate RevDelete) page. As noted that intermediate page doesn't exist on page history. To view this revision ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smile_Foundation_of_Bali&oldid=292742758&unhide=1 ) I have to: * select the checkbox * scroll to top of page if a long history * click the revdelete button * the revdelete page is then shown, with the exact same text, this time it has the normal link which can be clicked to view the revision. Unclear what benefit this has. Can "date"->"revision" links be reinstated (with strikeout styling) as on almost all other pages, to allow a direct click to the revision in the usual place? Thanks :)
Does revdelete use "date"->"revision" links somewhere else?
Yes - in diffs http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:FT2/test3&diff=prev&oldid=362875591 in deleted page history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/User:FT2/test4 in deleted contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/FT2 But mainly, there is no obvious reason why these links should not be clickable in current page history and contributions. And every reason why it would be useful. Non admins aren't able to view the deleted content, and admins get a considerable extra click-burden for every redacted revision, for no net gain.
(In reply to comment #4) > Does revdelete use "date"->"revision" links somewhere else? Other that sp:undelete, where the user is already explicitly viewing deleted content. Currently, the idea is that user has to clearly use show/hide (links/buttons) to request deleted content now. If the the date is made into a link, the next obvious question would be "how do you see the edit comment as quickly?". It would be useful to resolve that at the same time.
The diffs *do* looks wierd...they don't check the 'unhide' param in that regard.
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Does revdelete use "date"->"revision" links somewhere else? > > Other that sp:undelete, where the user is already explicitly viewing deleted > content. > > Currently, the idea is that user has to clearly use show/hide (links/buttons) > to request deleted content now. > > If the the date is made into a link, the next obvious question would be "how do > you see the edit comment as quickly?". It would be useful to resolve that at > the same time. Non-admin users see the redacted entries only, so that's not a concern. The difference for admins is that the date is innocuous. A clickable date says "there was material here that got deleted, click here to view it" but doesn't expose the offensive or disruptive material on their screen if they don't want to see it. But the main reason an edit comment gets revdeleted is if it is grossly offensive or disruptive, perhaps even including virus links in some cases. So that should continue to be as it is now ("comment removed" greyed out). If the admin wants to see the edit comment, they can click on the revision link as normal, and with one click it's shown with the revision. Not initially exposing the revdeleted username and edit comment is sensible. The link to the revision via the date field is both harmless and useful.
(In reply to comment #8) > Non-admin users see the redacted entries only, so that's not a concern. I'm not sure what this is about. No one wants to show hidden content to non-admins :] Anyway, if the revision link goes to the revision as it does with diffs, one can see the actual username and revision, but not the edit comment. Anyway, I was playing around a bit and noticed that the revision links on diffs still have a confirmation link, so they may as well be linked everywhere then. As long as the user confirms to see it I'm ok. I'll commit this soon. I also got confused by the confirmation link on diffs unhiding the user name, but the confirmation links on oldid=x page views only unhide the text and not the user name...that needs to be worked out too.
Done in r66827
oldid page views now unhide the name with unhide=1 (r66840).
Bug issues resolved. The viewing of hidden comments can be left as is for now.
