Sam Johnston wrote: > You're right, which is another great reason *not* to link to the history > page URLs (which are as ugly as sin) but to the article directly (which is > *significantly* more useful for the reusers' users). While I find it very > hard to believe Wikipedia will cease to exist, the same can't necessarily be > said for PHP and ugly GET requests are already a dying breed... If we do > eventually find a sensible way to identify primary authors then we can > always promote them to the article page, or a separate info/credits page > (which could include other metadata like creation date, edit and editor > counts, etc.). > > On the other hand if we *must* have a separate link then perhaps appending > '/info', '/credit' or similar to the article URL would be a better choice. > Alternatively we could set up something like a purl partial redirect or even > run our own short link service (eg http://wikipedia.org/x9fd) which would > reliably point at a specific version and survive moves etc. > > There are plenty of solutions - we just need to work out which one works > best and offends the least people. > > Sam
The way to go would be using wikipedia.org/history/article The software already allows doing that (it's not configured on WMF sites). _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
