https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41836
Chad H. <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #4 from Chad H. <[email protected]> 2012-11-07 21:25:03 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > Basically, actions are all inconsistent. Special:MovePage, Special:Undelete, > etc. vs. ?action=history, ?action=protect, ?action=edit, etc. There are > concerns with switching to Special pages (such as page links only tracking up > to 255 bytes) and there are concerns with switching to actions (such as not > having a title to work with). > If we were doing it all over again--we'd be writing special pages and not action urls. The only reason we've still got them is for legacy reasons. I remember complaining when actions were rewritten that we were wasting our time solidifying architecture that should just die. > Generally, if we switch to Special pages, I think we'll end up with > Special:Action/Edit/Foo or something. Maybe. > Special:Action/Foo/Bar is just as bad as title=Bar&action=Foo. Comment #2 is the way I'd like to see it... Special:History/Foo, Special:Edit/Foo, etc etc etc. > Is there any reason you think the info action in particular should be switched > to a (dedicated) Special page? Because *all* actions should be special pages. We should kill every last one of these blasted actions and have them redirect to appropriate special pages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
