https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42660
Jon <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #16 from Jon <[email protected]> --- Hey Matt thanks for the patch. I'll get that tested with the mobile domain. Luis: I would still be keen to fully comprehend the legal requirements of the history link as we keep running into these issues and will continue to do so without a policy which explains what is acceptable and what is not. A few replies on the off topic discussion about redirects. Note: this is all me thinking aloud. I suspect any change here would require a big overhaul in how things currently are that is probably not worthwhile but I think these reflective discussions are useful to understand the reasoning behind why things are the current way and if they are correct. > "I'd expect a link to the history of the article I'm viewing. I'm not viewing the redirect, I'm viewing what I was redirected to." This is fair I just wondered if there were any arguments for the alternative. > "If I'm not mistaken, I have to do three clicks to see the right history:" Correct, but i was wondering if the history page for the redirect should link to the history page for the thing it redirects to. > "That's the point of the "Redirected from" link, which seems to be > hidden/absent on Mobile. If you're interested in the redirect itself, you follow that link."" "> The person who setup the redirect is a contributor and surely under cc by sa > should be credited as well?? > "And they are, if you follow the "Redirected from" link." ... but should this be part of the page history for the article it redirects to as well? What does the license actually require? > "You're saying if I go to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitigating_factors I should see a link to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitigating_factor ? I think that's very inefficient. Most of the time people are going to want to see and/or edit the actual article (i.e target of the redirect). There shouldn't be an extra click for that case." No this is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that in cases of misspellings or slight variations in title I think a 302 is acceptable. In cases like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_mama_jokes which shows the content of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_insult the titles are __so__ different it is extremely confusing that a redirect occurred at all due to the existing UI to the point it could be seen as being broken (a few times I have run into this from search and wondering what the hell is going on). In these cases I'm questioning whether there should be a link saying See [[Maternal insult]]. The fact the user clicks on the link means they are aware of what is going on. In the current situation they are not. > "If it's a 302, how do you propose allowing people to change the redirect? I don't think there should be a special case for minimal differences like "factor/factors". That would probably add confusion." This is an implementation detail and I'm sure is solvable if we were to go down this rabbit hole. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
