On 2 March 2015 at 13:49, Oliver Keyes <ironho...@gmail.com> wrote: > But if we're going to implement something, why not just..have timezone > be an element of the timestamps on history pages? It's UTC unless the > user explicitly changes it, and if they explicitly change it that's > known in the database (and already referenced to decide how to convert > the UTC timestamp when the page is displayed). It's a perfectly > sensible UI change that makes sense independent of this problem.
This sounds like a good idea - in some ways, it's more robust than a notice at the top of the page. It's very easy for someone to not notice a general message, especially if they're looking at more than the first two entries in the history. If we want to be clever, we could always get JS trickery to display something like "xx.xx UTC ($localtimezone +5.00)" rather than just "xx.xx UTC". Related point: if we adapt the way history timestamps are displayed, eg by adding 'UTC', we should be consistent and apply the same approach to the "old revisions" view of a page, and the "This page was last modified on..." footer. Signatures have (UTC) by default, so that's solved, at least. Andrew. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>