Template talk:ArticleVersion

Having one template that covers both old and new articles is, I think, a mistake. (I didn't know it was the same at first.) When it comes time to change the latest to "old", it will require that every one be checked - and there is no way to keep track of that.

Instead, having one "old info" template, and one "current info" template would allow users/Admin to go out and change all the "current info" articles to "old", and then proceed from there. The serve diff functions, they should not be the same.--Albedo 20:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, of course. I'm not quite certain why I didn't think of splitting this into separate templates, but it clearly should be. There's also the matter of Emi's recent changes assuming the presence of a "DF2010" pseudonamespace which, at this moment, does not exist. --Quietust 23:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Albedo, I'm getting the feeling that you don't understand how this template works. When it comes time to change the latest to "old" one line will have to be changed in this template's code, and then every single one will have changed to read "out of date". The entire premise of having one template that uses parser functions to determine what appears, is so that no one will ever have to go through every article to check the templates. You'll notice that 40d:Milk shows up as out of date, but that DF2010:Milk shows up as current. This is because the template is looking for what namespace the page it appears on is in, and it appears differently depending on what namespace it is.

Also, to Quietust, the 'fixes' you made to the template were actually to intentional errors. I wanted to avoid doing things that would have to be reversed later as much as possible, but still wanted to test. So to avoid having to ask Briess to temporarily add DF2010 as a namespace, I left the namespace check for current blank. As for the non-existent DF2010: I just wanted something to test with, I never meant to imply that the DF2010 namespace was the one people had agreed upon.

If you need me to explain more, I'd be happy to. I'm also lurking around on IRC (newnet as Emi). Emi 00:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is this template not working? I never see links to the old 40d articles that still actually have content. It is very annoying. --Altaree 13:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It's working fine for me. What page are you seeing this on? Remember, it only links to the 40d article if the 40d article exists with the exact same name. --Briess 13:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

whoops, I'm wrong. A new DF2010 page must be created with an av template to allow me to see the link back to the 40d article on the redirect. ick. --Altaree 13:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Some notes...

First off, for some reason, on the legacy and current versions of the template, there's an extra line at the top which screws up the layout of the page a bit. I can't find where it's getting that from.

Secondly, I really don't think this template should throw the pages into a category. If it's going to be on every page, and it looks like it will, the categories will just become huge and useless. Categories are going to be tricky to work with now with the split, but this is certainly not the way to do it.

Finally, if this is going to be on every page, it needs to be as discrete as possible. I suggest scaling down the text, and making the colors more subtle.

Thoughts? --Mikaka 04:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Previous versions were even less discrete, this was a compromise between discreteness and people being able to notice it and easily find different version of the articles.

As for the layout problem, could you link me to a page where this problem is occurring?

As for the categories, I'm not sure what I think about them. Emi [T] 05:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edit fixed the layout. The template table now rests snugly against the top of the articles in question. Thanks. Perhaps we can turn up the discreteness once people become used to having to the new system. For now it works. --Mikaka 05:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)