MediaWiki talk:Lastmodifiedatby

Obihiro original author credit

Swept in from the pub

Hi. I started this article yesterday, transferring it from my user page. To my surprise another editor - who put in a pair of parentheses and a section head - was then credited as the originator of the article at the foot of the page ('Based on work by Wikivoyage user(s) (WT-en) WindHorse'). I've written to the editor about this - also to (WT-en) Peter who suggested taking it up here. Is it some kind of bug? After all the page history clearly shows who started the page. Any ideas? Thanks. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 22:07, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Nope, no bug. You're still credited as the original author. The reason WindHorse's name shows up last was because the last person to edit a page gets attributed at the beginning.. Look at the bottom of this page. Currently, it says: This page was last modified 21:38:28, 2007-08-01 by Marc Heiden. Based on work by Jani Patokallio,..., but as soon as I edit and save the changes I made to this page it will read: This page was last modified 21:38:28, 2007-08-01 by Andrew Haggard. Based on work by Mark Heiden, Jani Patokallio,. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 22:43, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

The phrasing is a little misleading, but it's not a bug. The credits will only list you once, so if you're in the "Last revision by" spot, you can't get in the "Based on work by" spot until you get bumped out of the "Last revision by" spot. I went and edited Obihiro, so it says "Last revised by Marc Heiden. Based on work by (you), Jani Patokallio, and WindHorse." And then, if Manute Bol edits the article, it will say "Last revised by Manute Bol. Based on work by Marc Heiden, (you), Jani Patokallio, and WindHorse." So on and so forth. (Either way, it's much more credit than you'd get for starting a page on Wikipedia.) (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 22:51, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I also think the phrasing is misleading, which is why I suggested that Kleinzach bring this up in the pub. I presume that it wouldn't be too difficult to change the way this displays, so that the most recent editor is displayed as "last edited by" and in the line of editors credited as "work based on." Is there any support for such a change? And where is this code stored? --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 22:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't see a problem with the phrasing, but I'll go ahead and make a small change. Peter, the templates are - MediaWiki:Othercontribs and MediaWiki:Lastmodifiedatby. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 23:08, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually, it wasn't the phrasing of either of the two individual templates, it is the combination. Right now it displays:

This page was last edited at 02:56, on 2 August 2007 by Marc Heiden. This page is based on collaborative work by Simon Holledge and Jani Patokallio and Wikivoyage user(s) WindHorse.

But what I would like is something like this:

This page was last edited at 02:56, on 2 August 2007 by Marc Heiden. This page is based on collaborative work by Marc Heiden, Simon Holledge, Jani Patokallio, and Wikivoyage user(s) WindHorse.

On a side note, to where are those $# bits pointing to? Is that something in the general language-version php file? I'm curious because I might want to tinker a bit for the Russian version. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 23:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Hmm. I don't see a difference in what you say it reads now and what you'd like it to read. I'm not exactly sure what the $# is, but I do know they force the displaying of certain information. As an example, in the template about lastmodifiedatby $3 is the time, $2 is the date, and $1 is the user. I'm not positive if $1 always refers to users, but you can usually figure it out by comparing the template with the end result. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 23:54, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

The difference is what confused Kleinzach. It is clear that since User:A was the last to modify the page, the content must be based at least partially on User:A's work. Therefore the omission of User:A in the "This page is based on" sentence seems like a mistake. It gave me an awkward pause when I first started contributing here and I understand why it seems confusing for new users. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 00:01, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

That reminds me of confusion I have... what determines whether a user is in the "based on work by" category or the "and Wikivoyage users" category? – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 03:02, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Ah, that one I think I can answer: "Wikivoyage users" = users who haven't entered anything in the "Real name" field of their preferences. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 03:08, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Thank you to everybody for considering this issue. This text IMO would be ideal:

This page was last edited at 02:56, on 2 August 2007 by Marc Heiden. This page is based on collaborative work by Marc Heiden, Simon Holledge, Jani Patokallio, and WindHorse. The original contributor was Marc Heiden.

I think that would be clear and unambiguous. At the moment the last contributor has (by implication) the least involvement. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 06:20, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I'll object to only that last part, "the original contributor," because in most cases the original contributor did nothing more than create the page and add a template for others to fill in. I don't think that should garner "extra credit" ;) When I want to see who really did the bulk of an article, I just check the history anyway. But I would like to see the first two sentences of your proposal be implemented. Unfortunately, I do not know how to do this myself. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 06:39, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm flattered to become the test case for this discussion, and would like special credit for such at the bottom of this page. ("Modeling by Marc Heiden" will do.)

I agree with Peter about no separate notice for the "original contributor". I don't personally care about getting dual credit, but if that's the outcome, then that's fine. I don't like the new unnecessary modifier "collaborative", though - let's restore the original phrasing of "Based on work by..." (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 08:42, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

If you remove the "collaborative" part, please do so around midnight EDT. Yesterday, the site was offline for 15 - 20 minutes because it takes the cache forever to be purged when you edit a MW file. At least at that time, it shouldn't be such a problem for most users. -- 71.72.212.152 09:05, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Peter also, but mostly wanted my name to appear at the bottom of this page. (WT-en) OldPine 14:24, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually there is a bug. Earlier today I initiated a Talk Page for Sapporo. Instead of the link on the article page turning blue, it has remained red (up to now). Clicking on it brings up the Talk edit page, rather than the Talk page itself. I think this is probably what happened when I started the Obihiro page. Apparently the second contributor somehow completes the creation of the page - though I am just speculating about this. Thanks. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 11:13, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

That's not quite a bug (I think), it's just an oddity of our caching system. If you purge the cache for the page with the link and then refresh, the link turns blue. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 15:32, 3 August 2007 (EDT)