https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21312
--- Comment #15 from FT2 <ft2.w...@gmail.com> 2010-05-14 23:19:57 UTC --- I'm not convinced that "It wasn't covered in the past" and "old extensions don't always do it" are good rationales. Surely the eseence of a wiki is to be able to trace who did what, and to improve as time passes. So even if we had not done it in the past, revDelete does attempt to, and I think RevMove should probably attempt to as well. It's good wiki-practice. A second thought is, RevMove alone is minor, however it parallels RevDelete which isn't, and which does keep a note of revisions acted upon. So there's probably already space to store the data in the db. Agree that making RevMove only work for non-deleted pages and revisions (including non-deleted revisions with RevDeleted fields) will help to prevent a number of possible issues that would arise if it tried to be usable on "traditional" deleted revisions. Agree its easier that the admin corrects a creation error, than top be asked each time "are you sure". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
