Hi,
I have a suggestion.
To apply (if aproved) from now on if we are too busy, not in retrospective. Only in retrospective if someone thinks we are not too busy.
Because i don't want to charge the mods with additional work. Is not my intention when i suggest things. I suggest things to help.
The suggestion from the EG is this:
"Could the mods, specifically the one that edits an EG article put the date of the day he/she updated that said article on the development notes along with the "Initially published on" date?"
I saw a thing on
Cryptotechnology and several others recently updated.
Quote:Text by M. Alan Kazlev
updated by Todd Drashner
Initially published on 07 January 2002.
i think the mod that did the update, in this case Drashner, could manually put the date of the day he is updating the article on the line, along with the name.
This has the advantage that don't require programming, only writing a bit more.
A second one is that, after writing it, the date is visible for all people who visit the page. Guests included. And don't need people logged on the website to see the CMS historical of updates.
That previous quote could read:
" Text by M. Alan Kazlev
updated by Todd Drashner (May 2018).
Initially published on 07 January 2002. "
This was intended in the
technocalypse article because it has major changes. But i think this practice of putting the date could be done more frequently and when the change is smaller than that because we have articles that were modified on different periods of the project and this could be useful to determine it without need to login into the CMS to look an historical.
We have currently stickied "
Known Canon Issues" in General Setting Discussion subforum because this thing of having different periods of Canon, and articles that are older than others is real and is happening. that's why we have the sticky.
Other example is the
Cyberian Network empire article. The article was changed drastically. The whole main body of text is different from the old one who featured "L33t hackers". And the developments notes are:
Quote:Text by Anders Sandberg and M. Alan Kazlev
alphaomega325, Avengium and Ryan B
Initially published on 03 July 2000.
There is no trace of another date that is not the 03 of july of 2000. A better way of putting it could be to put the different times it was edited in different lines. Like for example:
" Text by Anders Sandberg and M. Alan Kazlev
alphaomega325, Avengium and Ryan B
Initially published on 03 July 2000.
Last version of May 2018. "
This is only a suggestion and i am in no means forcing anyone to change it to the suggested. Feel free to do it what you want with the suggestion.
This post also reminds me this other Forum Thread from 2017:
Automatically updated Page revision date: http://www.orionsarm.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2908
In this old thread is suggested an automated way of putting dates. But this post is not about an automated way, but a manual one.
You can do the manual way of putting the date (the one suggested in this post) that is easier, even if you don't have the time/skill/posibilty of putting an automated one.
Not liking that old thread should not stop you from trying an easier method that may work.