h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Why not put the old entry text into a new conversation thread under the new entry? That way the new entry could stay in the existing A##### page and the old entry is always available for reference below it.

B.

You could mark the subject line in a set format such as:

"Old Entry Version: 01-01-2001 - Entry Name"

B.

Doesn't work if the update involved removing images...

The updating process would only very rarely involve removing an image -- I certainly have never done so in the entries I've updated, although I can't speak for Jimi X.

The updated entry *has* to have the A-number of the old Edited Guide entry, else links in other Edited Guide entries go awry. What has happened thus far is that the original entries just disappear, so I like this idea better.


Mikey

As I've posted elsewhere, it makes more sense to allocate the old copy a new A-number... As for removing images, I had in mind a situation where an entry with an illustration had become so unwieldy through added info it needed to be split into two... How that would work with keeping the old A-number I'm still a little unsure...

(just having to re-type this, clicked refresh accidentally! )

I'd certainly agree with entries keeping their old A number, that's the way the system has always worked so far when updating entries, and I don't see any reason it should be changed. Keeping the A number the same would avoid outdating links to the entry (off-site as well as on-site) and having the page automatically re-direct to a new A number would be confusing as links wouldn't go to where they say they go. (e.g a link in an existing Edited Guide entry to entry A123456 would actually go to A654321). The same would apply for forums (where the A-number is actually visible).

Not sure where the old version of the entry to go, or whether it needs to be visible at all, so I'll think about that one for a bit longer.

I'm not sure that giving the old version a new A-number is necessary. Quite often the updates are pretty minor -- you could end up with 5 or 6 copies of the same entry, but each slightly different, which could be rather confusing.

Mikey

It would only get a new A-number if the superceding version actually had new or different content; simple corrections such as changing a spelling or a tense would just be achieved by editing the existing page... I assume...

But where would you draw the line?

What if new links are added and the grammar fixed?

What if only one sentence is added?

For me, the appeal of the idea of posting the old entry as a conversation thread is that only the "current" entry would show up when you do a search.


Mikey

How about:

* the changes are marked with (inserted text) and deleted text.

Under normal viewing situations, the text appears as normal, indistinguishable from the main body, and the text doesn't appear at all. But perhaps a button would reveal the changes (showing as red and with strikethrough)...?

eg:

The Twin Towers arewere the tallest buildings in New York.

The tags can be further enhanced with dates and reasons if needed...

If the change really is minor, what would be the value in storing an old version? I think there needs to be a explicit distinction between major changes and minor changes.

> "If the change really is minor, what would be the value in storing an old version?"

What is the value in storing an old version AT ALL? Surely once the new, up-to-date version is available, that's what people will care about.

What happens if the changes turn out to be completely incorrect and that the original version is the truer one?

But then even in this circumstance I can't see why the public would need to see the old version (it could just be archived somewhere behind the scenes).

Yes, anyway, the older article is usually there as the original unedited entry from the original author. Seems a bit of a waste to make yet another copy.

In saying so, I can't see the harm in making a copy, just in case the original author needs it, but it's a relatively weak argument.

> "What happens if the changes turn out to be completely incorrect and that the original version is the truer one?"

Then the system will have failed.

The original author already has a copy in the original, unedited entry.

I've tried to summarise the main ideas and arguments put forward on this forum at A760402. Please feel free to look it over and comment!

Excellent stuff!

Out of interest... what is the character limit for a conversation entry? (Jim??). Whould we be able to copy an old entry into a conversation?

B.

I think the main problem with that idea is that forum conversations aren't really designed for holding entries. They can't handle subheaders and the like for example. So by copying the entry into a forum post, you'd be losing all the guideml tag information...

Not if you copied the entry from the Test##### page and included all the GuideML tags.

B.