Wikipedia talk:Stable versions now

This is a failed proposal.

Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please do so below or initiate a thread at the village pump.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page.

Shortcut

WT:SVN

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Why not just do this the easy way?

We have an easy way to set up stable versions without disrupting anyone or seriously changing the way we operate. Anyone who wants to is, after all, free to set up a stable downstream version of Wikipedia at any time. By setting up such an "official" stable mirror and using the existing Wikipedia as the development server, we could have stable versions without disrupting any of Wikipedia's existing functions. Plainly, permanently protecting pages here at Wikipedia is not the way things are done, but this proposal could be easily implemented in a properly-handled downstream fork. --Aquillion 18:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, for well established articles we should have a box with a link to a protected stable version with the dynamic version directly below. It could even be built into the software so that a vandal could not remove the box with a link to the stable version.--God Ω War 02:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Up until the software part, this is exactly what I set forth in my proposal, which could be an easy launching point to incorporating just such a software fix. JDoorj a m Talk 02:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this proposal dead?

Does anyone think this still has a significant chance of gaining consensus support? Especially given the myriad other proposals (such as JDoorJam's, which avoids most of the criticisms levelled at this one) on this topic, and the fact that the last contribution was two days ago, I would suggest not. Unless anyone objects, I'll mark it as {{rejected}} tomorrow (to give time for objections to be posted here). Cynical 13:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't appear to be moving forward. It looks like we're going to need a software implementation and/or a command from our benevolent dictator to implement these things. Any time now Jimbo ;-) --Spangineer^es (háblame) 13:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there will be some semi-structured discussion about how to implement it at Wikimania, and I expect a tighter proposal that a lot of the participants at the conference have roughly agreed to will emerge within a few days. At least that's the impression I get from watching a bit of the live conference feed.--ragesoss 14:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is definitely dead. I've heard conflicting information, but my understanding is that Brion Vibber has already coded or is in the process of coding or will soon be coding Mediawiki support for stable versions. That would render this proposal moot. Raul654 15:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the proposal would still need some sort of approval regarding how to implement the code properly, if it's even going to happen at all, no? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to marking this proposal as {{rejected}}, although I was (and am) a supporter of it. It clearly has failed to gain consensus. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Test cases again

Folks are again rolling out test cases over at Wikipedia:Stable_versions. If you have an opinion one way or the other, you should be aware of the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]