The WEB.TOPIC moved from OLDWEB.OLDTOPIC on date by user - put it back message is too visible and distracts users. I thinks it belongs more to the "More..." screen where the various move operation are made.


In the skin, move the %META{"moved"}% statement from the view template to the oopsmore template. However, it does not work, as the meta information are not processed in oops mode.


The fix is to make the bin/oops script interpret the meta information. Here is the patch to bin/oops (wrt Feb 2003 version)

-- ColasNahaboo - 05 Jun 2003

That sounds fairly sensible.

-- JohnTalintyre - 05 Jun 2003

Category: TWikiPatches

I have a problem with the text string "topic moved" when in some cases the topic has been only renamed. If the topic has changed web, it is moved. When it comes from the same web, it has changed name.

-- ArthurClemens - 05 Jun 2003

Arthur, I am fairly agnostic on this. But perhaps that now that this information is in the "backoffice" More... it may not be so important? (I mean, people who go "under the hood" in More... are used to this concept).

Or it may be that my unix culture make me say "move" (or rather mv ) when I think "rename" smile

Nice suggestion anyway. the code souldn't be too hard, I'll check.

-- ColasNahaboo - 05 Jun 2003

Yes. Thinking rename == move is most likely Unix culture. But in one very important way, this actually applies here:
Even just renaming a topic breaks any inbound link. So for the purpose and intent of the (world wide) web, the page definitely moved. As cool URLs don't change, the harmless sounding "renamed" should not be used.

2¢ by PeterKlausner - 06 Jun 2003

I agree that "Renamed" is less harmful than it appears, but in fact the person who has actually renamed the topic has had the chance to update all referring topics already earlier. When this person chooses "Rename topic", he is of course notified with the same options as with "Move topic".

-- ArthurClemens - 06 Jun 2003

Yes, twiki-web local references are fixed automatically, which is a very good thing. But not ww-web links. And don't forget email messages. And by default, not even links from different (twiki-)webs.
Anyway, 'move' instead of 'rename' will not completely cure the "thoughtless breaking links disease" wink

A better solution could be scanning the referer log for any non-twiki-web referrals and then issus a BIG WARNING that you are about to ruin someone's web page, bookmark, email...

ya¢, PeterKlausner - 06 Jun 2003

A better solution may be to have the move operation log into a specific file, and have the code called by TWiki on unknown web and/or unknown topic prompt a page such as "the page that was there has moved to XXX, do you want to go there or create a new one?"

Actually, as a sysadmin, people ask me very often to set up apache redirects to avoid breaking links when Webs and Topics are renamed (mostly webs). This could avoid having to require admin intervention for users...

-- ColasNahaboo - 06 Jun 2003

Yet another decent patch that's made more difficult by the TWiki::UI refactor. I'm going to put a notice up in PatchProposal about this issue right now...

-- WalterMundt - 20 Apr 2004

Part of the solution to the originally stated problem is visual: in PatternSkin the moved text is grayed out, so is less distractive.

-- ArthurClemens - 21 Apr 2004

Patches updated for Cairo (apply both) -- ColasNahaboo - 04 Jan 2005

I'd like to open this discussion back up because I find the "Move it back" message at the bottom of renamed topics quite unnecessary UI noise. This is particularly the case since it never goes away and is even carried over to topics which are created using the topic as a templatetopic . Personally, I just don't see that the rare use case that one wants to rename or move a topic back to what it was before deserves any special UI treatment at all, not under "more topic actions" and certainly not in the view template. I say just get rid of it altogether. It would be one small victory to cleaning up TWiki's over-wrought UI!

One thing that might be worthwhile, if not already the case, is to have all renames and moves be included in the topic change history so that you could, if needed, see what the original name was and who changed it.

-- LynnwoodBrown - 22 Sep 2006

I agree here. I often delete the META from the topic to get rid of this message.

It is only when vandals delete a topic that I use the feature - and I would think it worked fine inside the "more topic actions".

Or as a link you can click inside the change history.

99.9 % of the time people rename a topic within the first minutes or maybe hours because they regret the name once the topic is written. Or the admin finds the original name not very descriptive. You almost never need to move it back. It is as Lynnwood says just UI noise.

-- KennethLavrsen - 22 Sep 2006

I agree. It should be removed.

-- ArthurClemens - 22 Sep 2006

I agree that this is clutter and should be removed from the normal view screen. However, I find it useful to have in the "more" screen, e.g. a place out of the way to find out that (1) the topic has been renamed, (2) by who, (3) what the original name was. The "put it back" feature is not that important, but could be retained in the "more" screen.

In addition, as discussed in #twiki, the Trash web could have a prominent "put it back" message, ideally as a broadcast message.

-- PeterThoeny - 22 Sep 2006

All good ideas.

-- ArthurClemens - 23 Sep 2006

I'd delighted that we may be close to agreement on this. Peter, I still don't understand the need for keeping this in the "more" screen. I just checked and the information you want is preserved in the history so why add something else to more which is also quite busy?

Pluse, moving it under "more" still has the problem i mentioned of retaining a UI element forever that really has a short userful life. In fact, one could argue that keeping it beyond it useful life actually creates a possible problem later with someone inadvertently clicks the "move it back" button months or years after everyone has gotten use to the new name. Also, there is the problem of topics created using the original topic as a templatetopic in which case this lingering artifact because seriously confusing and problematic.

So, once again, I propose we just get rid of it (except in the Trash web as Peter mentioned). If one need to revert a topic name and can't remember the the original name, then check the history and rename as normal. Preserving this special UI for this very rare use case, even under "more," does not justify the noise and problems it adds.

-- LynnwoodBrown - 23 Sep 2006

Good argument Lynnwood on the problem of the "put it back" link, yes, better to remove that link alltogether. However, I believe a simple message in the "more" screen like this is useful: This topic has been renamed from <oldtopic> on <date> by <user>

-- PeterThoeny - 23 Sep 2006

Would that information be carried over to any topics that use the original as a template? And I take it that for your needs, having this information in the topic history is not sufficient. In any case, I don't feel too strongly on this point. If there are't too many more sentiments expressed on this matter, I'm about ready to fill a bug, summarize the specs of the change from this discussion and check in the changes into svn ready for the next release (or whenever it's considered appropriate).

-- LynnwoodBrown - 23 Sep 2006

Moving towards implementing this, I've posted Bugs:Item2927 to finalize specs of the change.

-- LynnwoodBrown - 27 Sep 2006

There is agreement that the "topic moved" is removed from the view template.

But not that we now only have it as a banner in the trash web. If someone moves a topic from WEBA to WEBB we still need to be able to move it back. Peter suggested the feature moved to the "More topic actions" page. I have proposed having the link in the history. Both methods will allow moving the a topic back no matter where a vandal has moved it to. I have a number of times had to move a topic back that some punk has moved just for the fun of it and I know Peter does it often on so it is a function we do not want to loose. But we still agree that the "moved" message is too visible in the topic itself.

Below I have made a screenshot of how I think we can do it in the history instead of the more page.


-- KennethLavrsen - 28 Sep 2006

I like the idea of having the link in the history since that puts in into a temporal context. I fully support this idea. How hard would it be to implement?

-- LynnwoodBrown - 28 Sep 2006

I think moving it into the history page at the version where the rename occured is OK too. Although one needs to think this through: What is shown / what happens if the topic is renamed more than one time.

-- PeterThoeny - 30 Sep 2006

Would it be possible to have repeated "moved" messages in the history, each with a corresponding rename link?

-- ArthurClemens - 30 Sep 2006

In line with Arthur's comment, could we dispense with the "moved" meta data altogether and simply create an entry directly to the history with the link to reverse to earlier name. That way, the history would have a record of all earlier names. It would also clean up one piece of meta data.

-- LynnwoodBrown - 30 Sep 2006

This seems to have dropped off the radar so I'm bring it back up. Seems that we have agreement on moving the "moved" message off the topic in view. Moving it into history seems to have the most support, although Peter has raised a question about multiple renames. I don't quite understand the problem. It seems that each subsequent rename would be reflected in the history providing options for rolling that back. Any further reservations about that?

The last question, which I can't comment on, is: how involved is the code change add the "reverse name change" link to history? Can anyone comment on that?

-- LynnwoodBrown - 03 Nov 2006

Arthur added this old topic to TWikiFeature04x02 but there is no obvious driver committed to implement it and no driver - no decision. Parked until someone commits to do it.

-- KennethLavrsen - 08 Apr 2007

Well, I'm willing to "drive" it as I have repeatedly brought it back up as a minor but annoying bit of UI. However, I can not code it. I have asked for comments about difficulty of adding "reverse name change" link to the topic history - which seems to have the most support and least objections - but we've not gotten any further comments. If folks agree with this approach I will more aggressively seek some help in coding it. That's about all I can do...

-- LynnwoodBrown - 09 Apr 2007

OK. Let us try and revive this one.

Lynnwood will drive it. Will someone help Lynnwood with the coding?

Summary of spec:

Moved message is removed from normal topic view and instead a similar message is added to the diff screen for the revision created when it was moved and with a put it back link which will lead to the rename screen like we know it today.

Implementation wise it is mainly a matter of being able to pick up the rename info from the rcs data when you generate the diff. The rest is trivial.

If noone objects to this spec within the next few days I will consider it decided by consensus. If Lynnwood cannot find a coder that will implement it (no date has to be committed - one fine day is enough) then it will get in the pool of accepted proposals. Otherwise it goes back in parked. Thanks for taking the driver seat Lynnwood.

-- KennethLavrsen - 25 Apr 2007

No concern. Noone against. No developer stepped forward to help Lynnwood.

Given the current time frame for Freetown - my interpretation is

  • Proposal accepted with Lynnwood as driver
  • Target release Georgetown since no current developer is available to help Lynnwood and we have a backlog of more urgent features still waiting to implemented.

-- KennethLavrsen - 21 May 2007

If it helps: I think it would be one small template change if the message was just moved to More.

-- ArthurClemens - 21 May 2007

Sorry i've not been able to add much movement to this proposal. In lieu of finding someone to help with the code to put the moved message into history, I would fully support Arthur's offer to at least move it into More. It's a step forward...

-- LynnwoodBrown - 23 May 2007

OK. Let's go for the easy implementation then. We can always change it in a later release. There is no backward compatibility issue with that.

-- KennethLavrsen - 23 May 2007

Implemented by ArthurClemens as part of Item9446

-- GeorgeClark - 06 Dec 2010
I Attachment Action Size Date Who Comment
TopicMovedMessageTooVisible.patch1patch1 TopicMovedMessageTooVisible.patch1 manage 1 K 05 Jun 2003 - 17:29 ColasNahaboo patch to bin/oops, beijing release
TopicMovedMessageTooVisible.patch2patch2 TopicMovedMessageTooVisible.patch2 manage 1 K 06 Jun 2003 - 07:17 ColasNahaboo to print
TopicMovedMessageTooVisibleV3.patch1patch1 TopicMovedMessageTooVisibleV3.patch1 manage 1 K 04 Jan 2005 - 10:45 ColasNahaboo Patch for Cairo, in dir lib/TWiki/UI
TopicMovedMessageTooVisibleV3.patch2patch2 TopicMovedMessageTooVisibleV3.patch2 manage 1 K 04 Jan 2005 - 10:46 ColasNahaboo patch to Cairo, in dir lib/TWiki
putbackinhistory.pngpng putbackinhistory.png manage 40 K 28 Sep 2006 - 06:29 KennethLavrsen  
Topic revision: r4 - 01 Jan 2012, GeorgeClark
The copyright of the content on this website is held by the contributing authors, except where stated elsewhere. See Copyright Statement. Creative Commons License    Legal Imprint    Privacy Policy