Improvements for the "Related To" page

One thing that Just Bugs Me is the way inbound referrals are displayed, specifically the "since 20 Feb 2009" part. I know this is just a disclaimer identifying when the system was actually implemented, but it's too visible. Suggestions:

• Include the age (i.e. date of oldest version) of the article on the "Related To" page. If an article is younger than 2-20-2009, it has always had referrals available, so mentioning the implementation date is redundant because the article hasn't actually been around that long.
• For articles older than the referral system, make the implementation date less prominent. Like a parenthetical note saying something like "(Only referrals since 2-20-2009 are counted)" .

edited 22nd Oct '10 8:53:30 AM by Stratadrake

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.

We don't have the date the page was originally made for many articles: the Great Crash of 08 wiped out page histories for most pages older than that. Plus, if a page name was re-purposed or the definition was changed considerably but the name was kept, when the name went into use has little bearing on anything any more.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Would it possible to have a time/link dispersal chart on it as well?

Fight smart, not fair.

I thought the process of renaming a page means the article's edit history are moved under the new name? Thus, the edit history of the "new" name includes the "old" article, and the "old" name is either unused or pertains to a now-different article with a separate creation date.

Also, the Great Crash occured before the referral system was built so it has no effects on the # logged inbounds.

edited 22nd Oct '10 1:01:09 PM by Stratadrake

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.

Renaming does not transfer edit history. Functionally, we're creating a new article and redirecting people to it; there is not an actual replacement going on inside the database.

edited 22nd Oct '10 1:12:42 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

^^ The suggestion was made to have the date the page was originally made noted on the referrals page. That data is unknown for most pages that predated the Great Crash.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

^But we don't care about the dates those pages were originally created on, since we aren't counting referrals from then anyway. The point is to make it easier to distinguish "has 3 referrals because it was launched yesterday" from "has 3 referrals because it was launched six months ago and nobody cared".

edited 22nd Oct '10 3:22:51 PM by Micah

132 is the rudest number.

Well, that's a nice design flaw. I wonder how deep it runs?

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.

Well, I think it's because it's not so much "renaming" as "taking everything from one page and putting it on another page."

edited 22nd Oct '10 6:45:26 PM by TheInferno

"The fact that your food can be made into makeshift bombs alarms the Hell out of me, Scrye." - Charlatan

Is there a way to make a "trope moved here" tag or something so it will have a reference?

Fight smart, not fair.