Forum:File source list order

Hi guys, I've noticed that a lot of files list the source in the wrong order, like. They try to imitate the file history table but that just make things confusing, the first version of a file is the first to be uploaded, the last version is the current one just as the last revision of a page is the current version of it. Using an ordered list makes it unambiguous.

Discussion
I disagree, I think that the most current version should be on top, which is how the image history appears. Also, I wish we would just use bullets for the different sources instead of a numbered list. 15:20, April 20, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JSD on the order, though I think numbers are better. 15:29, April 20, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of point of views, the last version of a file/page is unequivocally the current one and the first version is the oldest one. What you are trying to do is mimic the table apparent order, but then you cannot use a chronological reference, because chronologically the first version is the oldest. If you want to do that, then you have to use another type of reference, for example the timestamp. The timestamps are unequivocal therefore you can list them in whatever order you like.


 * Or you can alternatively list them in an inverse ordered, for example:
 * 3. Last version.
 * 2. Middle version.
 * 1. First version.
 * However this way you cannot use the MediWiki ordered list.

We have always done it so the current image source is on top. Because that's accurate. SeaTerror (talk) 19:27, April 20, 2015 (UTC)

Actually we didn't, someone change the order sometimes later. And it's not accurate if it's misleading, there is unequivocally one "first" version of the file and it's the first to be uploaded. Blame it on who designed the table that way, but the order is still like that.

The current image is the first one in the File History. Thus, it's not misleading and this is not an issue. 19:47, April 20, 2015 (UTC)

That's where you are wrong, the table is in chronological order therefore the first version is the first one to be uploaded. It's the same as any other history page, look at this and tell me which version you think I'm talking about if I tell you "the first revision". I know the sources where listed this way because I was the one who started to add them when I was still active, then this trend to list as "1" the current one began to spread later. If you want to mimic the table, it's fine, but you have to invert the order of the number like in my example above.

First one from the top. 21:33, April 20, 2015 (UTC)

If you write an order to indicate the versions of something, assuming that people would think that order is actually referring to the apparent order of the table (which can be both way, depending who designed it) in the direction of how you read instead of the order of version, it's just moronic. There first version is the first one made. Just take any kind of changelog, like this one for example, and tell me which version is the first one: the current one or the oldest one? What you are currently doing is implying that with "first version" people would think of the "first version to appear in the changelog but not the actual first version of the software itself" instead of the "first version of the software". You don't like the inverse order? Blame who designed it that way. If you want to keep the current one at the top then use the timestamp or reverse the order of the numbers or actually write "from the top of the history table". I don't want particular keeping this kind of order, I'm just saying that if you say the first version of the file, then it's the first one uploaded.

The order is in what version was uploaded. Read it from top to bottom. SeaTerror (talk) 01:54, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

Still doesn't change the fact that at the top there is the last version.

Exactly. The top lists the last one uploaded. SeaTerror (talk) 02:38, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

And you refer to the last version using the number "1". That sure makes a lot of sense. So, for you, the "first version" of PHP is actually the current one? I guess you also like to have the "first generation" of smartphone instead of the "last one"? Please... maybe it's not clear, but I'm not particularly against listing the source from top to bottom, I'm just saying that if you write "1" then the "first version" of the file is the oldest one, not the one at the top which is the current. You can sort the list in a lot of ways, and if you want to keep it that way, the you have to either: Everything is fine but using the number 1 (or even not the number) to assume the top one of the table.
 * Invert the numbers order.
 * Use timestamps.
 * Specifically write "From the top of the history table "

You read it from top to bottom meaning that the sources listed are the same as the images. Even that link you keep posting shows which version is the current version. Unless you have a really weird way of reading a list. SeaTerror (talk) 04:32, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SeaTerror. MasterDeva (talk) 10:53, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to worry about inverting the number lists. It's a lot of work when we could just use bullets instead. Plus numbers start to not make sense once there's a few reverts. Easier to ultimately check the file/page history if you can't figure out which image goes with which source. 13:45, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

You keep overlooking the fact that the the version listed at the top is the last not the first, therefore if you say "first version" is not that one. What you wanted to say is "the version at the top of the table" and if you want to say that then you have to write it. The first version of an image is the first one uploaded, in which world the first version is the last? "Even that link you keep posting shows which version is the current version." - that's right and no one sane in his mind would address to such version as the "first version", but with as "last version released" instead. There are plenty of ways to do make it right, why do you insist on using the only way that's wrong. Use timestamps or actually write "from the top of the table".

If someone tells me to look at the "first" or "last" version of an image, I'm going to look at the file history, not the source list, because everyone knows that the source lists are currently in no particular order anyways. The source list is not the only way to look at an image's history, so we don't need to make a huge deal about it. 14:01, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

How about we do this nice and simple. Keep it with bullets, and in the order we accept proof from: manga -> SBS -> anime -> films.

14:04, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

@JSD: "everyone knows that the source lists are currently in no particular order anyways." if a file has 3 versions, let's say all from the anime, and I copy one, how can I tell from which episode it comes from? If you cannot tell than what's the point of listing the sources? @Supernova: What are you talking about? I'm fine with bullets, but if you use bullets then you assume it's in chronological order, not my fault if the table is in a decrescent order. So what about adding the line "from the top of the table" to make it clear you are referring to the order of the table and not the order of the versions of the file. Then you list all different version of the file (therefore reverts don't count). That or you can just add timestamp to make it even more obvious. Here some examples: From the top of the table: From the top of the table:
 * File:Hyouzou transformed.png
 * Dotted list (versions)
 * Chapter 639.
 * Episode 560.
 * Volume 65 Cover.
 * Dotted list (table)
 * Volume 65 Cover.
 * Episode 560.
 * Chapter 639.
 * Ordered list (versions)
 * 1) Chapter 639.
 * 2) Episode 560.
 * 3) Volume 65 Cover.
 * Ordered list (table)
 * 1) Volume 65 Cover.
 * 2) Episode 560.
 * 3) Chapter 639.
 * Timestamps (order doesn't matter)
 * 02:29, 14 set 2011: Chapter 639.
 * 08:50, 9 apr 2012: Episode 560.
 * 06:45, 12 mag 2013: Volume 65 Cover.