Wikipedia talk:Two versions

Oppose. Wikipedia should not have warring versions of articles. Rick K 21:14, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

But it does. The hope is to make it more peaceable. V V 21:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This looks a hell of a lot better than this. V V 21:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

reversion/non-reversion wars can be handled more simply

Perhaps instead of two versions, the reversion/non-reversion wars can be temporarily handled by having the proposed reversion present but highlighted in red, with a notice in red to note that the text is being disputed by proposing reversion and not by proposing balancing text.--Silverback 03:54, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I thought this might work, but as a reverted page may also be subsequently edited the coding will not go back to the previous version which may lie back in history. Fred Bauder 16:00, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

This has been a problem, but I'm not sure it's insurmountable. Also, another idea I had was for this or something like it to be used on protected pages, so a reader can be quickly directed to the "other" version, thus hopefully mitigating the effects of protecting the "wrong version". Very Verily 21:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Worst. Idea. Ever.

Encouraging POV forks? No. Bang the problem editors' heads together, don't punish the article for their sake - David Gerard 09:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two versions is good

POV forks are much preferred over denying the existence of dispute. zen master T 16:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NO, they are not. Do not POV fork. Ever. R adiant _>|< 22:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three versions

I would say Three versions are more approriate. (Ironickly I actualy am serious) The Main Version would be the earlyer version. People With srong opinions should creat a sub artile like /A's POV /B's POV and not have an edit war on the main page but not leave out any POV. I'm not saying to go with any POV but just to have an artile about the POV so people know what others are arguing about--E-Bod 04:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]