On 10/7/07, Aaron Schulz <jschulz_4587(a)msn.com> wrote:
I'm mainly talking about higher profile pages. I
looked up George
Washington. It has around 50 templates and 17 images. That would require
MySQL to scan up to 134 rows on each page view to see if things where
Not on each pageview. Most hits are on the caches, which are already
purged if templates are changed. And you have to load these rows
anyway on an uncached hit, since you fetch the template data. So I
don't see what the big deal is with also fetching the flagging data.
I'm not convinced at all it's a performance issue. I'll have a chat
with Brion about it.
The UI change was not much better, and it even through
of Phillip resulting
in some confusion earlier.
Yep, in a template vandalism situation. Which is going to be the
_exception_, not the rule. The rule we want to strive for _is_ that a
page and all its components have been "sighted and current". And
giving a clear visual indication of that state is the best way to do
But anyway, I'm not arguing we should accept it working inaccurately
with templates. I'm arguing it's absolutely worth doing right though.
1) What will most people think "revision"
and "change" means?
Sorry, but if you're at that level, you've already lost most readers.
Seriously. People shouldn't have to care about revisions or changes at
all, and most people don't. The point here is to convey in a
reader-friendly way that a basic check has taken place. So that I can
print the article about a town into a brochure and not worry that it
says somewhere in the middle that the residents are all the product of
Therefore I think your discussion about the semantics of changes is
largely beside the point. From a reader point of view, it's already
far too low level.
Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.