On 10/5/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: Not even on all reverts. If an edit is being rolled back then no comparison needs to be performed, just the check as to whether the version being rolled back to has been sighted. It's the same situation where an edit is being undone and it's the most recent revision. -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

The expanded text at the time is stored, with tables listing the corresponding template/image version used when parsed. It is still the same... -Aaron Schulz _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts!  Play Star Shuffle:  the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct

No, it looks fine to me: http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5?title=Berlin&stable=1 That is the stable version. The old static version are here http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5?title=Special:Stableversions&page=Berlin . They are fine too. The UI saying "current & sighted" is misleading. Erik changed it to do that if the current rev ID = latest stable rev ID. I avoided that because images and templates might differ. For logged in users, they see the current revision. But if it the ID = last stable ID, the message shows like "current & reviewed" whatever, which is misleading. I'm tempted to revert the changes. Another issue is that someone locally turned off the "stable" tab. -Aaron Schulz _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts!  Play Star Shuffle:  the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct

In that case, even one change to a template would make it not show. I fear that on wikipedia, that condition would rarely show up, and I'm not sure it's worth the performance hit. What I am doing is improving the "diff to stable" to list out the templates/images changed. -Aaron Schulz _________________________________________________________________ Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by today. http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctW…

The number of changes needing review is already listed. Zero indicates that the versions are synched with respect to the page revision. -Aaron Schulz _________________________________________________________________ Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmail…

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 changed, and always 134 if you wanted how many templates/images where changed. That's not really worth it. The UI change was not much better, and it even through of Phillip resulting in some confusion earlier. There are performance constraints, but also this issue is very much semantic, and I've been aware of it for months. Before adding band aids or other quick changes, some things need to be though out: 1) What will most people think "revision" and "change" means? Probably they would thing of either as any change to the content. The MW jargon for revision means wikitext of the text corresponding to a page revision. This ignores templates/images and readers will not get it even if we try to explain. 2) Is that the word we want to use to describe changes? Since revision is already confusing jargon for newbies, I'd prefer "changes". Any attempt to use any word that means the same as the MW jargon word "revision" will confuse people. 3) So we should always be talking about complete visual states of articles rather than the jargon of "changes not counting templates/images"? Ideally, that would be nice. 4) How can we refer to any change (including templates/images) without causing unneeded performance drops? This is the hard question. Currently, the UIs say "X changes need review" or the like. Changes means "MW revision jargon". This is bad. If we *want* to keep stating the number, and refer to ALL changes (templates/images too), that is not efficient, though it is technically possible. You would have to find each image/template that has a newer version the the id/sha_1 assigned to the stable version of the page in question and the run queries on each of those to count how many changes have been made. For George Washington, well, it's a nightmare ;). If want to keep the number, then it most only refer the jargon "revision" word ... 5) Do we want people re-reviewing every time a template is updated? This would be encouraged if we declared on the tags whether templates are out of sync or not and we wanted to always keep it 100% up to date. I'd actually be confident that most articles get enough edits (which updates templates when autoreviewed or prompts the user to review) that they would stay reasonably up to date. My concern is that if people are constantly re-reviewing a page revision to update templates/images, that the fr_text column will bloat up too much (it will be sizable no matter what, but that would make it worse). So I'd like to treat uses of the word "change" as what readers would expect: any change to the page. However, I have yet to find a good way to do so. -Aaron Schulz _________________________________________________________________ Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmail…

Also, I don't want to gloss over the other points - I'll write a bit more detailed about templates - but really, I think they pale in comparsion to the significance of the _primary_ reader-oriented indicators we use, and what they will say in what we want to be the most common case: the article _and_ the templates all being sighted. On 10/7/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: -- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

Some thoughts: One thing that did surely confused me was that the version history does not provide you with stable versions, but was so far left untouched. This means that for example that although a version in the history is marked as sighted (http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5?title=Berlin&action=history)ory), clicking on such a version does not provide you with the stable version. Furthermore, when seeing such a version, the GUI is not shown. I think that showing the stable versions when possible would be much better. And more appropriate anyhow since currently, all templates are shown in their current versions instead of how they were when that version was created. Showing stable versions solves at least that problem. The next question is, how much do we want to sacrifice for templates? I ask this because we are in the revert-thread here: automatic reverts are an essential tool for vandalism-fighting. However, as its automatic, people can't check the changes in templates. Thus, vandalism in templates can be transported in stable versions. So, what's worth more? Fast reverts or 100% accuracy in templates? Personally, I chose the first one. All in all, I still think that the original idea is best: i) Stable versions are defined as now (with templates and images as they were when created), but ii) If current is stable, show the stable text, but the last image and the last sighted template. Chosing then the appropriate text for the box is IMHO a solvable problem, but all in all this is the most intriguing solution as is still allows templates to change in current versions, but blocks most of the vandalism in templates. Bye, Philipp

2007/10/8, Aaron Schulz <jschulz_4587(a)msn.com>om>: Yes you're right, reverting to older revisions would be confusing that way. a) The version I mentioned b) The stable version, as created when flagged c) The current version in all regards. Bye, Philipp