That sounds like a great idea. "LVR" is probably fine as the link text; it isn't obvious what it means, but you just click on it to find out. One issue: how would the watchlist store the "last visited revision"? A revision doesn't get a version number until it isn't the most recent one anymore. A hackish way to work around that limitation is to have the watchlist store the version number of the ''previous'' revision. I don't know what to do if LVR is the first version of the page. Another idea: have the link greyed out in the case where there's only been one revision since LVR, since then it's just the same as "diff". On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:58:50 +0100, Thomas Gries <mail(a)tgries.de> wrote:

On Saturday, February 26, 2005, at 01:58 PM, Thomas Gries wrote: I like the current setup on Meta (why is it different than the setup on en?); this link could be added in before the other two: * (chng) (diff) (hist) . . m [[page name]]; ti:me . . [[User:]] ([[User talk:]]) (edit summary) I don't think it really matters what the short text is. Other than the nipple, no interface is intuitive; "incomprehensible acronym" or not, editors will learn what it does by clicking the link, as they have done for every other feature of MediaWiki. A four character acronym would be nice just for symmetry, that's why I chose "chng". How will this affect server performance? My watchlist is refreshed half a dozen times on a day that I'm not working on Wikipedia, ten times as often on a day that I am. Even if you only store the read state for items in the watchlist, and not all visited pages, that's still over 500 articles (for me). Those reservations aside, I am in favor of this feature, especially if it is opt-in by the users. I read a forum that stores read states on every thread, and it makes a world of difference in usability. Ben

Ben Brockert wrote: It's not. You might have one account configured with "enhanced recent changes display" and the other not? -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)