Extension talk:RevisionSlider

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

This is the feedback page for the RevisionSlider extension. Read about what we've learned about creating a RTL-accessible extension. Please report all RTL-related issues on this talk page!

Revision slider affects Sidebar

Summary by Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE)
Alzi24 (talkcontribs)

Hello there. In our wiki, the sidebar contains collapsible items. When using the Revision slider, all items in the sidebar are suddenly shown expanded and the small triangle to collapse the subitems are gone. As soon as I change to any other article, the sidebar is shown correctly.

This happens under Mediawiki 1.27 as well as 1.31. I use the vector skin, and I have also installed the "CollapsibleVector" extension.

Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Uh. Are you able to tell us what exactly "our wiki" is? PS: I found the issue. Unfortunately it seems there is no easy, quick fix. I created phab:T211557 to help us keep track of it. Additional input and ideas are welcome.

Alzi24 (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Revision slider affects Sidebar"

The revision slider failed to load.

Summary by 星耀晨曦

My problem has been solved :)

星耀晨曦 (talkcontribs)

Hi, recently I found out that my personal wiki revision slider could not work, display The revision slider failed to load.. I using developer tools (F12) to check, and I got

load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=ext.RevisionSlider.Api%2CDiffPage%2CHelpDialog%2CPointer%2CPointerLine%2CPointerView%2CRevision%2CRevisionList%2CRevisionListView%2CSlider%2CSliderView%2CdialogImages%2Cicons%2Cinit%2Cutil|moment%2Coojs-ui%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-toolbars%2Coojs-ui-widgets%2Coojs-ui-windows|oojs-ui.styles.icons-editing-advanced%2Cicons-moderation&skin=vector&version=0w0sw2o:62 Error: RS-revs-not-specified
    at SliderView.initializePointers (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=ext.RevisionSlider.Api%2CDiffPage%2CHelpDialog%2CPointer%2CPointerLine%2CPointerView%2CRevision%2CRevisionList%2CRevisionListView%2CSlider%2CSliderView%2CdialogImages%2Cicons%2Cinit%2Cutil|moment%2Coojs-ui%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-toolbars%2Coojs-ui-widgets%2Coojs-ui-windows|oojs-ui.styles.icons-editing-advanced%2Cicons-moderation&skin=vector&version=0w0sw2o:43)
    at SliderView.render (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=ext.RevisionSlider.Api%2CDiffPage%2CHelpDialog%2CPointer%2CPointerLine%2CPointerView%2CRevision%2CRevisionList%2CRevisionListView%2CSlider%2CSliderView%2CdialogImages%2Cicons%2Cinit%2Cutil|moment%2Coojs-ui%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-toolbars%2Coojs-ui-widgets%2Coojs-ui-windows|oojs-ui.styles.icons-editing-advanced%2Cicons-moderation&skin=vector&version=0w0sw2o:32)
    at load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=ext.RevisionSlider.Api%2CDiffPage%2CHelpDialog%2CPointer%2CPointerLine%2CPointerView%2CRevision%2CRevisionList%2CRevisionListView%2CSlider%2CSliderView%2CdialogImages%2Cicons%2Cinit%2Cutil|moment%2Coojs-ui%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-toolbars%2Coojs-ui-widgets%2Coojs-ui-windows|oojs-ui.styles.icons-editing-advanced%2Cicons-moderation&skin=vector&version=0w0sw2o:62
    at mightThrow (/w/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1v29rkf:49)
    at process (/w/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1v29rkf:50)
(anonymous) @ load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=ext.RevisionSlider.Api%2CDiffPage%2CHelpDialog%2CPointer%2CPointerLine%2CPointerView%2CRevision%2CRevisionList%2CRevisionListView%2CSlider%2CSliderView%2CdialogImages%2Cicons%2Cinit%2Cutil|moment%2Coojs-ui%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-toolbars%2Coojs-ui-widgets%2Coojs-ui-windows|oojs-ui.styles.icons-editing-advanced%2Cicons-moderation&skin=vector&version=0w0sw2o:62

Does anyone have any idea about this?

Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hey @星耀晨曦,

I have a few questions before I can help you. What do you mean by "personal wiki" do you maintain your own Mediawiki installation? And if so, what version of Mediawiki and what version of the RevisonSlider do you use? ( if you're not sure you can find that info on the Special:Version page of your wiki ).



星耀晨曦 (talkcontribs)

Yes, it is my wiki that I maintain. My wiki info:

MediaWiki 1.30.0
PHP 7.2.2 (cgi-fcgi)
MariaDB 10.2.13-MariaDB-log
ICU 52.1
Lua 5.1.5

I use 1.0.0 (ce8f25a) version RevisonSlider. My wiki also is public, this is one of the damaged page.

Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talkcontribs)


thanks for the data. I had a really quick look but did not find an easy solution. Now I created a ticket on Phabricator so we can work on it. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T189096

We will keep you updated!

Suggestion: Include tags in revision metadata popup

4 (talkcontribs)


It is not possible to see which tags apply to a revision.

Proposed solution

Include tags in popup when user hovers over a revision bar.

Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talkcontribs)
This post was hidden by Lea Voget (WMDE) (history)
This post was hidden by Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (history)
Reply to "Suggestion: Include tags in revision metadata popup" (talkcontribs)

What is it used for? What does it do? It’s so confusing, should be more intuitive otherwise seems useless to me.

Reply to "Confusing"
Semon (talkcontribs)

The RevisionSlider would be much more useful if you could filter, which changes are displayed: I am missing a filter by author: If you see some changes on a page which are not neutral for example. Then it would be useful to check which other changes were done by this author (and no: the history of the edits of this author helps only if the edits were not done over a long time frame).

Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

I'm afraid this request is a bit out of the scope of this project. RevisionSlider currently does not provide any filter. Instead, we are currently investigating possibilities to highlight edits, e.g. edits by a specific user. At the same time other teams are working on RecentChanges and Watchlist filters. Please check this out: Edit Review Improvements/New filters for edit review.

Reply to "Filter by Author missing"

Suggestion: Introduce milestones (or markers) to mark important events in article history

2 (talkcontribs)


As a user, I am unable to easily see significant disruptive or constructive changes have been made to an article.

As a reader, I unable to easily evaluate the history of a page to evaluate its potential bias.


One of the main problems with the regular history is that everything is jumbled up. The history page simply lays out information without highlighting anything, and revision slider makes things somewhat worse because one can only see the summary after hovering. This means that it is hard to note if the article content was completely modified after years of existence, if it was suddenly blanked, or if it had considerable reverts.

Proposed solutions

Add some markers to denote some of these changes. Some of these can be detected using the automatic edit summary (Help:Automatic_edit_summaries), e.g.:

  • Red bar - whenever a newer revision is completely blank
  • Red bar - whenever a revision shows more than 70% of the content being removed
  • Orange bar - indicating a revert, if two adjacent revisions have the exact same sha1 hash

Other ideas include:

  • Highlight the most repeated revisions - by verifying a group of revisions that has the same content or sha1. This would be a possible indicator of revert or edit disagreements without even looking at all of them individually.
  • Highlight main contributor -show clusters of revisions done by major user. No matter what, a page created by a single user will always contain their biases, and is less likely to be reliable.
Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hey and thanks for the suggestion!

I created a Phabricator ticket with your Ideas so we can keep track of it and might consider it for future versions of the RevisonSlider. You can find the ticket here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T163366



Reply to "Suggestion: Introduce milestones (or markers) to mark important events in article history"

Suggestion: support sense of absolute time

BlaueBlüte (talkcontribs)
related: Suggestion: Introduce milestones (or markers) to mark important event in article history

Some first-glance orientation on the time axis with regard to absolute time would be helpful. This could be provided in the form of, for example,

  • labeling the visible range with start and end date
  • time intervals shaded differently and and labeled in some unobtrusive form (since edit frequencies vary across pages, the intervals used would probably have to adapt somehow, e.g., weeks, months, or years):
IKhitron (talkcontribs)

+10 for the last point.

Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hey @BlaueBlüte,

thanks for the feedback and suggestion. On Phabricator we've already got a ticket that deals with time related scales in the RevisionSlider. I left a comment there, so that we consider your feedback when looking into the issue.



Reply to "Suggestion: support sense of absolute time"
Summary last edited by Clump 00:56, 19 September 2018 2 months ago

I didn't say how good is it. I said WHAT good is it. What is it used for? What does it DO?

Ce sert de quoi, ce truc?

BeenAroundAWhile (talkcontribs)

What good is it?

Kghbln (talkcontribs)

Very good.

Kghbln (talkcontribs)

What? It's very good.

Jazzy Prinker (talkcontribs)

Well, this is great. Just one thing: how to move the yellow and blue knobs is not clearly elucidated in the "usage" section and the tutorial message that appears along the Slider. It took me a while to decipher that. So please can you write it in a better way? Thanks ~~~~

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Thanks for your feedback, @Jazzy Prinker! We'll look into that. It would be great if you could add what kind of information is lacking or which expressions make the text hard to understand. Thanks! -- ~~~~

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talkcontribs) (talkcontribs)

@Johanna Strodt (WMDE) Not him, but I can chime in here. I am commenting as more of a user than a commenter and editor, so apologies if I am missing something RE wikipedia feedback customs. First, I want to just say that wow, this feature is totally amazing and extremely helpful. Thank you so much to you and your team for making it, and to the german wikipedia-ers for requesting it. I do agree with @Jazzy Prinker though. In fact, I only realized the yellow and blue sliders did anything at all until I came here and saw that post. After seeing this post, I went back and found the tutorial, and saw that there was some info listed about it that I had skipped over. It seems like that one is on me, I should have just read the instructions more carefully, since that feature was in fact clearly explained. But, since both he and I ran into that issue, maybe something about the wording or the explanation could be changed to make it a bit more apparent how it all works. For example, instead of a small call-out box explaining how the revision history button works, you might instead point to the actual sliders on the page that the user is on, and point them to the actual ones that exist--something like: these sliders here, see these? they let you do such and such.

Additionally, regarding the tutorial: I wish there were more info about this thing on the tutorial itself. Even if that's just a link. Something like: To learn more about the revision slider, and how to use it, click here (then a link to some more in depth tutorial). I am glad I came to the feedback page. I learned much more about everything here. And, I did ultimately find all the info I needed, but only after arriving here. I imagine most users won't go through the hassle of all that and might just get lost or confused and give up.

Then, one final comment as long as I am posting this. This comment is in fact the reason why I came to the feedback page in the first place. It might not belong here in this section, feel free to move this around or edit it or whatever if it's better in a different or separate spot. The biggest issue to me is how to access the revision slider! It's kind of buried. This is the way I accessed it as a wikipedia user: I went to a wikipedia page on a political issue and that I expected would get edits all the time for political reasons in addition to the usual reasons. I read the main page, then wanted to check some of the revisions that got made earlier in time. I clicked on one of the older revisions sort of at random to see how things looked at some different time. Then, AFTER clicking that, that's when the "view revisions interactively" box and button showed up on the screen for the first time. So getting to it required me to click three separate times and the third click I very rarely do (i.e., the one where I actually click to see one of the earlier revisions). I think that is probably a pretty common way to use wikipedia, and I image there are many other users in the same boat.

From my own perspective, I would have loved using that slider from the very beginning--why bother jumping through all the hassle of looking at the contribution page (which is just a jumble and not easy to understand at all) when I can instead jump directly to the interactive revision page. Just for the purposes of providing a specific recommendation instead of just criticism, I think something that might be helpful to address this issue would be to include a link or to more clearly provide information about the interactive revision page on the wikipedia page I'm on, and how to access it.

Thanks again! This is one of the best additions to wikipedia in a very long time! I love it!

Reply to "Usage tutorial"
SMOMMSS (talkcontribs)

Great request! Great response! (This last includes great execution!) Suggest: Search and Find to locate specific revision to address. Some of the stuff that comes up on Wikipedia has to much of a proprietary interest from their creators: emotion being the wild-and-crazy card that over-rules over all; but this time you guys done[sic] it up right! Had I a thumb to spare, I should award ye three (3) thumbs up.

This post was hidden by Clump (history)
Birgit Müller (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

@SMOMMSS, I remember how happy we were when we received your feedback, but then we actually didn't let you know! So sorry for this late response: Thank you very much for your nice comment :-) About your suggestion: What exactly would you want to look for, name of author, date ...? A general "search" functionality is not planned, but we might look into making it easier to find other versions of an editor, and improve the orientation on the timeline later this year. I can let you know when this becomes more concrete! Best, Birgit

Reply to "Requested FeedBack"