Extension talk:RevisionSlider/2019
Add topic| This page used the Structured Discussions extension to give structured discussions. It has since been converted to wikitext, so the content and history here are only an approximation of what was actually displayed at the time these comments were made. |
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!
identification par couleur des contributeurs
[edit]| RESOLVED | |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bonjour. Je ne pense pas que cela existe, ni si c'est l'endroit pour en discuter (mes excuses sinon), mais serait il possible d'identifier les contributeurs en affectant une couleur Ă leur contribution un peu comme cela se fait avec etherpad. cela permettrait deux choses :
voir rapidement comment a évolué une de mes contributions pour éventuellement déceler rapidement une précision faite par un autre (bonne ou mauvaise)
pouvoir contacter facilement un contributeur pour discussion avant modification
Merci. Jpve (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- I hope it's ok when I respond in English. A feature like this exists. It does not use colors, but highlights all contributions made by the same user. See phab:T136105. We investigated actual color-coding at one point, but found it is often not helpful, because most edits are made by different users. Most histories would show a beautiful rainbow that does not provide much information. Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) 07:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- my english is just bad. I think you speak about the color of the different contributors on the historic's page?
- ce que je souhaite, c'est quand on a la version actuelle affichée (pas l'historique), pouvoir
- soit mettre en couleur une phrase et afficher le contributeur de chaque couleur
- soit afficher le contributeur quand on clique dessus
- What i wish : on the current Page, each contribution thrue a colour to identify like https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etherpad
- Entschuldigung und vielen Danke . Jpve (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- I lost this extension! Where is he? Jpve (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- I see. Thanks for the clarification! A feature like this is requested for a long time. See phab:T2639. Unfortunately, it's technically very hard to do, if not impossible. There are currently no plans to work on this. Sorry. Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) 11:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Schade. Vielen Dank. Jpve (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Make it run vertically
[edit]Running horizontal at the top of the page just takes up more of the already limited vertical space. Also, we're used to time "running vertically" from the history listing, so a tool with time running vertically fits in better with how our brains work! :-) 73.253.126.162 (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- Myself, I do not see this as an issue. Horizontal line is clear and interaction with it (seems to me) simpler than it would be with a vertical line.
- The functionality is superb, congrats Wikipedia team. 81.19.3.130 (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- I, too, would much prefer a vertical presentation of the graphical data. (or, an option to select one or the other as user-selected default). ~ N2e (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
RevisionSlider is a helpful tool
[edit]| RESOLVED | |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I found the graphical representation of the revision history, with colors for net-add edits and a diff color for net-substract edits helpful.
I think it would be very useful to have a scale shown on the w:ordinate axis (Cartesian ordinate), in order to have rough order of magnitude of the ''size'' of the edit being reflected in the bar graph. Was it 10 chars? 100? 1000? 5000+? etc. N2e (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hey @N2e,
- thanks for your feedback and your request. I added a ticket on Phabricator so it can be tracked and considered for future change https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T230469 Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
what's the vertical scale?
[edit]| RESOLVED | |
| The bars are scaled according to the number of characters an edit added or removed. | |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I find the vertical scale unintelligible. Why do selected revisions have bars going up, and some have bars going down? And why are the bars different lengths
Singed off Foiled circuitous wanderer Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi @Foiled circuitous wanderer,
- the vertical scale of the slider represents the general size of the change done to a revision. The bigger the bar the bigger the change. - If the bar goes up it means that there was more text added to a revision than removed. If the bar goes down it's the other way around.
- I hope that clears things up for you :-),
- best,
- Christoph Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I feel like this is quite intuitive for programmers used to versioning and diff software, such as Git, SVN, KDiff, WinMerge etc. but to everyone else it's probably unclear.
- I am a programmer, so I am not sure if I might be underestimating non-programmers in this case.
- Side note: Personally, I love the Revision Slider and I see myself using it a lot! 2001:A61:2B70:CD01:9567:1834:E7:EBFF (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
cant see usefulness
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
sorry, I might be the minority here, but for me this thing doesnt seem worth the time.
the german wikipedia community needs to pay attention to better sourcing ( Einzelnachweise!) or get other bread and butter tools which the English wikipedia has built in, IMO, rather than dwelling on this revision gadget.. Wuerzele (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)