Open main menu

Extension talk:RevisionSlider

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!

Wuerzele (talkcontribs)

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..

Reply to "cant see usefulness"
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.

N2e (talkcontribs)

+1 on the idea of a future useful feature. Call it a "raw requirement" based on user input; and file it away with whatever project might benefit from this user input. Cheers.

Reply to "Filter by Author missing"
Foiled circuitous wanderer (talkcontribs)

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

Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

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 :-),



Reply to "what's the vertical scale?" (talkcontribs)

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!  :-) (talkcontribs)

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.

N2e (talkcontribs)

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). ~~~~

Reply to "Make it run vertical"

RevisionSlider is a helpful tool

Summary by Christoph Jauera (WMDE)
N2e (talkcontribs)

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.

Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talkcontribs)
Reply to "RevisionSlider is a helpful tool"

identification par couleur des contributeurs

Summary by Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE)
Jpve (talkcontribs)

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 à 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


Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

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.

Jpve (talkcontribs)

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

Entschuldigung und vielen Danke .

Jpve (talkcontribs)

I lost this extension! Where is he?

Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

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.

Jpve (talkcontribs)

Schade. Vielen Dank.

Reply to "identification par couleur des contributeurs"

Suggestion : mark talkpage parallel edits

Danny lost (talkcontribs)

Very good addition, thanks.

Suggestion: add an icon above a bar, if there are edits on the Talk page from the same day. Or maybe, to refine better, edits from the same day by the same user. Or a counter of the number of Talk edits.

Issue: I do feel that the diff page respondes more than a little slowly, at least after loading several diffs in a row. But that's Firefox for you (v56, win10).

Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hey @Danny lost,

thanks for the feedback and the suggestion.

To get a better understanding on what you mean: So the idea would be, to show these icons/tags/numbers that relate to the talk page of an article on the RevisionSlider view of the actual article page right? Can you give an example on how this would help you in your work? :-) - That would be really great.

Thanks again,


Danny lost (talkcontribs)

Yes, clues about the talk-page, in the article-RevisionSlider. On the one hand, most article changes are not accompanied by talk-page discussion. On the other hand, some cases of dense activity are the result of counterpart activity on the talk-page. The edit summary is not a reliable clue for whether there was a discussion, let alone what was said there. On active articles, going through the talk-page is a time consuming effort.

Let's say I visited an article in the past, and now on a second visit I see a lot has changed, some of it not for the better. I want to see what led to this and open the Slider. I can see when some sentence was removed, but not if someone gave a good reason for this. If there was a talk-page indication, I can jump to that discussion and see if this was the result of an edit war, a compromise, or maybe an undiscussed change. Maybe I'll learn that this is a repeating issue, that there are previous Admin decisions, and so on.

Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Cool, thanks for that detailed explanation. I created a Phabricator ticket so we have the feature request on our monitors and it could be considered in the future.

Reply to "Suggestion : mark talkpage parallel edits"

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:



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

It is now on English Wikipedia and it is great!

FeralOink (talkcontribs)

Today is the first time that the Revision Slider showed up when I was looking at a revision history on my home Wikipedia, en. It is great! It works perfectly. The instructions overlay was helpful although the tool is so well-designed that it is almost self-explanatory. The RevisionSlider is delightfully precise because of those nice end points in yellow and blue. The slider moves smoothly, and supports some of the accessibility features that I have enabled in my browser due to my minor vision issues.

This tool is actually better than those that I have seen for similar purposes offered on for-profit websites. The German Wikipedia developers and UI designers who created this tool did an EXCELLENT job! Thank you for taking care of us so well. I just noticed that you are taking care of ALL of, as this is a RTL accessible extension!

Birgit Müller (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @FeralOink, thank you so much for your great and detailed comment! This is really encouraging feedback :-)

Have a nice day! Birgit

GeoffCapp (talkcontribs)

Today was the first time I noticed it. Usually new features just get in the way, or make me want to turn them off, but this is the best addition I've seen to any website in a very long time! Gets out of the way when I want it to, and very easy to use when it's open. my thanks to all involved for their hard work.

Birgit Müller (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @GeoffCapp, many thanks for your amazing feedback! This means a lot to us :-)

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"
Return to "RevisionSlider" page.