Since this table will go to prod after the data modeling guidelines were established, we should strive to abide by it:
In T358366#9852010, @nshahquinn-wmf wrote:I will share some thoughts on naming, for whatever they're worth. I recognize most of these names were used for historical continuity but since table migrations are so rare, I think it's worth taking the opportunity to clarify and standardize things for the next decade of users.
- wmf_dumps isn't the most useful name, since lots of different datasets get dumped and most of them will be in other databases. What about wmf_content?
- revision_timestamp, error_timestamp: according to the data modeling guidelines, we should use revision_dt and error_dt instead.
- wiki_db: according to the data modeling guidelines, we should use wiki_id instead.
- revision_is_minor_edit: it would be less redundant to use revision_is_minor
- user_is_visible, revision_comment_is_visible, revision_content_is_visible: "visible" is actually quite a good term for this, so I personally I kind of want to keep it, but it's not used elsewhere. The official name for the functionality is revision deletion, although some parts of the interface do use "visible". mediawiki_history provides this as an array named revision_deleted_parts. Maybe it's worth emulating that? 🤷🏽♂️
- page_redirect_title: I think this is a tiny bit confusing (what the title of a redirect?). Maybe page_redirect_target instead, as "target" seems to be the common term (e.g. on en:w:Wikipedia:Redirect and mw:Help:Redirects).
- revision_size and content_size: according to the data modeling guidelines, these should be suffixed by the unit (revision_size_bytes and content_size_bytes).
- row_last_update, row_visibility_last_update: according to the data modeling guidelines, these should be suffixed by _dt (although personally I find that a bit redundant)
- content_body: the two words seem redundant to me. What about just content?