UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 21

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Community Portal discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Policy Question

I just reverted this edit on the grounds that we have no way of confirming that the e-mail address actually belongs to the poster. To me, that seems like a sensible thing to do, but I can also see how it could be taken as an assumption of bad faith. It's kind of a tricky issue, so I'm posting here in case anybody else has opinions about it. If so, let's hash it out and come up with a policy on what to do in those cases (unless we already have one that I've just never come across). – Robin Hood↝talk 08:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

While it has been considered incredibly bad netiquette since Usenet was first created to ask for replies to be posted to an email address rather than the location where the question was asked, we have many, many examples on UESP where people have done so and their email address has not been deleted. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like a huge leap of bad faith to remove it on the grounds that it might not be the poster's email address. Along that line of reasoning, we'd also have to delete any user self-images, too. Posting email addresses doesn't violate any policies, nor should it, so I think the addresses are fine left on the pages. --GK^talk2me 12:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with rpeh that leaving an e-mail address for people to reply to is bad netiquette, but we haven't removed addresses before. I don't think RH's revert can be considered to be bad faith, as his main intent was to protect the (possible) owner of the e-mail address, i.e. the revert was out of caution rather than attempting to accuse the editor of anything. --Timenn-<talk> 12:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think the trend here is clear. I was iffy on the removal, and everyone else agrees it's best to leave it, so I've restored the edit. Do we want to add this to our policies somewhere (where?) just as basically a summary that it's considered acceptable? Or just let it pass, since we've now all read the discussion anyway, and trust that we'll all know what to do? – Robin Hood↝talk 18:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Signature Policy?

Where exactly is this located? Also why is it policy that a signature be related to the username? I was using Ghurhak gro-Demril^{You would talk?} which includes a link to my userpage and my talk page. By the way Ghurhak gro-Demril is related to my username, albeit in a somewhat odd way: He's one of my Oblivion characters and... an Albino Orc! Since I created my account before realizing that it could be named after an Orc (not to imply that UESP has a prejudice against Orcs just that they have long names) I named it TheAlbinoOrc rather than Ghurhak gro-Demril. While I have no desire to rename my account I don't see a reason why I can't use Ghurhak gro-Demril for my signature. Anyone have thoughts on what our policy should be on this?--TAO^Huh? 03:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

So far as I know, we're falling back to Wikipedia's signature policy, rather than duplicating their efforts with our own. Assuming I'm correct in that, while it's strongly encouraged that you use a name that closely resembles your username, it's not absolute. Provided there are no other users on the site with the name Ghurhak gro-Demril, or anything close enough that it would be easily mistaken, I think you're okay to change your signature. If you're consistent about it and don't change it to one of your other characters, we'll all get used to it eventually anyway...and still refer to you as TAO. :Þ – Robin Hood↝talk 04:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, I think it's unnecessarily confusing. I'd never make a big fuss over it but if we're taking "votes", I say the signature should at least resemble the username. --GK^talk2me 12:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Is Wolok gro-Barok close enough to be confusing? I know he exists already. Also what would happen if a someone created an account with (for example) Garhuk gro-Demrul? Would I have to change back?--TAO^Huh? 22:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be quite a problem...I think we would have to change ALL of your signatures to your username...you can see where that would be a problem.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 22:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really. We could just have a bot search for all instances of [[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''Ghurhak gro-Demril''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|You would talk?]] and change them to [[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TAO''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Huh?]].--TAO^Huh? 22:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That also brings up why I registered the account GK. Not only is that the initials of my username, but many started using it to refer to me before I registered it, so it made sense to get it "off the market", so to speak. So, when it at least resembles the original username it makes sense, but other random names are just confusing, without a good reason for it. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, if we decide to allow unrelated signatures, there should be some sort of policy that says that the user has to register the alternate and redirect/make note, simply to avoid further unnecessary confusion. --GK^talk2me 22:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)--GK^talk2me 22:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In conjunction with GK's suggestion, I've now imported the Doppelganger template from Wikipedia and modified it for our use. Just add {{Doppelganger|your username}} to the new User page and/or Talk page. Alternately, you can ignore the template and just redirect them to the appropriate pages. – Robin Hood↝talk 23:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(←) (edit conflict) While it's true, we could do that, that's probably not a good trend to start. Changing every talk page you ever signed with a given signature could be a lengthy operation. I think the gist of the discussion is that while you're technically allowed to do it, it's probably better if you don't. :) – Robin Hood↝talk 22:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What about this:Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes?? Since it includes my name it should be less confusing even if someone does create an account with a similar username right?--TAO^Huh? 23:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a great deal better, but I'd still suggest you register that name as an account... RH is working on a template for that purpose. Your new sig and the registered account with redirect/template would address the concerns I had. --GK^talk2me 23:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I wish I'd read this before creating User:TAO. I would have waited for the template to be created. I'll hold off on making Ghurhak gro-Demril until it's finished.--TAO^Huh? 23:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The template is now done (added above, just under GK's post about the concept). You can either add the template to the top of the page (as I've done at RobinHood) to display the message, or add it below a #REDIRECT command (as GK's done) to just have the page added to the category. – Robin Hood↝talk 00:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I feel this entire signature business is getting a little out of hand. They are only meant to identify the poster of a comment. Some formatting can usually help make the signature more recognizable (the visual cue), it makes it easier scanning an entire discussion for participants. But remember this is not a social platform! We are not a forum where you can customize your avatar.

If you are unhappy about your username you can make an Rename User request, in which case your username itself will be changed. Signing your posts with anything other than a name that clearly identifies you just causes more trouble for other editors. I don't want to hover over links all the time to identify people who suddenly change signatures.

That being said, I would like even less to see an entire enumerated list with limitations on signatures. That will only cause endless talk page notifications about signatures to people who are not fully aware of the entire list. People should evaluate their own signature and keep in mind what other editors would like to see. --Timenn-<talk> 09:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Real Names

While doing some research for HotnBOThered recently, I discovered that a method exists for anybody, even anonymous users, to access the "Real Name" you enter into your preferences. I won't detail the method (except to Daveh and Nephele if they wish, since they might be able to disable the method), but I thought I would let everybody know that it's possible, in case they wish to change or remove that entry in their preferences. – Robin Hood↝talk 22:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, whatever the cause, this CERTAINLY should be reported to a MediaWiki staff member.

If the cause is exclusive to this wiki, then it will be patched and the MediaWiki staff will presumably take measures to prevent it from ever occurring.

If it isn't, then we likely have an urgent problem that will likely require an immediate patch.

The best outcome is that it isn't possible, in which case it'll just be a relief.

BTW though, what DOES happen with the real name for attribution?

I doubt it is meant to be accessible, but what purpose does it serve?

Proudly Ashborn- ^[verify]

It's not that big a deal. The method isn't too obvious (assuming it's the one that I knew about) and there's a simple rule anyway: If you don't want your details around on the internet, don't put them there. I believe the name is there so that if somebody did UESP: the book (say), the real names of contributors could be used to fulfill the license conditions... but I could be wrong. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe rpeh's right in thinking that it's intended to attribute your work if desired. Heck, it even says so right under the Real Name box in your preferences. It's clearly a feature that they intend to develop (or perhaps intended and then abandoned)—it's not some oversight or hack or anything like that. My guess is that they've abandoned it, but that's based solely on the fact that it's in the code of at least a couple of versions that I'm aware of, yet it remains relatively undocumented anywhere that I've found. – Robin Hood↝talk 21:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dawnstar to Sidebar?

Since Krusty seems to have finished work on Dawnstar for now, I'd like to propose that we either add it to the side bar directly or put an ES Travels (that is the name of the group that Dawnstar is in right?) link there. What does everyone else think?--TheAlbinoOrc^{any_questions?} 21:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Daveh has said that mobile games are not important enough for the sidebar. (Wiki, yes, but not the sidebar) --Arch-Mage Matt ^{Did I Do That?} 21:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall that being a decision made by Daveh. I'd support having an "ES Travels" or "Mobile Games" link in the sidebar. --GK^talk2me 22:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)It wasn't Daveh.

A couple of years ago (and I have no idea where the discussion was), some people (I recall it being Nephele and Ratwar, but I might be wrong) wanted Redguard and Battlespire taken off the sidebar. I managed to stop that happening, but it was clear that Shadowkey wasn't going to make it on. I imagine Dawnstar will face more opposition.

Personally, I think all the games (for which we have content) should be on the sidebar by default. If that doesn't happen, a Mobile Games section might work. Of course, anyone can override their own sidebar by using a custom javascript file such as this one. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

My response didn't have much background knowledge - I think I read that somewhere on the AN. --Arch-Mage Matt ^{Did I Do That?} 22:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Just as a side note the discussion here has a little more information about this.--TheAlbinoOrc^{any_questions?} 22:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, I think the mobile games deserve a spot on the sidebar as well. It does not have to be individual titles - they could just be added to the bottom of the list as "Mobile Games" or "ES Travels". I really think it is ridiculous that we have a completed Shadowkey namespace with lots of pictures and a wealth of info - and then it is hidden away like a dirty secret. As for Dawnstar, I would like it to land on the sidebar as well - but only after I have added at least another wave of info to the pages. It still seems a bit "empty". --Krusty 22:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The mobile games deserve as much attention as the others, especially if they have complete namespaces already. Arthmoor 00:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

At the least, I'd agree that we should add an "ES Travels" or "Mobile Games" link, as several people have suggested now. I wouldn't complain at having the individual games listed, though we'll need to keep an eye on just how long our sidebar is getting. – Robin Hood↝talk 00:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think adding them is going to make it over-long, as IIRC there are only four mobile games in total. Although of course, presumably ES:V will need adding within the year as well. Jadrax 00:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And we only have content for two of the games at the moment. TESV would go above Oblivion at the top of the list, so it would stand out anyway. An admin just needs to edit MediaWiki:Sidebar. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, I think. I've rejigged a few categories, too, for consistency. Let me know if there's any issues. --GK^talk2me 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I have created logos for all 4 Mobile games and they could probably fit in on the new TES page somewhere, just to make it a bit more attractive. The logos can be found here: Dawnstar, Stormhold, Shadowkey and Oblivion Mobile. Feel free to get creative! :) --Krusty 22:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks great. It needs move- and semi-protection to fit with the standard for the other sidebar pages, but otherwise it's perfect. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it as well and it was about time the Mobile Games found their way into the sidebar. TES Travels semi-protected and pad-locked. --Krusty 08:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Userspace Content Editing

Well with the consensus being to userfy the Roleplaying page we now have a problem. Specifically it's against current policy to edit another users page. But now that we keep actual content there (or will in the near future anyway) we may need to edit spelling, grammar or first-person-ness because that content affects our "image". So do we want to change that policy (in a very, very restricted way, that only applies to actual site content of course) or rely on the goodwill of adopters?--TheAlbinoOrc^{any_questions?} 20:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please can we keep this on the one page? The discussion is still ongoing at UESPWiki:Community Portal/Subjective Content‎ - it's still a Community Portal discussion, just one that has been subpaged because of its length. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Userspace Patrollers

I'd like to start a proper discussion/proposal about creating Userspace Patrollers (UPs) -- at long last ;). For those who haven't seen the various rumors about the idea (and perhaps even for those who have), the basic idea is to create a new group of users called Userspace Patrollers who only have the ability to patrol edits made in the User and User talk namespaces (collectively, userspace) -- unlike standard Patrollers who can patrol edits anywhere on the site. The technical stuff to make this happen is already in place, so it's really just a matter of the community deciding what we want.

The central motivation is that the criteria that need to be checked before determining whether userspace edits can be patrolled are relatively straightforward -- i.e., make sure the edit isn't vandalism, and make sure that user pages aren't modified by people who aren't supposed to modify them. Spelling, grammar, accuracy, wiki formatting, etc. aren't things that need to be checked. Therefore, nearly every active editor on the site is essentially qualified to check userspace edits, and giving more editors the ability to do so will reduce the workload on regular patrollers.

I'm also hoping that this change will ultimately make editing in the userspace easier for everyone. Users should feel free to experiment on their user pages (or have discussions on each other's user talk pages) without fear of antagonizing the site's patrollers. It also ties into moving subjective content into the userspace. If the site's regular patrollers are no longer responsible for patrolling roleplaying ideas and similar content, then hosting that content on the site becomes less of burden for the general community. Ideally, people who contribute to the roleplaying content could then become responsible for all of the maintenance associated with the content.

For any of this to work, creation of Userspace Patrollers needs to be significantly easier than regular Patrollers. I'd like to propose modelling the process on the Mentor program. In other words:

We establish some basic, objective requirements that editors must meet -- number of edits, length of time on the site, no warnings/blocks, etc.
Anyone who is interested in becoming a Userspace Patroller adds their name to the list on the page.
As soon as an admin notices the request, the admin confirms that the requirements have been been met and gives the user Userspace Patroller permissions. (We could even make it so that regular patrollers have the authority to grant/remove userspace patroller permissions).

In other words, no need for a formal nomination, discussion, week-long review, etc. We don't ask editors to first prove themselves, but instead give anyone the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong.

Based upon the Mentorship program, I think it might also make sense to automatically remove Userspace Patrollership if a user has been inactive too long -- if it only takes a few hours to get the rights restored, removing rights doesn't really introduce any problems or obstacles. Beyond that, I also think that any admin should have the authority to remove patrollership privileges immediately in the case of any type of questionable actions made a Userspace Patroller; a full discussion could then be initiated if requested by the demoted editor. I think it has to be both "easy come" and "easy go" -- otherwise, I think there'll be more of an inclination to hesitate before giving rights to a relatively unknown editor. I also don't think there should automatically be any stigma attached with losing UP rights -- just as I don't think there should really be any endorsement attached with being given the rights in the first place.

If that outline is generally acceptable, then we mainly need to reach agreement on the details:

What should the requirements be? As a starting point:
- Active on the wiki for at least two weeks.
- At least 100 edits (which I think should be edits anywhere on the site -- 100 edits on user pages or talk pages alone should be acceptable)
- No recent warnings or recent blocks.
Should userspace patrollers also be given the ability to patrol talk page edits anywhere on the site? The criteria for patrolling talk page edits are comparable to userspace edits, and expanding the capabilities would make it even easier for full patrollers to focus on content edits. Although at that point, should a name other than "Userspace Patrollers" be used?
Should userspace patrollers be given skipcatcha privileges? This is how the privileges are currently configured, but I thought I'd explicitly mention it in case it needs to be discussed
Should regular patrollers be able to grant and/or revoke userspace patroller privileges?

So, do people agree with the general concept? And if so, is there feedback on the details? --Nephele^Talk 18:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That all looks like an excellent set of ideas to me. The requirements are fine, and I think giving UPs SkipCaptcha is a good idea too. I'd prefer to keep the ability to assign the role to admins, and I don't think UPs should be able to patrol outside userspace - there are potentially too many different things that need doing to talk page posts for somebody who's only been on the site two weeks to deal with them: removal of talk page posts, use of Good Question tags, referrals to other pages, answering of questions and so on. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarification, can someone highlight when Captcha is used? I went looking and couldn't find a clear-cut listing. Apart from that possible consideration, I agree with all of rpeh's points. I could conceive of Talkpage Patrollers being added as a step between Userspace Patrollers and regular Patrollers, but that's probably over-complicating things. – Robin Hood↝talk 20:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's just account creation and external links. I can imagine the external links thing being a pain if you're trying to link to mods that would improve a roleplay (for instance). rpeh •T•C•E• 20:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, excellent work Nephele. For the requirements, I'm more or less ok with those proposed, although I agree with rpeh: patrolling talk pages is a bit different. A UP might patrol it because it's formatted/signed/etc but then again, as a patroller, I notice questions asked on pages when they are marked as unpatrolled. --SerCenKing ^Talk 07:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a great idea overall. I'd prefer Userspace Patrollers not be able to patrol talk page edits, since by the time we can trust them to adequately do that they're probably ready to be a "for-real" patroller.;) Also, I'd prefer to keep the ability to grant rights restricted to admins; I don't think there's such a shortage of admins that they'd have to wait any unreasonable amount of time to be granted the rights. --GK^talk2me 19:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)--

It may just be me, but 100 edits sounds like too little. Possibly 200, or 250, which is the minimum in Patrollers, I notice - that seems too small, also. But since it can also include talk pages and so we won't have random users who have been around for a week becoming UP's, 300-400 edits total may be acceptable. --Arch-Mage Matt ^{Did I Do That?} 23:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only people who really aren't "qualified" to be userspace patrollers are vandals -- because vandalism is the main problem that userspace patrollers are checking for. I think 100 edits is more than enough to confirm that an editor is actually trying to help the site. The required edit count is higher for full patrollers, because for full patrollers the community also needs to be able to check the quality of the editor's work (spelling, grammar, fact-checking, etc.) and therefore needs a more examples of the editor's work. I think a random user who has only been around for a week (but has made 100 edits in that time and learned enough about the site to discover that userspace patrollers even exist) should be able to become a userspace patroller -- if the person is legitimately interested in trying to help the site, why stop them?

The same basic logic also applies to having a nomination system. I don't think the community can provide much significant input if the primary qualification is that the person is not a vandal. If a nominee has caused problems, that that nominee's talk page should already contain a warning -- which automatically disqualifies the person from being a userspace patroller. There's no need for community members to provide feedback on subjective criteria (such as whether a person can accurately check facts), so what exactly would community members be expected to say about a nominee?

I think a userspace patroller system will work best if the process is as open and all-inclusive as reasonably possible. A decisive factor for me is that even if occasionally a "bad" editor is mistakenly given userspace patroller privileges, there's really no way for that editor to do any harm to the site. Worst case scenario is that some userpage vandalism gets marked as patrolled. First, only userspace content can possibly be affected, not "real" site content. Second, the logs can be used to provide a list of every single edit that was patrolled by that editor, so it's easy for someone else to go through and double-check/cleanup/undo those edits. A userspace patroller really doesn't have much more ability than a regular wiki editor, so I'd rather follow the basic wiki principle of giving the benefit of doubt to anyone who's interested in helping out. --Nephele^Talk 02:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(←) I agree with Nephele's reasoning. In most cases, people who have bad intentions towards the site won't put in 100 good edits first. I see this more like the Rollbacker rights on WP which, last I checked, were assigned at an Administrator's discretion. Any discussion of full Patrollers' rights should take place on UESPWiki_talk:Patrollers (and has before). – Robin Hood↝talk 02:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"For any of this to work, creation of Userspace Patrollers needs to be significantly easier than regular Patrollers." I agree with Neph on this point. I'd prefer it be an "easy come, easy go" system. After all, they're only patrolling userspace edits, so no real harm can be done. Here I've posted a mock-up of a possible UESPWiki:Userspace Patrollers. Feedback? --GK^talk2me 20:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks good. The only thing that scares me, and I can't think of a reasonable solution - is that in a couple of months there might be dozens of UP's. --Arch-Mage Matt ^{Did I Do That?} 21:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What's so scary about that? As has been said several times, they would only be userspace patrollers. No real harm can be done in the long run. Lots of userspace patrollers will only mean less patrolling userspace for our regular patrollers. --GK^talk2me 21:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess, yeah. This response seems too little . . . but I have nothing else to say. Except, possibly, there is a removal of rights after three months of inactivity, like the Mentors. --Arch-Mage Matt ^{Did I Do That?} 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Break

So... what is the finalization of this? Do we vote if UP's are a 'yay' or 'nay'? Do we start electing them now? Are they even elected? What's those final little rules? Has this been dropped? Have I missed this discussion when it was moved? Can someone ever possibly answer these jumbled questions? --Arch-Mage Matt ^{Did I Do That?} 04:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(←) It's funny you should bring that up, as it was on my list of things to do tonight and I forgot about it until I saw your post.

I've gone ahead and filled out the Userspace Patrollers page based on the Patrollers page, along with creating a comparable template and category. I did use some discretion in changing the Immediate Disqualifications section, though, mostly just reducing the times and edits involved before re-applying after a disqualification. That's entirely open for discussion if anybody disagrees with it — I just wanted to fill in some rough numbers so we can get this process moving and iron out the specifics later.

If I missed anything else, by all means, please add it to the page, and let's let people start applying for the rights.

One thing I didn't add to the page is the title for "inactive" userspace patrollers. I don't know if the intent would be to remove their rights after a certain time (give or take an admin getting around to it), or just allow them to go inactive like admins and patrollers, but either way, it's a moot point at the moment, since I'm sure nobody will be inactive for some time yet. :) Still, I thought I'd put it out there for debate. Personally, I'd be in favour of allowing them to go inactive. If the list gets unreasonably long, there's always {{Hide}}. – Robin Hood↝talk 05:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The page looks like a good start, RH. I'd still prefer a three-month restriction for warnings/blocks, though, since the other restrictions are so lax. The only other thing is that it could possibly be understood as saying that there is nothing else taken into consideration. Perhaps just a small note mentioning that civility/etiquette/other things may be taken into consideration? --GK^talk2me 12:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd been thinking of leaving it at three months as well, initially, but then I second-guessed myself based on the "easy come, easy go" philosophy. I'm fine either way. I agree, there should probably be something about proper conduct and other considerations as well. I'm still having my "morning" coffee, so if you've got something (or anyone else reading this does), go for it; or just nudge me in IRC later and I'll go over it. – Robin Hood↝talk 17:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I added another requirement about courteous interaction with other users. Really not that fond of my wording, but I can't seem to come up with anything better. – Robin Hood↝talk 20:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

@AMM: I'd suggest you go add your name to the List of Applicants. I don't see any reason we can't start collecting applicant names now, and then when an Admin feels the process has been suitably hashed out (if it hasn't been already), they can just start granting the rights. – Robin Hood↝talk 00:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Etiquette Policy Change

I made a small change to the Etiquette Policy to bring it into line with previous policy on voting. I hope it won't be a controversial change, since the consequences of the alternative - allowing every IP address to vote - should be evident. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Permanent 3-hour Blocker Rights to Rpeh

Just to let everybody know; GK and I have decided to give Rpeh permanent three-hour blocking rights. Why? We need another european to watch the Recent Changes and prevent vandalism and the like. Since Rpeh watches the page all the time (and because RobinHood70 needs to sleep every once in a while), it is only natural that Rpeh is able to stop vandals temporarily until an Administrator comes along. --Krusty 22:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to confirm. --GK^talk2me 22:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Just to clarify: I don't actually watch RC all the time... although the sooner the MediaWiki people come up with a cranial implant, the better. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Morrowind Stat Problems

This is just a heads up to notify everybody that many of the magicka values on Morrowind (+TR, BM and TR3) are wrong. I've been looking into getting RoBoT to add the missing values to the non-relevant NPCs and while working on the formulae for health and magicka, decided to do a quick check on Altmer and Bretons to make sure we'd added in the birthsign bonus for magicka. The short answer is "No, we aren't", and the longer answer is "No, but there's another problem too". An NPC's magicka should be twice their intelligence plus any bonus, but it's not quite like that.

The birthsign bonus is easily done, although not quite in the way that would seem logical. The Altmer ability is supposed to fortify their magicka by 150%, i.e. if they had 100 base magicka, they should end up with 250. Bretons get a +50% boost (so 100 -> 150). In-game, however, the effect is halved so the Altmer would get a 75% boost (100->175) and the Breton 25% (100->125). This was tested with the GetMagicka console command, in case you're wondering. However, those of you with experience of the MW CS will know that there's an option you can tick to "Auto Calculate Stats", and this all only applies for certain to NPCs that use this option.

For fixed-stat NPCs, things seem to be much more complex. Aldaril, an Altmer, should have 301 magicka according to this formula, and indeed he does. Arnand Liric, a Breton, should have 41.25 magicka according to this formula... and he has 165. Interestingly, 165 is equal to twice his intelligence +50%, so it seems as if he's getting the correct racial bonus but ignoring the fixed magicka value.

I doubt this is going to affect many people, since it seems unlikely that many users check an NPC's health and magicka before doing battle, but in case anybody is relying on these figures for some reason, treat them with a little caution. I'm going to do some more research but anybody else should feel free to tell me what I'm missing. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Project Review Process?

I was thinking about creating a "Project Review" process so that it's easier to see what the community thinks about a project and also so that creating a project is easier (how would you go about that anyway?). What I'm thinking of is: you make (for example) /ProjectReview/OIRP (Oblivion Item Redesign Project) and put what it would do. Users would then vote (I'm thinking Support and Oppose would work fine but suggestions on the wording are welcome) to either start or not start the project. Then periodically (every three months?) a new section on the Project Review page would be started to see if everyone thought the project was meeting its goals and if not what could be done to fix it, including starting over. Any thoughts?--TAO^Huh? 22:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

While I think the idea is good, I don't see why this would be necessary. Projects here on UESP are very rare, and whenever one pops-up very few people actually stick to it until it has been completed. I think that in the case a new project showed up, it would be simply better to bring it up here on the CP and have the people express their ideas about it, instead of going through such process. --S'drassa ^•T2M 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe deliberately not having an easy process for starting new projects safeguards us from having to deal with editors who start new project without giving much thought about all the work it would require. As can be seen from articles like Oblivion:Glitches/Proposed it is really easy to start a new concept, but actually working out the details is the main task for any project. If someone has a real intent to start a new project he/she should already be able to create a new article for it and describing the project in detail. When the project is interesting enough, editors will jump in automatically.

When I look at the projects that succeeded or are succeeding, I see they are successful because the involved editors kept it alive, not because a standardized format forced it so. --Timenn-<talk> 10:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The OBNPCRP is taking a little break since its editors are busy with other things, but we constantly review and discuss progress on IRC to make sure things stay up to date. The Image Cleanup Project should never have been a project in the first place, since it's all about good editing practice. The OPRP is pretty much dead but there's no easy way to administer a coup de grace short of just removing the templates. The DRP is pretty much all down to PLRDLF.

For new projects, as I said relatively recently, just starting a project isn't enough. You need to have enough people to make it workable - and remember most people who add their names to project pages never do anything on them. If people can't be bothered to expend a decent amount of effort in setting up a project, they probably won't be bothered to expend the effort involved in following it through either. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Having to actually be willing to work at it a bit to create a project makes sense I suppose. The problem is what is the existing method? Start the page and see what happens? Start a discussion here? Start one on the AN? Discuss it on a relevant talk page if one exists or another user's page if it doesn't?

Also I'd like to propose that the Project Review process be implemented in reduced form. It would be used to ensure that projects stay useful. If an editor has concerns about a project, (for example "The OPRP is pretty much dead but there's no easy way to administer a coup de grace short of just removing the templates.") they would start a Project Review page with their reason for believing a review is needed. A project could also choose to have reviews periodically in addition to those started because of concern for the project. All Project Reviews would take place on the same page, which would be archived on an as needed basis.--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 22:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Even with the second proposal I'm not sure what the reasons are for setting up such a procedure? So far you've told us what the procedure should be, but not why it should be implemented. The existing procedure is the lack of a procedure. Projects usually evolve from single discussions growing out of hand. You can't start one from scratch if you still need to be explained how you can contact all your fellow editors and make them enthusiastic.

Project Reviewing sounds unnecessarily bureaucratic to me. Review processes only become interesting when you are working with isolated editors, or when you have a certain deadline or standard to take work to. --Timenn-<talk> 11:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A Little Less Conversation, a Little More Action

Please, people. I know at least one person has the odd idea that they're helping by spending their time on talk pages rather than adding content, but they're wrong. As another editor just pointed out, there are FA votes that need considering (and you can vote on as many as you like - they go in series, not in parallel). For people who want things to do, there are many items on the Task List and more in the Needs Maintenance category.

If you can't find something to do, it's down to a lack of imagination, not a lack of outstanding tasks. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to encourage people to do any more or less than they wish, or contribute in a manner other than what they're good at. Some people help out by answering talk page questions, some people help out by fixing grammar and spelling, some people add or verify content. I don't really see a problem with doing or not doing any of these things. This is a volunteer-run wiki, not a place of employment — we each contribute in whatever ways we feel are most appropriate for our skills and the time we have available. – Robin Hood↝talk 23:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pointing out lists of things that need doing, of which people may not be aware. And this is a wiki, which is a content-delivery system. If you aren't interested in content, you're in the wrong place. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of not finding something to do. For me, it's a matter of where to focus my time, and I prefer to do that modding, not editing wiki pages. Where the two overlap, I'll likely continue to contribute. However most of the stuff on the task lists requires way more time than a lot of folks are going to put in. The FA status of articles isn't something I feel qualified to make a judgment on since honestly it's hard to tell what's "merely good" and what's "great". Arthmoor 07:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I mean. You've focused on the things that particularly concern you - the problems fixed by the UOPS. Nothing wrong with that at all, it's useful new content. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused then. Everyone that I can think of focuses on improving the wiki in whatever ways they're capable of, be it templates, spelling and grammar, adding content, verifying content, or whatever. What exactly is it that you think needs to occur, besides those that have the time, energy, and skill focussing a little more on the Task List? – Robin Hood↝talk 07:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Some people don't add content. I'm sure you know what I mean. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I do know what you mean, no. Are you saying that any and all contributors must add new content or be deemed to be "in the wrong place"? I think you'll find that there are a great many editors, both among the regular contributors and the infrequent ones, who have little or no skill at content-creation. That doesn't mean that they stick to just talk pages, as you stated originally, it means that they find other ways to contribute such as those I've mentioned above and many more. And let's not forget about the Patrollers and Administrators who frequently give significant portions of their time to the various functions that they do. – Robin Hood↝talk 07:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If all people want to do is complicate existing templates, this isn't the wiki for them and to pretend otherwise is another example of behaviour that has nothing to do with improving the site. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured Articles - please vote SUPPORT or OPPOSE and nothing else

Can we please just vote "yay" or "nay" (support or oppose, in case somebody takes this the wrong way) in the voting section for Featured Articles? All the unnecessary words like "Conditional", "Temporary" and what have we, makes it very hard to do the count and decide which article should be next on the main page. Also, voting "Weak" or "Strong" support is not really needed, as everybody have a right to explain their vote. A "Weak Support" is a "Support", no matter how weak it is. So please, people - make up your mind and be clear. --Krusty 19:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

My use of conditional (and rpeh's and SerCenKing's also) is saying A. I don't currently support this but will if X is cleared up (rpeh, and those VN tags do need clearing up) or B. I currently support this and will unless Y is raised (me and SerCenKing and we were saying that we couldn't speak for the accuracy of something since we'd never played it so if someone else raises questions about accuracy we'd change to an oppose).--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 19:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that is all very cool, but instead of all that rambling simply vote "Oppose" and explain why you voted like that - or even better; Improve the article in question so it deserve your vote. As administrators, we really can't use all that weird voting to anything when we do the count. Which reminds me; When we are voting for patrollers, it seems like it is the new black to write "VERY STRONG SUPPORT" and stuff like that. I know it is a statement, but a support vote is a support vote, no matter how strong it is. --Krusty 19:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Two of were simply voting when we'd change and why. I can't improve the TR3 article more than I did already. I wrote an entirely new description section about Kwama since there was nothing. I voted Temporary Oppose rather than just saying Oppose because I wanted to make it clear that as soon as the issue was cleared up it would be a support. Also since all the requirements have been met for MW:Seyda Neen to be an FA can you please add it to the main page?--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 19:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a tendency to overcomplicate things around here. Other opinions before I get all confused and declare Ghosts of Vitharn the winner? :D? --Krusty 20:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

His most exalted highness Amm, The most high Lord-Magister, Arch-Mage of Cyrodiil and other assorted titles has spoken. Seyda Neen is judged worthy rounding it out to five votes even if mine can't be used.--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd give it until tonight or tomorrow to declare featured status, just because of the surge of late voting. But as the white orc above me said it meets the criteria so far. -- Jplatinum16 21:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

\=> I partly agree with your request here, Krusty. The tendency to use the "Strong" adjective always felt to me like someone considered his/her vote more important than that of others. "Conditional" and "Temporary" are indeed vague descriptions. I do think we need to give people the opportunity to express their indecision. If you have something to say about the subject of the vote, use "Comment".

Having said that, I do think that sometimes you might want to differentiate between "I think the idea won't work" and "I don't like the new idea, but that's my personal preference". It should be clear you're (practically) always allowed to change your vote later on, in case you feel that your vote is not having the outcome you'd like to see. --Timenn-<talk> 21:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

TAO, you should not have done that. You know have to refer to me as that for the rest of your life. ;) --Arch-Mage Matt ^{Did I Do That?} 23:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? (scuttles off to his userpage to revise the lore on palefaces).--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 00:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

New Project?

I'm thinking of making something called the Lore Redesign Project or LRP. Its purpose would be to go through the Lore namespace and get rid of as much game specific and unverifiable material as possible, while at the same time adding information to stubs that should stay in Lore. Hopefully there are enough people that would be interested in this so that things like Lore:Khulari don't stay and fester for any longer and well placed stubs like this don't remain stubs for years because no-one is willing to actually go through this namespace. Sorry if I come off as a little "overenthusiastic" but I think it looks bad if things like the first example stay in lore at all and things like the second turn into "perma-stubs". So what are everyone's thoughts on this?--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 20:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I know rpeh has a...very long acronym for a Lore redesign of some sort. I can't find the dang thing right now...I'll keep looking for you though.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 22:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean User:Rpeh/WULPPIOHTAASWDP? The problem with that is it's a private project (see page for details).--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 23:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as I found it I came across that note.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 23:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a good example of why making projects easier to create isn't the best idea. Yes, there's a lot of work that needs to be done on our Lore pages, which is why I created that page, but there are several reasons why I didn't make it into a site project.

If there are editors willing to work on Lore articles, where are they? Take my edits out of the last 500 changes, remove the vandalism and reversions, remove simple spelling fixes and additional links... and you're left with almost nothing. With respect, it's not a great sign when the person proposing a new project has only one Lore edit in the last month, and that's proposing a page for deletion.

Lorespace needs a different style of editing to pretty much every other namespace. Transclusions abound, and unless you're very familiar with them it's easy to make mistakes, such as proposing the whole Lore:Factions K‎ page for deletion.

In a gamespace page, it's quite difficult to create a permastub unless you really try. Every NPC, place and item has a slew of stats that at least provide a starting point. Many pages in Lorespace are stubs because there really isn't anything to say about them! Sometimes it's better to have a redlink, but sometimes a stub makes sense instead. Places like Dune, for instance, are marked on the Map of Tamriel so will probably be searched for. Incidentally, the only reference to Dune I can find is in here, so it's not likely to be a huge article any time in the near future.

Lastly, this is exactly the wrong way to go about it. When Nephele created the Places Project, she had a full list of objectives and methods ready to roll. Yes it might have ended up in the mud, but it still achieved a huge amount - compare any pre-OPRP version of the page to the current one (and remember that the neat maps were part of the project too - they were just CS exports before then). The OBNPCRP was also discussed for a long time before it started, both on IRC and the talk page. By the time RoBoT added the notices to each page, there was a clear idea of what needed to be done, even though it's changed slightly over time. With Lore, there's no easy way for one project to fix everything. Many pages are missing for a start (which is why I've asked AMM to start making a list of everybody that ever gets mentioned in the books - one big task off my list!). Sometimes what we need is a Lore version of a gamespace page (the Ashlander tribe pages, for instance). Sometimes it's a cross-game summary combined with extra Lore (the Guilds). Sometimes it's pure Lore. Sometimes there's out-of-game Lore. Sometimes it's a matter of writing down the facts and sometimes there's a lot of research to do in order to force things to match up (the Lore:Septim Dynasty page springs to mind).

So if you want to create a project, go ahead. But I doubt you'll get many useful helpers until you're much clearer about what exactly it is you're trying to achieve. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Some reasons I only have one Lore edit in the last month: 1. while I have been working on something lore related (Please note in case you see this before I fix the link that I need to check the exact name - I think I must have made a typo when I created the page.) it hasn't been the kind of thing that would take a lot of editing in the namespace. 2. I've been working on some fairly in-depth investigations for the OBNPCRP, which has meant that up until now I haven't had much time to work on Lore and 3. I didn't see anyone else editing it very often and I didn't want to tackle a huge namespace on my own.

Perma-stubs like the Dune page: If there isn't anything more to say about it at this point why is it a stub? I thought that tag only applied to articles that need more information.

Proposing the whole Lore:Factions K page for deletion: Sorry about that. I didn't realize that it was done that way or I would have put <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the prod notice.

Many different kinds of editing to be done: While I'm not so familiar with all of the types of editing you mentioned above I'll learn through trial and error (Using a sandbox for each article of course so that I don't mess up anything in the actual namespace).

"But I doubt you'll get many useful helpers until you're much clearer about what exactly it is you're trying to achieve": More people are likely to be willing to help once they see that they're not the only ones editing Lore. In the meantime there are at least two people other than me that are willing to edit Lore: You and AMM. It'll probably help to actually let people know that the lack of edits to the Lore namespace isn't because it's done, too.

Anyway those are my thoughts. What everyone else thinks remains to be seen.--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 18:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The question is how are we going to go about fixing the lore pages. Rpeh made a whole template that could be updated for the OBNPCRP, with clear instructions on what needed to be done for an NPC's page to be considered complete. The lore pages work so much differently: there aren't many big pages that can be worked on by multiple users, mostly because the available info for each lore page is varied. You would need a clear definition of what completes a lore page. Also, most projects just involve simple editing to a page, but lore requires referencing tags, which could be difficult for some users to use (even I am unexperienced regarding adding in-game and unofficial references). Another point with which I agree with Rpeh is that finding dedicated and continued interest in the project may be difficult. The lore pages for the most part require on site research and investigation, and rarely involves in-game data. I wouldn't mind helping out in a project like this, but there it's more of an idea then a project right now. -- Jplatinum16 19:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

So far, I've been picking the articles where we have very little information and there's more to be said. I've been avoiding the articles related to Oblivion deliberately, because I think that's something to which other people can add from their current knowledge.

The only thing that is absolutely necessary is that all information gets a reference. For those who don't know how to do it, I created this last month as a very brief guide. If you're editing a page and come across a statement that you can't reference, add a {{fact}} tag.

If somebody wants to formalise this, then copy the list from my sandbox, and turn it into something that people can cross off as they check/improve. There's no easy, formulaic way to fix all these articles at once. rpeh •T•C•E• 23:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay since this is going to be pretty much impossible to do all at once... I'm going to suggest that for now we section it off so... I hereby propose the LCRP or Lore Creatures Redesign Project. Its purpose will be to go through the Bestiary pages and create pages for any creatures that have enough that can be said about them to warrant such. Then once that's done we can move on to other sections.--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 02:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Cartographer Needed

Since it's a little out of the way, I just wanted to bring this to the Cartographers' attention. – Robin Hood↝talk 20:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's probably not that big a deal since Graring has a link to his house on his page but I'll message Rpeh. I'm fairly sure he still has cartographer rights.--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 20:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I figured rpeh was the most likely candidate to fix it, but of the active users, Daveh, GK, and Timenn all have Cartographer rights as well, so I figured a general post would get the attention of whomever came by first. And Brf has apparently found a bunch more. – Robin Hood↝talk 20:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ya. Timenn told me to post those there. So they were in one place. --Brf 20:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Update: I've let rpeh know. Just wanted to let you know that I did message him since real life does happen to people occasionally, and they end up not doing stuff (for example this).

(edit conflict) (Response, I.E composed after the (first) edit conflict) You're right that a general post will atract the attention of whoever sees it first, also. I just thought that since rpeh was the most active he should know. He may have some other stuff going on though since he se to have been somewhat distracted recently (see here and the above section).

You know you take too long to type your response when your EC has an EC.--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 20:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

All done. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Colouring the Map

Please can people pop over here and let me know what they think about the proposed map changes. Thanks. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Would Anyone Mind If

I change the rules for patrollers so that if a consensus is reached to allow someone to "try again" in less than three months it doesn't break policy?--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 17:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I would. It's a guideline (not a rule), so if the community decides to act differently in an individual situation, that's perfectly fine. I rather like the three-month restriction, though. In any situation I can think of, any user whose nomination was rejected should definitely wait at least three months before renominating. --GK^talk2me 23:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with GK: it's probably unnecessary, since it's not a hard rule, and most of the time, three months is a good time before renominating. I have visions of "Am I ready this week?" situations arising otherwise. :) – Robin Hood↝talk 02:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I hadn't gotten the guideline bit. I just wanted to see since AMM said he didn't want to have t wait three months in a "wait a month" situation. Since I'm fairly literal most of the time I decided to ask what would happen in a a Consensus: Wait a month situation.--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 04:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

MW vs Morrowind

Just to bring up a couple of recent edits of Brf (which were perfectly fine by the way), where he uses links starting with [[MW:...]], I wanted to ask is there any problem using the abbreviation MW instead of Morrowind? I haven't seen abbreviations used on other pages, even Oblivion ones, but I don't know if there was anything on which one was preferred. -- Jplatinum16 01:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

They've been used once or twice. I prefer the full namespace in links - I thought the abbreviations were designed for edit summaries and other places where space is tight - but it doesn't matter too much either way. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I had noticed a few links made by other users that used the MW namespace, rather than Morrowind. I was using it simply because it is shorter (less chance of typos). I have not gotten into the habit of using those handy edit shortcut links below this box yet. --Brf 11:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I often use these also - I had the understanding that as long as the link worked either one was fine. I'll have to dig up the discussion at some point...--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 12:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

New User Group?

I'm thinking about those like Brf who don't want to have to patrol but whose edits can be trusted. Maybe Patrolled instead of patroller? Thoughts?--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 16:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

To me, that seems just like lazieness, not wanting to patrol someone's edits because they make them in bursts like that. Besides, every editor can make mistakes and automatically marking it as patrolled wouldn't be good. --Arch-Mage Matt ^{Did I Do That?} 20:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Brf doesn't want to be a patroller because he doesn't want to have to patrol. However his edits can be trusted. Why shouldn't they be patrolled?--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 20:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AMM. I do not guarantee all of my edits are correct or proper ;) --Brf 20:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

But it seems unnecesary; an editor could still make a mistake or do something that others don't approve of. And Brf, I'm not talking just about you. I've made hundreds of mistakes on the UESP. :) --Arch-Mage Matt ^{Did I Do That?} 20:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This suggestion has come up before, though it's been quite a while since I last remember seeing it. The gist of the replies was that if we trust someone's edits enough that they're auto-patrolled, then we trust them enough to make them a Patroller, even if they do little or no patrolling. Back when I became a Patroller, I remember warning that I might not be able to patrol much due to the combination of work and my CFS, and was reassured that that was absolutely fine (and look how that turned out! :Þ). Even if all that happens is that a person's edits become auto-patrolled and they never patrol anything themselves, then at least it's that much less work on the existing Patrollers. And if they happen to patrol a few things too, so much the better, but that's not absolutely required. So creating a new group would be redundant, when we could simply make him a Patroller (once we've had more time to get to know him). – Robin Hood↝talk 21:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

HotnBOThered Job

Just to let everyone know, HotnBOThered is running its first "real" read-write job. I'll be keeping an eye on it fairly closely while I do other work, but if anybody spots any major issues, please don't hesitate to post to its talk page to make it stop. For minor issues, please just post a summary to my talk page instead. – Robin Hood↝talk 10:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the write delay could use some tweaking, as it's currently only doing a few every minute, but it seems to be off to a good start. Better the edits are too far apart than too close together! (I know others in the house are using some heavy bandwidth, and our connection generally sucks, so that's probably not helping.) At its present rate, it should be done around 4:00 or 5:00 pm UTC. – Robin Hood↝talk 11:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Prev: Archive 20

Up: Community Portal

Next: Archive 22

UESPWiki β