Ring of Brodgar talk:Community Portal/Archive

Archived Talk Sections
To reopen an archived case, start a new Community-Portal-Talk section with the same title.
Preferably with something like "(archive continuation)" attached to it.

Expand

Patrolling

Related to this: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Patrolled_edit

As it currently stands both active RoB admin's (Ricky and me) are not actively playing the game. And for actively patrolling RoB edits (as in flagging edits as patrolled) it kinda makes sense one would play the game, or at least could access the game.

A potential alternative here could be if RoB admin's could give patrolling rights to RoB editors. (some, not all of course)

But it makes sense to first see if there is any interest in this, before suggesting this to Spiff (RoB's Bureaucrat and Owner/Hoster).

One nagging problem here is. Default wiki-users don't see the patrol related MediaWiki features, and as such are probably not really aware of this feature. And problem two, RoB-wiki is not like Wikipedia, and has generally a low active editors count. Still ... I think it could be an attractive RoB feature.

--.MvGulik. 03:29, 27 December 2017 (EST)

For now im already doing that: checking recent changes and fix mistakes if there are, and we also has verify\articlestub tools.

Ofc if someone want to patrol all the changes and check it - it would be wonderfull. But not so important, for my opinion.

--Kitsuneg (talk) 27 December 2017 (EST)

Yeah, given the small volume of edits on this wiki, i'm able to check recent changes daily
and pseudo-patrol any edits. of course like you mentioned, I'm not able to verify 100% if
new information is correct, but I still have pretty good knowledge of the game.

If you think its absolutely necessary, I think making kitsune an admin would be an acceptable course of action.
--Ricky (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2017 (EST)

I don't think its "absolutely necessary', or even just necessary. I just think it could/maybe be potentially beneficial in the long run.

From above linked page:

"This allows people (with permission to do so) to coordinate their patrolling activity, such that edits get checked over once, with less wasted effort (different people checking the same edit)."

IE: It could allow for more (regular) RoB users/editors to also engage in a bit of organized RoB change checking, versus multiple users doing blind/invisible checking of the same edit(s).

Making users admin for access to the patrolling features is kinda overkill.

--.MvGulik. 20:28, 27 December 2017 (EST)

Expand

RoB CSS - "code" background-colour

Changed the general(common) background-color for <code> sections (#f9f9f9 to #eee). I'm using "MonoBook", but I'm not sure (yet) if this is playing havoc with the other skins.

Feel free to object to the change. (there are more roads that lead to Rome in this case)

--.MvGulik. 13:20, 17 January 2018 (EST)

Expand

Legacy pages - 'to disable or not to disable'

Its seems to me the overall accuracy, and thereby usefulness, of the Legacy pages is kinda gone. At least when it comes to the automated displayed '... required' and some other infobox displayed information.

The thing is that I'm planning to change certain Legacy-used properties to "leg<property>" (or "leg-<property>"/"<property>-legacy", not sure yet). One of those is the "required" property ... which in effect means, due to the disabled SMW annotation in the Legacy namespace, that a number of infobox parts will go blank/empty (data wise).

One underlying reason for this intended/proposed change, is to make it potentially possible to reactivate the SMW annotation on the legacy space (without it wreaking havoc on the Hafen data).

(there is probably a better MediaWiki way for this, but that would need an active wiki-bureaucrat/sysop with the right experiences in that area. I don't classify as either.)

.

Objections ?

(For 'None registered ROB users', I keep an eye out on the "Ring of Brodgar Wiki" topic at the H&H forum.)

.

Not sure how long I should wait, in case there are no objections forthcoming. ... Picking March 31 (2018) as initial deadline for now. (or April 2 (2018) if you like)

--.MvGulik. 15:41, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

Feel free to do what you need to, as long as it doesn't adversely affect the hafen side of the wiki, which it doesn't sound like it will.

If it helps differentiate between the two, even better.

Currently about 6 people actively play on the legacy server; I can only assume they know what they're doing by now.

At this point, managing the legacy portion of the Wiki is mostly to preserve/honor the old version of the game.

Also just as a general note: I'm still hanging out/ checking the wiki often, I'm just a bit more busy with school lately so I've taken a back seat.

--Ricky (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2018 (EDT)

Ok. No objections spotted, kicking off changes.

Using bot account for this to not flood the general RecentChanges page display.

--.MvGulik. 13:15, 2 April 2018 (EDT)