All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XXIX

[GethN7]

Has HLIAA14YOG spent enough time in Moderation since his last tempban?

Anyone else have an opinion on this besides Rob and me?

Seems to have kept his head down and out of trouble. I'm cool with a provisional release from the timeout chair.

[Bob Schroeck]

Okay, that's three of us all right with giving him another chance to eat with the grownups. Brent, care to put in your two cents' worth?

[Labster]

No input, I'm not even aware of the original reasons for the tempban.

If you haven't voted in the Miraheze Board Election, please do so.  It would really help out.  The nominations and questions are available for you to read, but there are only 3 candidates for 4 seats, and they're all good people who I want to continue to work with.

[Bob Schroeck]

No input, I'm not even aware of the original reasons for the tempban.

He was helping in the ongoing effort to replace disambiguation links with direct links to works -- but was doing so stupidly and mechanically, ignoring cases where the disambiguation link was the right thing to use -- for instance when an example on a trope page was present in multiple versions of a work (like something that had an anime, a manga, a light novel, and a live-action adaptation), and there wasn't a pre-existing franchise page to cover it. In such cases, he would pick one version of the work apparently at random, and replace the disambiguation link with that, regardless of the implied inanities that caused (like implicitly suggesting that agent code numbers were only present in the film versions of James Bond). We caught and fixed this multiple times, and gave him numerous warnings, which basically got a "sorry" from him as he kept on doing it -- he gave every indication of not even understanding what he was doing wrong. Eventually we tempbanned him and pulled his automod bit to keep him from doing it any more. (Which has worked, but sadly not the way we wanted -- he hasn't touched a disambiguation link since his ban expired.)

Anyway, with three in favor and one abstention it looks like he's getting autopatrolled/automod back.

[robkelk]

...
If you haven't voted in the Miraheze Board Election, please do so.  It would really help out.  The nominations and questions are available for you to read, but there are only 3 candidates for 4 seats, and they're all good people who I want to continue to work with.

I'm holding my vote until either May 9 or each of the candidates answer the question asked by コレイ on April 19, whichever comes first.

Folks made a big deal about transparency. Answering questions about how they plan to carry out operations is part of transparency.

[robkelk]

What's with whatever tool we're using on the Reviews subpages not understanding the standard wiki formatting in the page description boxes? It reports at least one standard Magic Word as a missing template (although it actions the magic word correctly), it doesn't display the category "Reviews" in the category list, and it prefixes the word "Category:" to the categories that it does display (although it sends people to the correct categories). Somebody's going to wonder why the heck this thing is broken...

The way we do reviews has long been broken. I have an archive of reviews carried over at the fork from TVT, and I haven't done anything with them because (among other reasons) of it.

Another thing I don't like about our Review plug-in/widget/gadget/whatever: its interaction with the Work page header is such that it created redlinks for Reviews subpages for ''every work on the wiki''. Bad enough in the past, but now that Special:Wanted Pages is cached and has a maximum of 5000 entries, these redlinks are crowding out the redlinks to pages that we really want.

Hence the sitenotice that I just posted on the wiki. We need to do something to make the redlink list useful again, and that "something" is either "junk the Review plug-in/widget/gadget/whatever" or "ask the Tropers to contribute reviews".

[Labster]

I'm holding my vote until either May 9 or each of the candidates answer the question asked by コレイ on April 19, whichever comes first.

Folks made a big deal about transparency. Answering questions about how they plan to carry out operations is part of transparency.

In some sense, I understand why you think that a community director should answer questions that the community asks. On the other hand, given the upset and rancor yesterday caused by simply uploading an icon on a wiki, I would fear for my physical safety to answer that question.

[Labster]

What's with whatever tool we're using on the Reviews subpages not understanding the standard wiki formatting in the page description boxes? It reports at least one standard Magic Word as a missing template (although it actions the magic word correctly), it doesn't display the category "Reviews" in the category list, and it prefixes the word "Category:" to the categories that it does display (although it sends people to the correct categories). Somebody's going to wonder why the heck this thing is broken...

The way we do reviews has long been broken.  I have an archive of reviews carried over at the fork from TVT, and I haven't done anything with them because (among other reasons) of it.

Another thing I don't like about our Review plug-in/widget/gadget/whatever: its interaction with the Work page header is such that it created redlinks for Reviews subpages for ''every work on the wiki''. Bad enough in the past, but now that Special:Wanted Pages is cached and has a maximum of 5000 entries, these redlinks are crowding out the redlinks to pages that we really want.

Hence the sitenotice that I just posted on the wiki. We need to do something to make the redlink list useful again, and that "something" is either "junk the Review plug-in/widget/gadget/whatever" or "ask the Tropers to contribute reviews".

It turns out no one likes the Review software: formerly Flow, currently StructuredDiscussions, and future deprecated.  I was going to file a bug report on the link until I found out the whole extension is being discontinued.  The replacement is Extension:DiscussionTools -- which looks like it might be great for our talk pages, but not possibly not so good for our review pages.

The redlinks are coming from the linking to the review namepsace in the {{work}} template.  I could go ahead and fix that temporarily by doing {{#ifexist:Review:Foo}} in the header -- it's an expensive function, but not too bad for only one.  (The subpages list is another expensive function, but it only does one DB roundtrip, looking for one page more is another one!)  But honestly, there are only 22 reviews so it would be best to just copy them to a Work/Reviews and I can change the work template.

I think we just need to figure out what our format looks like in wikitext, and then paste stuff, and lose our old reviews.  Simple with linebreaks, or a template that draws a box around a review, with another place to add replies to the review below?

[robkelk]

In some sense, I understand why you think that a community director should answer questions that the community asks.  On the other hand, given the upset and rancor yesterday caused by simply uploading an icon on a wiki, I would fear for my physical safety to answer that question.

Uploading an icon caused a furor? Looks like I need to go read Meta again... EDIT, a half-hour later: Where's the furor? I can't find it...

As for the question, I don't need an answer immediately. I don't even need an answer that commits somebody to a future course of action. But I do want something so that I can make an informed vote.

It turns out no one likes the Review software: formerly Flow, currently StructuredDiscussions, and future deprecated.  I was going to file a bug report on the link until I found out the whole extension is being discontinued.  The replacement is Extension:DiscussionTools -- which looks like it might be great for our talk pages, but not possibly not so good for our review pages.

The redlinks are coming from the linking to the review namepsace in the {{work}} template.  I could go ahead and fix that temporarily by doing {{#ifexist:Review:Foo}} in the header -- it's an expensive function, but not too bad for only one.  (The subpages list is another expensive function, but it only does one DB roundtrip, looking for one page more is another one!)  But honestly, there are only 22 reviews so it would be best to just copy them to a Work/Reviews and I can change the work template.

I think we just need to figure out what our format looks like in wikitext, and then paste stuff, and lose our old reviews.  Simple with linebreaks, or a template that draws a box around a review, with another place to add replies to the review below?

That's better than either of the options I came up with. I vote that you proceed with your plan.

[GethN7]

In some sense, I understand why you think that a community director should answer questions that the community asks.  On the other hand, given the upset and rancor yesterday caused by simply uploading an icon on a wiki, I would fear for my physical safety to answer that question.

Uploading an icon caused a furor? Looks like I need to go read Meta again... EDIT, a half-hour later: Where's the furor? I can't find it...

As for the question, I don't need an answer immediately. I don't even need an answer that commits somebody to a future course of action. But I do want something so that I can make an informed vote.

It turns out no one likes the Review software: formerly Flow, currently StructuredDiscussions, and future deprecated.  I was going to file a bug report on the link until I found out the whole extension is being discontinued.  The replacement is ExtensioniscussionTools -- which looks like it might be great for our talk pages, but not possibly not so good for our review pages.

The redlinks are coming from the linking to the review namepsace in the {{work}} template.  I could go ahead and fix that temporarily by doing {{#ifexist:Review:Foo}} in the header -- it's an expensive function, but not too bad for only one.  (The subpages list is another expensive function, but it only does one DB roundtrip, looking for one page more is another one!)  But honestly, there are only 22 reviews so it would be best to just copy them to a Work/Reviews and I can change the work template.

I think we just need to figure out what our format looks like in wikitext, and then paste stuff, and lose our old reviews.  Simple with linebreaks, or a template that draws a box around a review, with another place to add replies to the review below?

That's better than either of the options I came up with. I vote that you proceed with your plan.

I'll side with anything that makes more sense than our current setup.

[Bob Schroeck]

It turns out no one likes the Review software: formerly Flow, currently StructuredDiscussions, and future deprecated.  I was going to file a bug report on the link until I found out the whole extension is being discontinued.  The replacement is ExtensioniscussionTools -- which looks like it might be great for our talk pages, but not possibly not so good for our review pages.

The redlinks are coming from the linking to the review namepsace in the {{work}} template.  I could go ahead and fix that temporarily by doing {{#ifexist:Review:Foo}} in the header -- it's an expensive function, but not too bad for only one.  (The subpages list is another expensive function, but it only does one DB roundtrip, looking for one page more is another one!)  But honestly, there are only 22 reviews so it would be best to just copy them to a Work/Reviews and I can change the work template.

I think we just need to figure out what our format looks like in wikitext, and then paste stuff, and lose our old reviews.  Simple with linebreaks, or a template that draws a box around a review, with another place to add replies to the review below?

That's better than either of the options I came up with. I vote that you proceed with your plan.

Likewise. And once we have a template, I can maybe automate converting the hundreds of tiny text files I have...

[Labster]

In some sense, I understand why you think that a community director should answer questions that the community asks.  On the other hand, given the upset and rancor yesterday caused by simply uploading an icon on a wiki, I would fear for my physical safety to answer that question.

Uploading an icon caused a furor? Looks like I need to go read Meta again... EDIT, a half-hour later: Where's the furor? I can't find it...

As for the question, I don't need an answer immediately. I don't even need an answer that commits somebody to a future course of action. But I do want something so that I can make an informed vote.

Apparently it was all on Discord, and the bullying was bad enough to make our President of WikiTide Foundation quit and GDPR his wiki account. I don't even know man, snowflakes everywhere.

I'm also not on the Discord now, but that's for another somewhat related reason: during my presentation at MWcon, one of our moderators was pretending that he had been directed by the board to say stuff on our behalf, which had the end result of making everyone even more upset. I removed his moderator privileges for abuse of authority, and called for other privileges to be removed -- this is not a one time problem since this guy also tricked me into hosting a meeting saying it had been approved by someone else. Anyway, people got really upset that it was a huge abuse of power to remove moderator from someone who lies to them, and I had to go through a process of voting instead. I left Discord because I don't want to be involved in an outlet where people spread disinformation.

Which is to say that I don't know what happened in this particular furor, because I didn't see any of it.