Talk:Bug Reports/Archive 2

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Contents 1 Clean-up request 2 Re: Refresh repeats action 3 Restructured 4 Restructured: Discussion

Clean-up request

I think something needs to be done about the state of this page. There are a bunch of repeated sections, repeats of known bugs, and non-bugs. Any recommendations for specific courses of action? Objections? Volunteers? --LouisB3 22:37, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)

First and foremost I'm interested in seperating the page properly, for that I've started a discussion a bit further down. I'm dreadfully sorry I've not been around to monitor this place - I should've. Either way, though, I'm in agreeance with the general sentiment. Just wanted to pitch in my support. -pinkgothic 23:55, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Well, apparently, no one cares for this discussion. I'm no longer going to be watching the page religiously. I'm certainly not going to start something which apparently no one has any interest in. :( Sigh. -pinkgothic 21:02, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Re: Refresh repeats action

IMPORTANT: The section I created isn't being used for it's original purpose, so here is what I had in mind: A reoccuring of errors which are not actually bugs, but browser quirks or likewise phenomenom that Kevan has no power of (just like the refresh-repeats-action thing). Seemingly, though, it's now being used as means to track often noted bugs. So, the question is, (1) rename the section I originally intended and seperate the two? (2) ditch the section I originally intended (and replace it with that it has become, IOW, change nothing)? (3) not the section, but provide an explanatory text, keep it, and move the bugs back into the actual bugs section? (4) any combination I haven't thought of yet... Anyway, point being, it bothers me a little, but I don't want to plow right through it, since obviously this is a wiki and it seems to be establishing itself in some way. Please discuss this, though. -pinkgothic 23:53, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Oh! Sorry for removing it, I hadn't noticed the talk page; it just seemed redundant to have every single bug report listed under "Recurring problems", and actually quite misleading when quite a few of them were one-offs, or gibbering non-bugs, or things that have been fixed.

The bug reports should definitely, definitely be split up into "confirmed bugs", "unconfirmed bugs", "misunderstandings and features" ("I was hit for 15 damage!"), "browser-issue non-bugs" and maybe some other things. I can't imagine anyone objecting if you want to tidy it up. --Spiro 00:32, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Hi Spiro, thanks for getting back to me. :) There used to be a section 'The Bugs', too, when I made it, where the non-refresh-repeats-action stuff was stored. Obviously, though, the title of 'Recurring Problems' kind of failed its initial purpose and no one got the point, and I think one day I'll go back in history and strangle the person who removed 'The Bugs' once I figure out who did it (*shakes walking stick threateningly at the young ones*)... ehm. :)

Back on track: Confirmed bugs? What'd be the line between those and Known Bugs? Otherwise I'm in total agreeance with your structure, though I guess the used phrases could be ironed out a bit more ( as in, it took me a bit to read 'browser-issue non-bugs' and make sense of it, because I'm dense like that. ^_~ ).

Thanks again for your input. *tips hat* -pinkgothic 06:51, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I was imagining "confirmed bugs" to be a middle ground between a one-off bug (reported by only one person and possibly just a misreading or misunderstanding) and a widely-confirmed Known Bug; that we certainly want a section for one-off bugs that nobody's replicated and confirmed yet, I think, but we don't want to automatically promote a bug to Known Bugs the moment that anyone confirms it ("I was hit for 15 damage too!"). --Spiro 01:37, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Aah, understood. That makes sense. *enlightenment insues* Thanks for clarifying. I'll go for that, then - unless there are objections from anyone else? -pinkgothic 08:04, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Assuming that's a no ;) I'll clean up later today. -pinkgothic 08:17, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Restructured

Well, I've restructured the page as Spiro suggested - I filtered out those which had Kevan responding that it was fixed, filtered out those who linked to the Known Bugs page pointing to that it was being adressed there, and filtered out those which were withdrawn with a statement � la "It seems to be working now!" from the author.

I've also removed the following for being more suggestions than bugs (because I'm pasting them in, please don't respond directly to this topic, I'm about to start a talk for clearer differentiating between the pastes and any follow-up comments):

Original entries snipped on archiving.

Restructured: Discussion

Now, the page might have a better structure, however, it completely lacks a proper revision of the content. Perhaps some wiki veterans could take some free time to read through it and sort out what has been in Known Bugs, what has been discussed elsewhere and resolved, and the likes.

Also, perhaps it might be a good idea splitting the four sections off into their own pages, at least some of them. Most notably, I'd say, the "Misunderstandings and Features" section - since it's really not one anything should be removed from, unlike the others, though the downside of budding it off into it's own page would be that it's intention, which is that people who want to report bugs become easily aware of whether or not it's a common non-bug-reported-as-bug, would be somewhat ruined as I do realise many are clicklazy (me included ^_~).

So, thoughts? ^_^

-pinkgothic 21:13, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Just had a follow-up thought:

How about prioritising bugs? Some of them are just typoes, others are harsh breaches of fairness... maybe we could figure out a system to categorise bugs in? Technically it would make more sense in Known Bugs, but that page is so much smaller than this one, so subcategorising that further would make little to no sense... *thinking out loud* -pinkgothic 21:16, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)