UDWiki:Administration/Move Requests/Archive/2013 Q1

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Administration Services

Sysop List | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

Protections (Scheduling) | Move Requests | Arbitration | Misconduct | Demotions | Discussion | Sysop Archives

This page is for the requesting of page moves by normal users. The average user's ability to move pages has been rescinded due to frequent abuse by vandals; as such, users will need to submit requests (similar in nature to those on Speedy Deletions and Protections) for pages to be moved by a sysop.

Guidelines for requesting a Page Move

Copy the template below (Or just type it), replace the text in red with the relevant details, and paste the template under the Move Request Queue heading. A day after a sysop has taken action on the request, move requests should be moved to the Archive.

===[[PAGENAME]]===
*[[MOVE TO HERE]]
*~~~~

Move Request Queue

There are no pages in the move request queue

Recent Actions

MorrighantheCelt

To User:MorrighantheCelt. User page created in mainspace. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 04:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Done and user notified. Aichon 04:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Sysop Archives courtesy message

This is a courtesy message to let folks know that I'll be moving various admin archives around for the new version of the sysop archives (reminder: this will only affect A/BP, A/DM, A/M, A/PM, and A/RE archives). My current plan is to leave redirects in place for most of the archives (though plans may change if we get some momentum going). As such, there shouldn't be any interruption to your use of the existing archives, nor should any links break. Once a particular archive gets migrated to the new system, I'll simply replace the relevant archive link(s) on that page. If anyone has any objections and hasn't voiced them yet in the two or three discussions that have already occurred, please speak up. Aichon 03:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Permaban Appeal Account Creation

Wiki Questions

The UDWiki: namespace is solely about administrative services. Wiki Questions are occassionally tangent to admin stuff, but in general the scope goes beyond administrative services (questions about formatting, templates etc.). I think it does fine in mainspace as it currently is, but I'd like to see some more discussion on this. -- Spiderzed 16:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
If that's the case, then should UDWiki:General Discussion be moved out of the UDWiki: namespace? Most of the discussion there seems to be about in-game things (or completely unrelated ones). I was under the impression that administration-related things went under UDWiki:Administration/whatever, while non-admin things (like UDWiki:Featured Articles) that were related to wiki organization went in the plain UDWiki: space. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 17:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to chime in with agreement for Bob's assessment. That said, I'm about to head out, so I can't look into moving it myself right now, and I'd like to hear more discussion anyway. Aichon 21:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm ok with moving Wiki Questions to UDWiki:Wiki Questions. The only real problem you get there is it becomes harder to search unless we leave the other as a redirect, which we totally should. It essentially serves the role of an official FAQ for the wiki at current anyway. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 01:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah mate, I think leaving the redirect would be the way to go. Also FTR I thought UDWiki: namespace (as other wiki namespaces) weren't just admin things but also things specifically related to the wiki itself rather than the theme of information service it provides. A ZOMBIE ANT 22:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Consensus building appears built. Moving per request. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 18:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Vapor

Whoever came up with the idea of creating unlinked pages as a part of an archival system needs to be shot. Unfortunately, redoing the A/PM archives in the style of the A/M archives and A/RE archives makes no sense since there are so many more users in it than there are in the other two. If anything, I'm more inclined to simply delete all of those sorts of archive pages and then move the "(1)" entries into their places, since that's in keeping with the wiki software's own behavior (e.g. it doesn't add numbers until after the first one if you have multiple headings with the same name), as well as what is standard practice with the other wiki archives we have. Thoughts? I suspect boxy may disagree. ;) Aichon 20:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I like the consistency of having each one have a number if there are more than one, although that does mean moving everyone's first candidacy to a _(1) once they've got a _(2). (We could just start everyone off with Username_(1), although that would be a bunch of move work now to save some later.) I don't see the reason for maintaining the list of all of a user's candidacies at their base page, though, since they're all listed (and ctrl+F'able) in the templates at Category:Promotions Candidacies, and no one has more than 5 total candidacies, which are listed in the alphabetical list at the bottom of that page anyway. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 01:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone else have comments on this? Bob Moncrief EBDW! 00:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
MEH --Rosslessness 00:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I concur with Ross on this. Whether to add a (1) or not isn't really a matter. -- Spiderzed 00:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. Delete. ~Vsig.png 00:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  2. Leave it be, unless the op whose promotion it is prefers it the other way (in which case they can move it themselves). It's meaningless so uniformity isn't really a concern worth bothering about. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 02:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    If you want to foolishly leave it up to me, I say move it to UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Vapor_(0). At least then it looks like some kind weird fuckin emoticon or something. ~Vsig.png 06:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    Can mine be expressed as vulgar fractions? It seems fitting. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 06:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    Shh. Don't give away all the good ideas. I'm about to approach you in private about a custom promotion title racket if this thing actually passes. We'll make a killing. ~Vsig.png 06:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    I dunno, man. I think Sofie Gråbøl already made a couple of those. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 06:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    Can I have Morse code? I.e., UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Spiderzed_·---- -- Spiderzed 20:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A fun history lesson: There never used to be A/PM/Archive/User:XXXX (1) pages. It was User:XXXX for their first promotion, and User:XXXX (2) for their second, and so on. Then sometime in maybe 2010 Boxy just decided to change them all, rearrange the system and make User:XXXX portals to all their promotion bids. No one really made a fuss. I like boxy but I always thought it was a bit of a dumb idea and the other system is just simpler to manage. A ZOMBIE ANT 05:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised box hasn't split a seam over the nav templates, then. Oh dear, oh my. Don't look down. ~Vsig.png 06:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Not a lot outside of me can get him to split a seam. Particularly these days and I really have to work at it now. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 07:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I dunno if even you could in the state he's in now... A ZOMBIE ANT 12:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I might be in favor of just reverting back to the pre-Boxy system, with the first promotion at User:XXXX and the second and beyond gaining numbers. But I do think we should have a consistent system, since a non-consistent or individualized one would make the subdirectories by user more necessary in order to find any given promotion. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 18:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned above I prefered the pre-boxy system. I can't decide whether it was 'better' or whether it was my 'don't fix what ain't broke' principles seeping through. But as you say, whether we change the standard or not, consistency is the way to go. A ZOMBIE ANT 12:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Revert to pre-Box. As Aichon said, it's more consistent with the wiki's own way of going about things. --Shortround }.{ My Contributions 12:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone object to reverting to the pre-Boxy system? Bob Moncrief EBDW! 19:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a rejected request to me. Archiving as refused. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 18:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

reorganisation

Grr! Argh! *shaking fist* I want to organise the admin election type archives a bit, so that we can have a single page for each sysop that automatically includes (via templating) the list page (at UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/XXXX ), and have a similar system for A/BP and A/RE. Regardless, I think the way it is set up now is easier to navigate (than through the archive system... my god!), because you would just have to go to the UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/xxxx page to find out which number you were up to, to find where you have to put the latest archive for Axe, for example, rather than having to trawl through all the successful, unsuccessful, unaccepted and withdrawn promotions in the category. A link to the individual sysop page can go in the promotions template (and would show up as a red link for newbies) -- boxy 22:29, 22 January 2013 (BST)

No need to count all of them on all of those pages. Just go to the complete listing that's linked from A/PM, hit Ctrl+F, and search for their name. You'll know how many times it appears instantly. But your idea got me thinking a bit. Rather than just doing some basic templating (which, honestly, I'm either imagining incorrectly or am having a hard time seeing the benefit of), why not combine the archives of A/PM, A/RE, A/DM, A/M, and A/BP? It'd essentially be a page with the names of everyone involved in any of those, each of whom would have an individual page that would act kinda like what we see for A/M archives, i.e. as a timeline of events over their career with the wiki. By unifying the archives, it'd make maintenance a LOAD easier (everyone gets a page the first time, and after that we just add one more page per administrative action they're involved in), though I'll admit that it'd take some work to get it all set up right, and we'd want to mock it up in advance to make sure it's feasible in the first place. I might just see if I can mock up a few quest tests... Aichon 23:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone is going to be busy for a while. Tongue :P I'm trying to picture this omniarchive and my brain just hurts. Archiving misconduct isnalready kind of a pain in the ass. If you want to do it, younshould keep ease of archiving in mind. ~Vsig.png 00:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
That's why I wanted to do it via template inclusion, meaning that after each A/RE, A/BP or A/PM, all you need to do is archive the bid in the appropriate place, and then edit in a link to it via the UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Psyopname page, the section edit links of which would lead to the sysop's relevant A/RE, BP or PM archive list, which, when edited, would update all inclusions automatically. It would basically do what Aichon is suggesting above, but also update the existing archives at the same time (once set up). I only think it's worth doing for people who actually have a successful promotion (there are just too many throw away bids in the unsuccessful and withdrawn sections) -- boxy 00:38, 23 January 2013 (BST)
Just tossed something together. It only has example pages for myself, boxy, Axe Hack, and Jerrell at the moment, but clicking on those should give you a feel for some rough ideas I had. As far as linking and pages go, I'd imagine that each sysop's page would be at UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/X, with any pages related to them being put under there by date (e.g. if they win A/BP, file it under X as something like UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/X/2013-01-01 Bureaucrat Promotion). As such, for users already in the archives, all we'd need to do is create a single new archive page and add a single new link to their user page. That's it, and it'd be uniform across all of those archives. As a nice bonus, by filing them according to date, we can stop having to keep track of everyone's numbering.
As for non-sysops, I wouldn't give them individual pages, but I would link up all of their sysop nominations directly from that main page I just linked. That way, if they do get promoted later, we have the links on-hand and ready to be copied, and we also ensure that the page can act as a one-stop source for all of that sort of relevant information. Aichon 00:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I can see where you're going, but unless we ditch the current achieving systems (other than by category), it will mean a lot of double handling. Not that I'm opposed to ditching what we've got... because (by necessity) each type of archive is treated differently, which makes it hard to navigate unless you know what you're doing -- boxy 01:12, 23 January 2013 (BST)
This is what I had in mind. I've only templated the RE and BP ones of mine (because I've only had one PM and DM). The RE archive is included in both the RE archive, and my admin history page. Misconduct could also be included in the same way -- boxy 01:30, 23 January 2013 (BST)
I like Boxy's organization structure and Aichon's page naming structure (ie UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archive and UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archive/Boxy). Organize it by type rather than year. When people go looking for a sysop's administration history, it's usually a particular thing they want (misconduct, re-eval, crat election, etc). Date structure works for single type archives but in an omniarchive situation like we have here, categorization is king. ~Vsig.png 02:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I second that I like Boxy's organization and Aichon's page names. Although I also like Aichon's hub page format. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree on liking boxy's way of organizing sections better, and it wasn't even an idea that had occurred to me. I'll revise my mock-up accordingly. Regarding double handling, my thought was that this would indeed replace the archiving systems for all of those admin sections, that way they aren't handled separately or differently. Beyond that, I figured we could add wiki categories to each archive page, much like the ones we currently use on all of the sysop nominations, that way we could, for instance, easily find all cases ruled Misconduct or all sysop promotions that were successful. Aichon 16:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Modified the three user pages in my example so that they more closely follow boxy's organization. I dropped out the "Archive" links he had in his example, since I see this as a replacement for those archives, and I organized with newest at the top so people can find the most relevant info more quickly (also, it's common practice). Aichon 17:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks pretty good to me. Should we be discussing this elsewhere? I'd still like to see the old archives kept, but updated by template inclusion. But if others want to do a total overhaul and start again, well ok -- boxy 08:30, 24 January 2013 (BST)
Maybe an Open Discussion? I think you're right, it could use moving elsewhere. And the way I'd maintain the old archives is simply via categories, sub-categories, and naming them appropriately. I.e. Drop the individual archives, and replace them with a link to the Sysop Archives and a link to a category that was specific to that page. Aichon 19:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Aichon has created an open discussion, and further discussion should take place on its talk page. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 16:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


Tall Monuments

I started on with my personal project of finding all monuments visible with binoculars. Would be nice to properly categorize those monuments similiar to Category:3D Cinemas. Current page is just ugly stub and nothing more. --Labla 10:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Pages cannot be moved from mainspace to category-space, so I had to make due with a surface copy of the latest revision and turning the page into a redirect. Redirect has been kept as a.) it serves to preserve the page history, b.) it is a valid search term and c.) DISKSPACE=CHEEP. I have also filled the category with the one entry proven by your research, to keep it from becoming speedy deletion material. -- Spiderzed 12:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I just forgot how archaic Mediawiki is, with its limitations of version control - tracking renames and such. I should jump to Help subspace and refresh my memory. Still I prefer to ask first than step onto bureacracy toe.--Labla 12:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Anarchy's Army Chatter

Done. I also left a message on the talk page of the creator. -- Spiderzed 17:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Darkone217

Done. Also, it's time to cycle the admin archives. Unfortunately I don't have time for that tonight. -- Spiderzed 18:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Done (mostly). Bob Moncrief EBDW! 20:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Archives

Move Requests Archive
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4
2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2014 H1 H2
Years 2015 2016 2017 2018
Personal tools
advertisements