UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Update the Wiki Software

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Xoid has said to me that the wiki software is woefully out of date, so I am all for updating it--^talk 05:58, 6 July 2006 (BST)

Wikipedia is using 1.7.x something. Some of the features are nice, but unnecessary, and some features are of the "How the hell did I get by before that was there?" variety. Default values for variables, some minor modifications to the way that Whatlinkshere works, etc, all of which have forced me on occasion to do certain things by hand… like creating two dozen templates where I could easily have gotten away with a single one with a more recent version of MediaWiki, or like when I checked about two dozen pages to see if a template is included there, or merely linked to. Even if the myriad of useful and powerful extensions that require a later version of MediaWiki are never installed, upgrading MediaWiki would certainly not be for naught. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 06:40, 6 July 2006 (BST)

Do you think I should add a note that the beta 1.7.x branch would be nice, or should I leave it at the stable 1.6.x branch? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:51, 6 July 2006 (BST)

The 1.7.x branch is the "unstable" branch, but apart from some minor teething problems, there hasn't been any serious issues with it. However — I strongly prefer the stable branch — we simply don't have enough people here with the technical expertise to deal with that sort of shit if it pops up. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 14:55, 6 July 2006 (BST)

No, 1.7x is stable. Wikipedia is using 1.8.x.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:02, 11 July 2006 (BST)

They've already moved on? Bastards, proving me wrong and all that. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 13:17, 11 July 2006 (BST)

Yeah, I discovered it when we updated the Scroll Wars wiki.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:24, 11 July 2006 (BST)

I am all for upgrading the wiki, My only concern is would upgrading the wiki change alot of the older pages, and thus needing the page being re-worked? DarkStar2374383 ^{Talk | LDY | LOE} 06:47, 6 July 2006 (BST)

Upgrading the wiki should have no effect on pages, old or new, as far as content is concerned. The actual pages are stored in a MySQL database. The wiki software is disconnected from that, so upgrading one shouldn't change the other (in any obvious way, at least). –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:51, 6 July 2006 (BST)

In that case I am 100% behind this, because I look at some of these pages and it would be painful having to redo what so many have already done. DarkStar2374383 ^{Talk | LDY | LOE} 07:02, 6 July 2006 (BST)

I've been quietly agreeing with Bob for ages. Updating the software is quite simple, really. All we have to do is get Kevan off his arse. Which is a lot harder than it sounds. Cyberbob  Talk  06:56, 6 July 2006 (BST)

I can't see any downside to upgrading. So I'm all for it. EMAG TRESNI 19:51, 6 July 2006 (BST)

The voting should start soon if it's all set. The only thing i wonder, and so i ask, is if any of these upgrades and extensions will make moderators able to see and ban IP adresses at all. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^Talk 08:04, 7 July 2006 (BST)

The rules say that policies have to be under discussion for three days before they can go for voting, so that's what I'm waiting on. Updating MediaWiki wouldn't allow moderators to see IP addresses, but one of the extensions I listed would, yes. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 08:07, 7 July 2006 (BST)

Ok, but as far as i'm concerned this voting wuoldn't had much more validity that the one Mia Kristos started to ban Amazing: we can't but try to persuade Kevan to install these things. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^Talk 08:13, 7 July 2006 (BST)

Absolutely. Even if every person on the wiki voted For, it wouldn't force Kevan to do anything. Hopefully, however, he will see the policy and people's support for it, and decide to be nice and upgrade for us. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 08:16, 7 July 2006 (BST)

Funny that you should say that, because it is turning into more of a petition than a vote at this stage... --RAF Private Spudd _{Talk RAF} 02:55, 15 July 2006 (BST)

Which is exactly what I had hoped it would be. To be blunt, a petition to get Kevan off his ass and fix the wiki. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 03:30, 15 July 2006 (BST)

That is a disrespectful thing to say for someone offering a free service. This whole petition smacks of ingratitude.Jjames 08:06, 18 July 2006 (BST)

Two words, Jjames: Fuck. Off. Why am I even wasting my time responding to your inane drivel? I know it's not worth my time, but I'll give you my wisdom anyway: Kevan has no obligation to even continue having the fucking game run at all. His lack of obligation is implied, you god damn retard. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 07:27, 19 July 2006 (BST)

Telling him to get off his ass is disrespectful and implies that he is even obligated to. Everyone that voted for this should shell out the cash to make this worth his time and money. That's just my opinion, and I presented it respectfully. You might try the same.Jjames 01:54, 20 July 2006 (BST)

1. If it ain't worth his time and money then he should discontinue the service.
2. You think I haven't forked over? I have, despite the fact that even the meagre sum of money required for my characters was nearly enough to eat into what I require to spend on food.
3. It doesn't imply he is obligated to, it implies that the least he could've done was give a definitive answer one way or the other earlier instead of leaving us hanging on the "it's a good idea". –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:58, 23 July 2006 (BST)

This isn't an either or situation. He doesn't have to improve the already existing service or get rid of it. The question is should he have to spend more on it than he already has. If everyone in this thread suggesting improvements donated not just to use more characters (which places a toll on the server) but also to improve the sevice maybe it already would be. Why not respectfully request how much money would be needed to make these improvements and then raise it amongst the people who want the changes? He isn't even obligated to a definitive answer. He doesn't owe us any explanations on how he runs the service he provides free of charge.Jjames 20:06, 24 July 2006 (BST)

Jjames, before you shove your foot any farther into your mouth, read Kevan's talk page. He told me that he was already planning on upgrading the server. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 04:02, 25 July 2006 (BST)

That doesn't change the fact that it is disrespectful to say he owes us explanations, that he needs to get off his ass, or that he should just stop the service entirely. I don't know why you people find the concept of respect so difficult. It makes me wonder about your judgement.Jjames 18:58, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Wonder away. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:52, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Voting Closed

Looks like this one has passed. 65 For votes (1 of which was invalid), 3 Against. That makes 64/67 ≈ 96% approval. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 07:11, 23 July 2006 (BST)