Talk:List of Revivification Points

Removal of RPs from the list - revise

"Inactive Revive Points will be removed after three weeks if their status is not updated" is too short. Not many people are aware of this page, even though it's an important part of the DEM revive request tool. And RPs do not change very often, anyway. Pages like Mall Status and Recruiting have all moved to being less "high maintenance" and allowing statuses to remain for longer than previously -- please do so with this page, and stop removing RPs after a mere 21 days. That's absurd. Frankly, 6 months is fine, but make it 3 months if you really have to be picky. Thanks. --WanYao 10:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If no one can be arsed to discuss this, I will change the "rule" at some point myself -- because silence means no one opposes my suggestion. --WanYao 10:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with you - but have not stated so. Yes - It should be changed to 3 months, at the very least!--Lois Millard 12:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As do I. Most RP's have been "inactive" for several months, so no-one actively maintains this page. If the rule's changed, I'll let groups know to update their reports. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing this was because I recently killed a lot of stuff. I quite agree with you that the current times are short, but I decided to follow them since they were so explicitly stated (though I did give a 2 month margin on removal) In fairness however, there was some stuff from mid-07 still lying around, so...yeah. Anyway, to fling some numbers wildly into the air:

• 3 months without update, marked unknown.
• 1-3 months (Pick one) of marked unknown, removal.

Are these numbers at least in the ballpark? --  RoosterDragon  17:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Three months is still a bit too short-remember RP's don't change every day like malls. 3-6 would be ideal. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I vote for 6 months, personally. However, I think there needs to be some maintenance/moderation to make sure it doesn't get absurdly cluttered, because some survivors like to set up bazillions of RPs, but then they don't actually get used. Tricky territory, but imo it does need to taken into account. --WanYao 18:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Or... 3 months with a template like the Group and Radio Purges telling people what's going on and to "register" their RPs... And/or discuss valid/operational RPs on the Suburb Talk page. --WanYao 18:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, 1¹/₂ months then it's marked unknown, 3 months it's removed? I don't think we really need to worry about overzealous revive-point survivors, this page doesn't get enough activity. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

conflicted Perhaps we should have 'Generic RPs' always listed, the common ones that people can bet on as an RP without really checking (mostly due to the pervasion of the sacred ground and RESCUE policies); the cemetery/street next to the NT, or the cemetery next to a mall, the church next to the NT, etc, as these are generally always in use. Then any group specific RP's can be on a more stringent timing, that way we can have a short period before marking unknown (We can assume the group is no longer updating), and a reasonably generous time before removal. (In case they remember at some point) I'd say 2m,4m, for a total of six months myself. --  RoosterDragon  18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does this page have to be maintained MANUALLY? Is it so impossible to code an update bot?

if (location) has "revivifing body" then update status=active

Sounds like someone has too much time and too little real activity to keep them busy. --Piker Pete 02:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We never rounded this discussion off, but I'm changing to 3 months for marking and then 3 more for removal. So 6 months total. If this is still insufficient then feel free to increase those, it's not a big issue. --  RoosterDragon  15:53, 19 July 2009 (BST)

List Maintenance Guidelines

Any help maintaining the freshness of the List of Revivification Points would be greatly appreciated! Please just follow the guidelines below, based on the time off rules posted on the page.

Thanks! --Gilant ^talk-DEM 22:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Marking RPs unknown

First, if the timestamp on any location with a status other than inactive or unknown is older than three months, its status should be updated. To do this click on the edit link for the section of the list with the out-of-date entry. Find the entry and change its status to unknown. Replace any comments with "Marked unknown" and your signature with timestamp. Do not change the entries timestamp field as this allows other volunteers to know when the entry was last updated and (hopefully) by whom. The entry should now look something like this:

 {{RevivePointUpdate|
 color=bgcolor="#FFFFCC"|
 suburb=[[Suburb]]|
 location=[[Location Name]]|
 x=XX|
 y=YY|
 status=unknown|
 group=[[Some Group]]|
 comment=Marked unknown --~~~~ |
 timestamp=[[User:Some User|Some User]] 14:53, 4 February 2007 (EDT)|
 }}
 

When you have marked an entry as unknown, you should also give do notice to the group(s) maintaining the RP. Click on the link to each group listed and add (or update) an entry on their discussion page with the following information under the section heading ==Revivification Points== (or just hit the '+' tab on the discussion page):

 Your group/organization is attributed on the [[List of Revivification Points]] for maintaining
  the following RP(s), the status of which has not been updated recently and it is scheduled for deletion from
  the list:

  *Barrville Knill Road 43, 47

  Please make sure to check the status and update the timestamp of your RP(s) at least once every two weeks.
  You may also want to remove this section once you have updated the status of your RP(s).
  Thank you! --~~~~

Editing the appropriate specific RP(s) in place of Knill Road above. The RP information can be coppied from the first three columns in the RP list.

Removing RPs

Any location that has been marked unknown for around three months or more by the timestamp in the comment, or marked inactive for three or more months by the latest timestamp in the entry, should be deleted. Simply remove its template entry from the section. Do note however that when you remove an entry, you need to change the color alteration for all the entries below it in the same section.

Changes

I added a smaller version of the map legend under each section as a quick reference. Does this work well or is it more noise than help? --Gilant ^talk-DEM 22:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks ok I guess, easier than having to scroll to the top each time. Pillsy ^FT 12:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

So far you can see the example that has been created by Daranz which I just moved to their own pages. Here I am trying to break the list down so it is in sections and easier to maintain, you my also seem more attempts in My Sandbox.

This list is currently out of date, I'll look at updating it soon.

You may as well leave it as is until we are sure all the formatting/update process is done. Perhaps rewrite the rules for updating (or copy them to this page if up to date elsewhere), and leave everyone who commented before a PM to come look? --Gilant ^talk|DEM 15:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Great job taking all the comments and rolling them in to something usable. It should be easy to add and remove entries. Passing in everything as individual variables helps the readability. I am still a little concerned about the maintainability of the chiffon pleading. We will need to stay on top of that but its OK I think. Thanks for all your time and hard work. This really looks cool. --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 21:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to try and keep on top of the list, I'm gonna try and make a little write up so people understand how to keep it tidy. Pillsy ^FT 11:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know where else to put this but I don't think the Nixbank revive points are active anymore. I've been wiating several days there are many others here and not many people are getting revived.(IRMacGuyver 00:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Define Statuses?

Can someone define the statuses: active slow inactive dangerous unknown. How slow to be "slow"? I'm thinking, the queue is not cleared in 24 hours. When is a revive point "dangerous"? --ZaqWer 05:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Slow = Longer than 24 hours but I suppose you could say slow for that RP so it could be anything. I think Dangerous is more geared to the reviver so they know it's risky to maintain that RP so people know they may not get revived easil. Hope that's ok. Pillsy ^FT 12:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to ask the same question. The ratings are of interest to me because I'm getting into playing revive-focused characters who will intentionally take on the RP's nobody else can / will handle. For example, those "Dangerous" revive points look like exactly the sort of place Vita ex Mors would want to go to do its thing. --Seb_Wiers VeM 16:51, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Going live

This list has been around for a while, and there's still the old list on the Revivification Point page. I think it's about time we finish the migration and implement this as the primary rev point reference. --Daranz^{. t . mod . W(M)^∞ .} 01:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Right you are! I finally got around to updating my parser, so we're good to go on my end. I'll stick a date in the announcement at the top of the old list. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 21:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say you have done a fine job gentlemen in getting this one up and running. I went on holiday in January and kinda struggled to get back into UD at all, infact I almost didn't bother but I'm glad I did. Thanks for helping me along the way, I think we all deserve a pat on the back. Pillsy ^FT 13:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we list these by location? -norms29

Suggestion

Hey, I was adding the Bhore Monument RP the other day, 'cause I had just discovered this page (I linked to the page from the DEM's tool), and saw that Vinetown's revive point was missing, and I was thinking how cool it would be if individual pages could call various parts of this page's data. Like putting the status on the actual RP's wiki page, or having any RPs in a particular suburb all listed together on that page. If a group serves one or more RPs, they could have a custom list on their page, or if a special zone or coalition has a number of RPs in their vicinity (like the Survivor Security Zone, or the Four Corners district), they could make custom list to cover those points. This could easily be done in a similar way to the way pages use the User:DangerReport call for the Building Information Center's status boxes, by putting individual RP's information on separate pages, which the main page then makes a call to. To see how this could work, take a look at the main page, here, down in V subsection, where the only listing is for the Bhore Monument RP in Vinetown. Then, click on the edit link, and take a look. Go back, and click on the (update) link in the RP's comments. Then, check out the bottom of the Vinetown page, and also take a look near the bottom of the [M.E.R.C.Y.] page. Regardless of the location that the information is being displayed, if someone updates it, the change will be universal (this would probably increase the frequency of updates, as well). There are a couple of minor issue to address. One would be to add a permanent update link to the template (I just put the link in the comments field, but that could be inadvertently deleted). Also, if the "color" tag could be placed outside of the individual page calls, then other pages making custom lists of RPs could specify the rows to alternate properly for their page (otherwise, they might end up with consecutive rows having the same color). And, obviously, the instructions would have to be modified. So, opinions? --Morgan Blair 18:04, 28 August 2007 (BST)

Its my impression that the code for this page is (at least partly) auto-generated based on data from DEM's database. Updating a single page's code in that way is not unduley difficult, but doing a whole bunch that way (as would be required if each RP had its own page / template) would be a much bigger challenge. But in concept, its a good idea. A good way to do it might be to make the "template" page a sub-page of the location named something "Bhore Monument / Revive point".  Swiers 15:44, 31 August 2007 (BST)

It's the other way around, Seb; the DEM revive tool draws data from this page. Everything on this page is updated by hand. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 18:36, 31 August 2007 (BST)

Ah, I like that idea, Swiers, about putting it under the location's namespace, 'cause that way there wouldn't be any mix-up with locations that have the same name. Actually, it's too bad the BIC's DangerReport "templates" don't do that... --Morgan Blair 21:22, 31 August 2007 (BST)

Atticus- OH, I see. Hmm, that's probably just as bad, since a template include offers no information as to what the template code is. Unless the DEM tool look at the HTML, rather than the wiki code? I dunno. I like the basic idea, but suspect scattering the info in templates would lead to many out-of-date templates laying around eventually. I say that because you could potentially create a revive point at ANY location- its not like BIC reporting on a fixed number of locations that (so far) never change.

Perosanlly I think the dirt simplest way to report on a revive point would be Iwitness. If you have a revive point, make a puplic report with the comment "REVIVE POINT". A simple Iwitness search for "REVIVE POINT" would then turn up all such records, in chronological order. The co-ordiantes are already part of the title, but searches could be restricted by location and placed in a map not unlike MCWU/map. In fact, I think I'll do exactly such a map right now, for both "REVIVE POINT" and "REVIVE REQUEST". It will go in the Iwitness/revive request page. edit- done  Swiers 00:06, 1 September 2007 (BST)

Welll, I'll have to talk to someone who knows just how the DEM tool is interacting with the wiki page. They use it to indicate whether a given coordinate that a revive has been requested at IS a designated RP, as well as displaying the status that has been designated on the page. As for updating, it's all being done by hand, as it is, and using an external page wouldn't change the appearance of THIS page (which is the whole point). However, I'm still reading up on various things, and tinkering. I won't make any major changes until I've gotten input back from the folks who made the original templates, and so forth.

As for using Iwitness, well... I tried to see what you meant, but the page's links weren't working. And here's the thing. The issue isn't that we need a better way to search for revive requests, rather, we need a better way to enable inclusion and/or status updates for locations that are somewhat in flux (a group becomes inactive, and a historic RP gets flooded with "Mrh?" Cows because the point is still indicated as being functional). That's what THIS page does, in conjunction with the DEM tool, but I've found that quite a number of RPs are not included, perhaps for the simple reason that those point's maintainers didn't know that this page existed! So, by changing the mechanics of this page, without altering its structure, this page's purpose can be better served by replicating specific portions of its data throughout this wiki. At least, that's my intent. --Morgan Blair 01:18, 1 September 2007 (BST)

Bum deal. This wiki doesn't have parser function extensions. Crap. --Morgan Blair 04:09, 1 September 2007 (BST)

Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ is correct, the DEM database gets its information by parsing this page. To clarify (since later comments didn't seem sure), it parses the generated HTML, not the wiki code. So any changes to how the templates were placed or whatnot would not affect the nightly automatic update of the information in the RevReq tool, as long as this pages generated HTML was the same. However, I don't know of any simple way to set it up so an edit on one page of the wiki would be reflected on another page, other than having each RP have it's own template, which seems unreasonable and unmaintainable, IMHO. One idea that does pop to mind though would be to update the RP templates used here to reuse information already supplied to auto-generate a unique ID for the RP (x-y should do it), then it would be easy to generate links to specific RPs from other pages on the wiki. From there someone could make a new template just for listing RPs in a suburb (or just the one in a location page) that generated the links. Not quite as fancy as having the whole listing replicated, but at least makes navigation easy. --Gilant ^talk-DEM 17:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added the id part to the template. Links like this (http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/List_of_Revivification_Points#54-12) should now work. The id is just "x-y", so adding "#x-y" to this page's URL is all you need to do to navigate directly to the RP, if there is one at that location described on this page. If not it should just go to the top of the page. HTH --Gilant ^talk-DEM 17:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying how the DEM tool uses this page. as for "unreasonable and unmaintainable", well, I don't think it's at all unreasonable (this is exactly how the Building Information Center works, that puts those nice status bars on the top of location pages, and as for "unmaintainable", well, likewise. Converting every RP on the list would be a bit tedious, but not insurmountable, but since it's not necessary to convert EVERY location at once, it's certainly feasible. Anyway, since I first began using a separate page to contain the Bhore Monument RP data, I've been experimenting with some other things. I've actually found that, one really simple trick that opens up a lot of options, is to, instead of strictly defining a template used on a page being used for inclusion, to specify that template as the default of a user defined variable. That way, if you want to create a template that formats the data in a different way, you can easily do so without having any impact on the typical use of the data-set (this would solve my previous problem regarding the color data, as the color could be specified in the specific template used for the inclusion on the page where it would be displayed, rather then on the external page to be included). As for my thwarted vision of using parser functions to automatically display when listings are out of date, I'm pretty sure that I can create a system of templates to perform a limited comparison of time-stamps (when a page was updated compared to when a page is viewed), that would do the same thing, but I just haven't had the time to do it, yet. Since this would REQUIRE each RP's data to be on a separate page, until I get those templates working, I wouldn't bother with trying to convert all the RPs over to external pages, since I'd just have to do it all over again. If and when I do, the APPEARANCE of THIS page would remain unchanged (don't want to throw a wrench in the DEM tool's HTML parser, but I'd add an additional variable in the RP location's external page that contained a timestamp (this would not affect the use of templates on THIS page, as templates will ignore any values provided for variables that they do not request). Someday, when I have the time... --Morgan Blair 15:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed Oldidge Way, Edgecomb From List of revive points because leader of Malton Science Group No Longer Plays. Not Updated Since March. Left Note on MSG Wiki Page. --James mitchner 07:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor Change (Removing group from Cleary Drive)

I've removed the Black Berets from the Clearey Drive RP in Galbraith Hills as they are no longer maintaining it in any official capacity (see forum here [1]) --Tethran 10:39, 2 May 2008 (BST)

Hello?

Just wondering, have anyone noticed how some RP have a update link that sends to a different place when trying to update the list and shows like a template? Is that okay or not? Examples: Pashenton and Santlerville --LithedarkangelMeth!^{The Great Meth Man} 23:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as the template is correctly written and maintained, I fail to see why it wouldn't be ok. Lomd 14:47, 16 October 2009 (BST)