| ||
|---|---|---|
| DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page. |
Review extension
We may want to add a Review extension in the near future to gain feedback from our readers. Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 11:41, 27 December 2007 (CST)
- It may be a good way to grade a quality article. --Spencerian 19:46, 27 December 2007 (CST)
- Not that fond of it. Shane (T - C - E) 01:23, 28 December 2007 (CST)
- The only big reservation I have is that anonymous users are also allowed to vote. I'd rather restrict voting to logged-in users. --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 08:50, 29 December 2007 (CST)
- Good point. @ Shane: Any particular reason why you're not fond of it? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 10:44, 29 December 2007 (CST)
- I feel that we be rating users contributions and that could leave a mark if we said it was bad, they feel discouraged to contribute more. If we do find a bad revision we just go ahead and fix it and talk it out on talk pages, even if the information was legit. Shane (T - C - E) 12:39, 29 December 2007 (CST)
- Good point. I was thinking, though, that the results could be published privately so that only administrators can see them. Theoretically, this would give us the feedback we need to see what people actually like or dislike, without demoralizing any contributors. Also, the person voting won't be swayed by voting for or against any visible "grain", as it were, since they won't be able to see the results of the votes either. Without a doubt, it would require modifications to whatever extension we'd end up using, but it'd be another way we can get feedback from people who are otherwise too apathetic or disinterested in sending us a message. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 12:58, 29 December 2007 (CST)
- I feel that we be rating users contributions and that could leave a mark if we said it was bad, they feel discouraged to contribute more. If we do find a bad revision we just go ahead and fix it and talk it out on talk pages, even if the information was legit. Shane (T - C - E) 12:39, 29 December 2007 (CST)
- Good point. @ Shane: Any particular reason why you're not fond of it? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 10:44, 29 December 2007 (CST)
- The only big reservation I have is that anonymous users are also allowed to vote. I'd rather restrict voting to logged-in users. --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 08:50, 29 December 2007 (CST)
- Not that fond of it. Shane (T - C - E) 01:23, 28 December 2007 (CST)
SVG broken at HB
SVG rendering seems to be broken at the Hangar Bay, which is kind of ironic as its purpose is to play around with new designs :) --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 10:52, 3 January 2008 (CST)
- Yeah, at this point, I think it's best if we start the Hangar Bay's MW install on that from scratch. (It has a separate MW installation than the rest of the Wikis, so this is easy to do.) -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 15:28, 5 January 2008 (CST)
Incorrect interwiki binding
The rc: interwiki prefix is currently bound to "http://www.robotchicken.org/$1", but that should be "http://www.robotchicken.org/index.php?title=$1". --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 14:53, 5 January 2008 (CST)
- It's now fixed. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 15:27, 5 January 2008 (CST)