Dungeons and Dragons Wiki

Ratings Committee Meeting

Forum page

Revision as of 04:38, October 4, 2009 by DanielDraco (Talk | contribs)

9,970pages on
this wiki
Forums: Index > Rating Committee > Ratings Committee Meeting

I'd like to have an official ratings committee meeting, at 8pm eastern time, this Saturday, October 3rd. While meeting for RC members is not mandatory, it is highly encouraged. Others are free to intend. The meeting will be held over the wikia's IRC chatroom. Consensus on the major topics will be posted here afterwards. Please mention here what issues you would like to be brought up. Current issues I intend to mention are:

  • Standardizing formatting for Favors, and how they should be written and worded.
  • The mechanic for which users can suggest favors.
  • The responsibilities of RC members.
  • How favors should be applied.
  • How Favored Articles will be handled.

That is all for now. Karrius 07:36, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

I'll be in a game at that time, and probably won't be able to attend. Can you post a summary afterward? - TarkisFlux 17:02, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

Log of Conversation

5:25 16 *** ImmortalHavvy joined #rc (Mibbit)
5:25 16 *** Sulacu joined #rc
5:25 34 *** Aarnott joined #rc
5:26 20 *** MisterSinister joined #rc
5:26 29 <MisterSinister>: I will just observe.
5:27 09 <Daniel_Draco>: So we're missing Gan, Leziad, Rith, Sam, and Tarkis
5:27 39 <ImmortalHavvy>: & Surgo?
5:27 51 <Bota>: Surgo abstained, or so I thought.
5:27 51 <Karrius>: What I'm bringing up isn't hugely important.
5:28 00 <Daniel_Draco>: Ah yes. Would be nice if he was here too.
5:28 18 <Karrius>: Hold on, let me pull up my notes
5:29 40 <Karrius>: Ok, first thing first
5:29 47 <Karrius>: Standardized formatting
5:30 05 <Karrius>: I would like everyone in the RC to use roughly the same formatting.
5:30 27 <Karrius>: Which means, first thing first: Are we going to use images or not, such as Jota and Leziad have been doing?
5:30 37 <Daniel_Draco>: links to examples?
5:30 48 Ghostwheel doesn't mind as long as someone shows him the code to copy-pasta
5:30 49 <Bota>: I made mine after Rith's.
5:31 05 <Bota>: It really isn't a big deal, but it has a nice official touch.
5:31 25 <Bota>: The requisite formatting so things don't overall can be a bit of a hassle though.
5:31 31 <Bota>: *overlap
5:31 37 <Karrius>: My big issue with them is that they need to be left-aligned
5:31 44 <Bota>: That's fine with me.
5:32 00 <Karrius>:
5:32 01 <Daniel_Draco>: yeah, things get screwy with different-sized windows when it's right-aligned
5:32 48 <ThomasKennedy>: I sure hope this is interesting.
5:33 04 <ImmortalHavvy>: I think a {{favored|reason}} template might help.
5:33 35 <Bota>: Very easy to switch to the left:
5:33 55 <Daniel_Draco>: I see no reason for each to go under its own heading. For the sake of consolidation, if there's a pre-existing favor, I think we should just put ours under the same heading as the previous.
5:33 57 <ImmortalHavvy>: Ah, there is such a template.
5:34 17 <Bota>: That makes sense, DD.
5:34 20 <Daniel_Draco>: And a framed template like that would do wonders to quickly and easily distinguish between a favor and a comment.
5:35 03 <Karrius>: DD- That was going to be issue #2, and I agree.
5:35 49 <Karrius>: So basically, we need to get a standard template up so everyone can use them, get them left-aligned, and use them under the same headign
5:37 08 <Daniel_Draco>: Should we each use our own with the unique avatars, like Leziad and Jota have been doing, or all use the same template with the same icon?
5:37 23 <Ghostwheel>: Think one standardized one would be best
5:37 30 <Karrius>: I'm not a fan of JOTA's avatar there, no offense.
5:37 38 <Daniel_Draco>: Agreed
5:37 38 <Karrius>: I think they need to be as non-"political" as possible.
5:37 41 <Karrius>: At most, a name.
5:37 41 <Bota>: Yeah, it's a placeholder.
5:37 41 <Ghostwheel>: Sorta like the official stamp of the RC committee
5:39 22 <Daniel_Draco>: On that note, we need to either find/make a standardized icon to go there, or not use an icon at all.
5:39 47 Ghostwheel nods
5:40 11 <Daniel_Draco>: who made the logo that we decided on for the wiki? I think both of those icons being made in the same artistic style would be nice.
5:40 26 <Bota>: I don't see the problem with personal variations, but I won't oppose standardization.
5:41 31 <ImmortalHavvy>: Hmm, one logo with various different colours?
5:42 08 <Daniel_Draco>: Whenever, on forums, I've seen an Official Moderator Decision accompanied by personal touches in the avatar and sig, I've felt a twinge of "THAT'S UR OPINION". Not enough to say anything about, but I could see some noob responding to it.
5:42 46 <ThomasKennedy>: We should use my avatar.
5:42 52 <Karrius>: There's no problem with people with responsibility who also post personally, but the two must be kept seperate.
5:42 58 <Daniel_Draco>: indeed
5:43 28 <Daniel_Draco>: we can have our own personal touches to forum and talk page posts, but I agree that official favors should be homogenized
5:44 50 <Daniel_Draco>: So, who made the wiki logo? I think we should see if that person's willing to also make the RC favor icon, or whatever other images we may need.
5:45 21 <Aarnott>: Gan
5:46 23 <ThomasKennedy>: I didn't.
5:46 43 <Daniel_Draco>: After the meeting, if there are no objections, I'll leave a note on his talk page to see if he'll make it.
5:49 10 <Daniel_Draco>: nobody's got anything else to say/ask/propose?
5:49 11 <Karrius>: Sounds good.
5:49 16 <Karrius>: Next topic
5:49 36 <Karrius>: Are we happy with how favor suggestions are currently set up on those forums?
5:49 43 <Karrius>: I kinda wanted it to be an automated button, but...
5:50 35 <Daniel_Draco>: an automated button would make it easy for a casual user who knows little or nothing of the wiki to stumble upon (or StumbleUpon) a page and bog down the To Be Favored list
5:50 38 <Bota>: Like click link, insert article, press done?
5:50 52 <Bota>: *link [read: button]
5:51 38 <Daniel_Draco>: ease of use may be a good thing, but it may also give us a lot of extra crap to sift out
5:52 01 <Karrius>: I'm willing to sift out the crap, and ease of use is IMO more important
5:52 11 <Karrius>: Again, I don't know coding, so I don't know how hard this stuff is
5:52 21 <Daniel_Draco>: Maybe. I'm okay with either, just throwing the concern out there.
5:53 36 <Karrius>: IF it becomes an issue, we'll deal with the trash then.
5:54 51 <Daniel_Draco>: anyone know how to code such a thing?
5:55 22 <ThomasKennedy>: What
5:55 53 <Bota>: I can look into it, but it's really not a forte.
5:56 05 <Daniel_Draco>: sounds like a job for SURGOMAN
5:56 20 <ThomasKennedy>: Srsly, what. I haven't been paying any attention and I can't be bothered to read.
5:56 41 <Karrius>: A link on an article's page to suggest something for being favored.
5:56 46 <Karrius>: Preferbly, it:
5:56 54 <Karrius>: -Automatically opens up a page that provides a link to the article
5:57 01 <Daniel_Draco>: but anyone who might be able to figure out how to code it should see what they can work out
5:57 01 <Karrius>: -Doesn't exist as a button if the article has at least one favor.
5:57 28 <ThomasKennedy>: If someone gets Wikia to accepts URL parameters, that's easy.
5:58 18 <ThomasKennedy>: I mean
5:58 22 <ThomasKennedy>: Such a thing is EASY
5:58 26 <ThomasKennedy>: If you weren't confined to Wikia.
5:59 28 <Bota>: It's not really the same, but if you had something that simply added a category that could work too, with the category being removed once it had been looked at by X people.
6:00 28 <ThomasKennedy>: The other problem
6:00 43 <ThomasKennedy>: Is that you can't put full URL links in
6:00 47 <ThomasKennedy>: Withoout it prompting uses to Capache
6:01 21 <ThomasKennedy>: Which would be necessary for pointing towards an edit page.
6:03 44 <Karrius>: Hrum
6:03 51 <Karrius>: Well, we'll see what we can do, but the idea is good, right?
6:04 03 <ThomasKennedy>: Yes,
6:04 10 <Daniel_Draco>: ayup
6:04 10 <ThomasKennedy>: it was nearly set up like that before I removed the link.
6:04 18 <ThomasKennedy>: The problem is, Wikia doesn't have a Referral Magic Word either.
6:04 26 *** _ joined #rc
6:04 40 <Daniel_Draco>: oh shit, there's an underscore in our midst!
6:04 52 <Bota>: Hoops.
6:05 14 <Bota>: But it doesn't really matter.
6:06 33 <Karrius>: Next
6:06 49 <Karrius>: We've agreed on a new system where members favor stuff so long as they think it's "underrated", for lack of a better descriptor.
6:07 03 <Bota>: More or less.
6:07 51 <Bota>: Why, do you not like the current set up?
6:07 59 <Karrius>: We're going to ened a quick descrip of this, although I can do that later.
6:08 08 <Karrius>: Does anyone have any objection to this plan?
6:08 14 <Daniel_Draco>: nope, I like it
6:08 26 <Aarnott>: The only issue I can see with the plan is rather complicated
6:08 37 <Bota>: I am rather partial to it as well at the moment; it seems rather good.
6:09 15 <Karrius>: Aarnott- Yes?
6:09 16 <Aarnott>: If person A thinks it is worth only bronze, but persons B C and D think it is worth silver, and A favors it first, when it becomes silver, should A remove their favor
6:09 28 <Karrius>: Ah, yes, what I was thinking.
6:09 54 <Karrius>: Well, we could have three tiers of votes.
6:09 54 <ImmortalHavvy>: Maybe it should be {{favor|(gold|silver|bronze)|reason}} ??
6:09 58 <Karrius>: But that might be overdoing it.
6:10 02 <Bota>: Had not thought if it as such.
6:10 27 <Bota>: But yeah, I think the tiered ratings would be too much.
6:11 15 <Daniel_Draco>: I think we should be able to remove our ratings at will. It would make the ratings of pages unstable at first, but then it'll reach a general consensus
6:12 02 <Karrius>: Three-tiers seem easier than that, IMO
6:12 08 <Daniel_Draco>: three tiers?
6:12 14 <Daniel_Draco>: what do you mean by that?
6:12 18 <Karrius>: Although we're going back to the old problem, is the problem
6:12 28 <Karrius>: Draco- I can rate something Silver, which means it counts for Bronze and Silver requirements, but not Gold
6:12 33 <Daniel_Draco>: ah
6:12 33 <Karrius>: This is getting back to the old problem, though.
6:12 38 <Daniel_Draco>: indeed
6:12 48 <Daniel_Draco>: although, GF's model does, too, indirectly
6:13 19 <Daniel_Draco>: if someone only favors when they think that it should advance, that means they're making a judgement on the values of bronze vs. silver vs. gold vs. favored
6:13 36 <ThomasKennedy>: Who is GF.
6:13 38 <ThomasKennedy>: Girlfriend?
6:13 40 <Daniel_Draco>: Ganteka
6:13 42 <Bota>: Ganteka Future.
6:14 23 <ThomasKennedy>: And here I was
6:14 33 <ThomasKennedy>: Thinking Daniel had a girlfriend.
6:14 40 <Daniel_Draco>: since that issue's being brought up, I'd like to once more put forward my idea:
6:14 42 <Daniel_Draco>: Perhaps, to keep seven mild favors from making a good (but not great) article into a favored article, we can have degrees of favor: "good" (1) and "excellent" (2). It would work on a point system. 3 points would be needed for a bronze star, 7 for silver, 11 for gold, and 15 for favored (of course these numbers can be tweaked). I chose those numbers so that A)
6:14 50 <Daniel_Draco>: TK: Nope, still a single geek.
6:14 57 <Karrius>: So yeah, argh.
6:15 07 <Daniel_Draco>: so that A) no single person can give an article a star, B) no article can be gold without at least one "excellent" rating, and C) any level can be achieved with only 8 of 10 committee members involved.
6:15 16 *** _ quit (Ping timeout)
6:16 02 *** _ joined #rc
6:17 12 <Daniel_Draco>: I think my idea gets rid of the issues of the other, which does boil down to a four-tier vote
6:17 42 <Daniel_Draco>: five, actually -- no star at all is also a possibility
6:18 04 <Aarnott>: DD -- I think your idea is simple enough to work and it adds an extra benefit. People can improve their article to earn an excellent favor in place of a good.
6:20 03 <Daniel_Draco>: and this way, we've only got three voting possibilities -- no favor, good, or excellent
6:20 43 <Bota>: I'm not opposed to it, and the numbers make sense as such.
6:22 03 <ThomasKennedy>: I agree as long as someone explains it to me later.
6:22 08 <ThomasKennedy>: Because I can't remember anything.
6:22 09 <Karrius>: Hmm
6:22 19 <ThomasKennedy>: I also agree with any criticisms.
6:24 16 <Daniel_Draco>: brb
6:28 04 *** ThomasKennedy quit (Quit: ajax IRC Client)
6:29 16 <Karrius>: I'm thinking about it
6:29 21 <Karrius>: i'm not quite sure, but liking the idea
6:29 28 <Karrius>: DD, do you think you can do a formal proposal?
6:30 44 <Bota>: Maybe give it a week and make a note of it on the main page (once the proposal is up)?
6:30 52 *** Wolf_Dancer joined #rc Mibbit@DA54BEA5.28C6D644.FE4F31ED.IP
6:31 04 <Daniel_Draco>: sure, if you tell me how to make it "formal" >_>
6:32 54 <Bota>: I always pictured it akin to a Request for Adminship (paleowiki). Here's the proposal; who's for, who's against, who's neutral; comments.
6:33 09 <Bota>: I don't think there's anything more than that really.
6:33 32 <Karrius>: Post it on the RC forum.
6:33 37 <Karrius>: Next subject, while we're still awake.
6:33 39 <Daniel_Draco>: got it, will do
6:33 52 <Karrius>: I want to get favored articles up
6:34 00 <Karrius>: I'm not saying you HAVE to go favor dungeonomicon
6:34 03 <Karrius>: But, hey.
6:34 07 <Karrius>: you can. :p
6:34 11 <Daniel_Draco>: heh
6:34 29 <Daniel_Draco>: once we've got the process squared away, I'll start sifting through favoring articles
6:34 35 <Karrius>: We should also probablly set up a minimum time for FA, and woh's in charge
6:34 51 <Bota>: Dungeonomicon is the obvious one, but are there any other articles that immediately stick out in anyone's mind?
6:34 52 <Karrius>: My idea is basically we have a queue, after X time, if there's another article up for it, the new one gets it
6:35 01 <Karrius>: Jota- RoW ? ;)
6:35 15 <Bota>: Yeah, but I was kind of hoping for a 'singular' article.
6:35 21 <Daniel_Draco>: I remember liking Sul's Null Elemental, but I have no idea as to its balance.
6:35 25 <Karrius>: SRD monk!
6:35 27 <Bota>: I was just about to say:
6:35 52 <Bota>: One minor issue with favoring a sourcebook is it contains numerous other articles within it (classes).
6:36 24 <Bota>: Can these be favored separately, or not, or what if someone disagrees with a particular class, etc?
6:39 03 <Karrius>: Hrum.
6:39 11 <Daniel_Draco>: I see little distinction between an article that is understood to contain other articles, and an article divided into discrete sections (like TK's Ortals)
6:39 52 <Daniel_Draco>: I say each subarticle can be favored, since it is its own page. But if their parent article is favored, the specific favor is subsumed.
6:40 11 <Wolf_Dancer>: If i had a vote for the article i would vote The Ortal
6:40 26 <Bota>: It's just that even though all are Tome, there are some wide gaps in power between some classes in each sourcebook. If they are tagged appropriately, fine, but if the whole thing is considered wizard...
6:42 48 <Daniel_Draco>: Bota: Well, we should simply find the appropriate balance point for each. In the meantime, we can individually favor the bits.
6:42 50 <Karrius>: I think it's possible to support a sourcebook without supporting ever single article.
6:43 06 <Karrius>: If I tell you to buy Tome of Battle, that doesn't mean I think the Shadow Sun Ninja is a good PrC
6:43 43 <Ghostwheel>: Same to XPH and the soulknife (yuck)
6:43 57 <Daniel_Draco>: Karrius: True. Then maybe be able to favor both parent articles and subarticles. On the subarticles, we have a template indicating that the specific article is favored, and another template indicating that its parent article is favored.
6:45 20 <Bota>: I guess if you use the new system and you can distinctly say that a particular class is "good" rather than "excellent" that would be fine?
6:46 02 <Daniel_Draco>: well the new system is only a new means to the same end: we still end up as bronze, silver, gold, or favored
6:46 44 <Bota>: Yes, but that was my original concern.
6:48 41 <Bota>: If Races of War goes gold (and I give it a 2), but I only think the Samurai (just an example) is a (1) and so do other people, then should that gold umbrella down and be considered to cover every article within the book? It seems like that is where we are headed.
6:50 00 <Daniel_Draco>: no, but I think we should have a note on the subarticle that its parent article is gold
6:50 15 <Bota>: I feel it's tricky/slippery slope to separate the flavor parts of the book (which are awesome) from some of the mechanical parts.
6:50 55 *** Innet joined #rc (Mibbit)
6:51 48 <Bota>: Like the armor, for example, which I do not believe has a separate subsection.
6:52 08 <Bota>: Speaking of which, were those blank ones filled out, or were they intended not to offer any benefits?
6:52 21 <Daniel_Draco>: Well, I guess this boils down to two questions. Should parent articles and subarticles be rated separately? Should subarticles indicate that their parent article is rated such-and-such?
6:52 37 *** Innet left #rc
6:52 38 <Karrius>: Hrum
6:52 43 *** Tarkisflux joined #rc
6:52 54 <Tarkisflux>: meeting adjourned?
6:52 58 <Daniel_Draco>: I say yes to both, but I could understand a no on the latter
6:53 07 <Tarkisflux>: nm
6:53 53 <Bota>: I'd learn toward yes/no at the moment.
6:54 01 <MisterSinister>: I did fill out the blanks.
6:54 08 <Bota>: K.
6:54 15 <MisterSinister>: It's been updated in the most recent Tomes, but has not reached the wiki yet.
6:54 30 <Daniel_Draco>: thinking more about it, I think I'm gonna change my vote to yes/no
6:55 10 <Daniel_Draco>: the overall quality of the parent article does not reflect the quality of any specific part
6:56 05 <Bota>: And that is just my minor concern.
6:56 41 <Bota>: The implication therein (of rating something like an entire sourecebook).
6:56 45 <Tarkisflux>: someone mind clueing me in on the thing that is being voted on?
6:56 48 *** _ quit (Z:lined (channel flooding))
6:57 06 <Daniel_Draco>: <Daniel_Draco >Well, I guess this boils down to two questions. Should parent articles and subarticles be rated separately? Should subarticles indicate that their parent article is rated such-and-such?
6:57 06 <Bota>: Nothing quite yet.
6:57 15 <Daniel_Draco>: it's not a vote
6:57 20 <Daniel_Draco>: I used vote for lack of a better word
6:57 25 <Tarkisflux>: fair nuff
6:58 53 <Karrius>: Hrum.
6:59 15 <Tarkisflux>: that's... an interesting question
6:59 39 <Bota>: What if there was a disclaimer that said the rating applied to all but the Characteronomicon, for which each article is rated separately on its own merit?
7:00 05 <Daniel_Draco>: that's probably good to include, yes
7:00 19 <Karrius>: Why does that get to be seperate?
7:01 13 <Daniel_Draco>: the overall quality of the parent article does not reflect the quality of any specific part
7:01 14 <Bota>: Because it has more free-standing articles (i.e. classes).
7:01 28 <Bota>: Or DD's last would work.
7:01 46 <Tarkisflux>: yeah, i think that's where I'm at as well
7:01 47 <Ghostwheel>: Sub articles should have the parent article's rating, but should be able to receive their own. If they receive one, it overwrites the "default" parent one
7:02 41 <Daniel_Draco>: I disagree that they should get a de facto rating of their own, but perhaps they could have a note on them they their parent article has such a rating
7:02 51 <Karrius>: That I can agree with, DD.
7:02 59 Ghostwheel thinks either way could work
7:03 02 Bota is with DD as well.
7:03 16 <Tarkisflux>: it's fuzzy
7:03 26 <Bota>: Although as I said before, its a bit of a slippery slope.
7:03 37 Wolf_Dancer dosent think his vote counts
7:03 46 <Daniel_Draco>: posh -- they're ten of us, as long as we're on the same page, there's no slippery slope
7:03 54 <Daniel_Draco>: *there's
7:05 13 <Tarkisflux>: ugh, brb
7:05 32 <Bota>: There's the implication that an article is great just because it falls under a certain umbrella; that does concern me a bit.
7:06 18 <Daniel_Draco>: we can include a disclaimer in the "this article's parent article is good" template
7:08 08 <Bota>: I'm just not sure that's necessary.
7:08 19 <Daniel_Draco>: it would get rid of that implication
7:08 23 <Tarkisflux>: is this what you're suggesting DD: we rate the individual classes and feats and crunchy bits of a supplement like we would anything else, and then also rate the supplement in general and tag the minor bits?
7:08 32 <Bota>: Let the sourcebook as a whole stand on its own.
7:08 36 <Daniel_Draco>: TF: yes
7:08 36 <Bota>: Same for the classes.
7:09 44 Karrius thinks
7:09 49 <Tarkisflux>: for it.
7:11 35 <Karrius>: I really do think sourcebooks should be favorable
7:11 52 <Daniel_Draco>: Me too
7:13 12 <Bota>: As do I.
7:13 24 <Tarkisflux>: we can do a sourcebook template with rating that indicates it applies to the work unless an individual entry, class, feat, etc, has it's own.
7:13 49 <Bota>: Actually, thinking about it now, the disclaimer shouldn't be a problem.
7:14 54 <Tarkisflux>: and it's easy enough to pull the rating template from the author template and stick it in the class/whatever page ang just transclude it into the sourcebook, so the separate rating shows without duplicating the author box
7:15 48 <Tarkisflux>: unless people wanted a different way to rate the separate bits
7:17 09 <Tarkisflux>: but that would make it easy to show both supplement and crunchy bit rating without additional work
7:17 29 <Daniel_Draco>: Alright, I've lost track of whether we have a consensus. Aye or nay? Do we rate parent articles and subarticles separately, and put a note on the subarticle indicating its parent article's rating?
7:17 58 <Tarkisflux>: yes
7:18 02 <Karrius>: I think the larger of the two should apply, personally
7:18 20 <Tarkisflux>: sorry, got distracted by logistics of the decision
7:19 11 <Bota>: I think the second.
7:19 31 <Daniel_Draco>: so if there's a fictional parent article X which contains the Tome Samurai, Wizard, and Soulknife, and article X is gold...then Soulknife is gold, rather than the nothing that it earned?
7:20 14 <Karrius>: I could see, theoretically, making an exception for it.
7:20 20 <Karrius>: But... argh
7:20 23 <Karrius>: Yaeh, maybe sourcebook.
7:20 28 <Bota>: I was going to say the lesser of the two, but only if an RC member specifically feels that a particular article is not up to snuff.
7:20 43 <Daniel_Draco>: I don
7:21 02 <Karrius>: Lesser of the two is not a good idea.
7:21 09 <Daniel_Draco>: I don't see any reason that the parent article's rating should EVER override the subarticle's rating
7:21 10 <Tarkisflux>: if it's the lesser of the two and we're rating everything anyway, why not just keep them separate?
7:21 11 <Karrius>: maybe just a seperate note on the auhot box.
7:21 31 <Karrius>: Tarkis- Because I shouldn't have to rate fifty pages or whatever to rate races of war.
7:21 48 <Daniel_Draco>: I say the parent article's rating gets a separate note on the subarticle's page
7:22 22 <Daniel_Draco>: the rating of the subarticle and the rating of the parent article wouldn't be at all related -- it's just that the subpage would have a note as to the parent article's rating
7:22 24 <Bota>: I only meant the lesser of a sub, not the lesser if the lesser was the parent.
7:22 56 <Tarkisflux>: then we're not rating everything, at which point why rate anything separately if it's in a source?
7:22 59 <Bota>: Which would be as Tarkis said, just do separate ones.
7:23 03 <Daniel_Draco>: Bota: but then we'd have to figure out how to actively vote for "less than bronze"
7:23 53 <Bota>: I don't know about less than bronze. We're dealing with things that are probably going to be gold, which is my concern. That should be a special distinction in my mind.
7:24 22 <Karrius>: Put the parent on the author box in addition
7:24 26 <Karrius>: That seems like the best method
7:24 29 <Bota>: For the record, I'm agreeing with this: Daniel_Draco>: the rating of the subarticle and the rating of the parent article wouldn't be at all related -- it's just that the subpage would have a note as to the parent article's rating
7:24 51 <Daniel_Draco>: right, so does everyone agree to that?
7:26 23 <Daniel_Draco>: ...does anyone disagree with that?
7:26 47 <Daniel_Draco>: is anyone paying attention?
7:27 06 <Karrius>: I am. :p
7:27 16 <Karrius>: But yeah, agreed
7:27 37 <Tarkisflux>: sorry, 2 mo old slightly more demanding than you guys :-)
7:27 39 <Tarkisflux>: one sec
7:30 27 <Daniel_Draco>: shall we assume everyone else's tacit approval?
7:31 27 <MisterSinister>: Silence is consent, after all. :D
7:31 50 <Bota>: I already agreed.
7:32 17 <Bota>: Non-RC people feel free to chime in too?
7:32 22 <Tarkisflux>: i think i already agreed, and i want to raise technical points, i just can't atm
7:32 33 <Daniel_Draco>: we've at least got nobody DISagreeing to it
7:32 37 <Tarkisflux>: carry on, i'll do it later if it really matters
7:32 41 <ImmortalHavvy>: If it's Bota's question, I do not disagree.
7:33 31 <Daniel_Draco>: So, it seems we're agreed: The parent article and subarticle will be rated separately. The subarticle will also have a note on it indicating the parent article's rating.
7:34 51 <Tarkisflux>: ok, i've got a sec
7:35 28 <Bota>: I think it's decided then?
7:35 33 <Tarkisflux>: stuff like RoW, we want to have separate pages for the classes and feats and crap, and we also want them to show up in the sourcebook so people can read it as intended yes?
7:35 43 <Daniel_Draco>: yes
7:35 53 <Daniel_Draco>: in the form of links
7:35 59 <Tarkisflux>: ok
7:36 23 <Tarkisflux>: links in, transclusion out. means we can still keep rating in the author box and we can move on
7:37 19 <Daniel_Draco>: I believe we decided on the paleowiki on links, yes.
7:38 07 <Tarkisflux>: next on the agenda?
7:39 27 <Bota>: Karrius has gone silent. We are leaderless and without direction. -_-
7:39 58 <Tarkisflux>: did we actually make him RC overlord then? yay!
7:40 03 <Karrius>: Sorry, I'm here.
7:40 29 <Daniel_Draco>: TF: not really, but he's the one who called the meeting
7:44 13 <Tarkisflux>: so, next topic?
7:44 22 <Karrius>: Favored Articles
7:44 28 <Karrius>: How long should they be up, minimum?
7:44 32 <Karrius>: 1 week? 2? 3? 4?
7:45 09 <Daniel_Draco>: I say we start off with four weeks, until we've got a bigger list
7:45 37 <Tarkisflux>: min? depends on if they can b put back up after their initial show
7:46 11 <Bota>: I think active rotation is good.
7:46 26 <ImmortalHavvy>: Random rotation would be best, if possible.
7:46 27 <Bota>: Put things on queue and then just let it run.
7:46 48 <Daniel_Draco>: yeah, shouldn't be predictable if we can help it
7:46 54 <Bota>: I was just about to say, one of the those "pick from a hat" on loading the page might be nice.
7:47 13 <Karrius>: Is that possible?
7:47 15 <Tarkisflux>: how do we make sure that new articles get sufficient exposure then?
7:47 58 <Bota>: Can you set probabilities? Probably not...
7:48 26 <Tarkisflux>: can we give some things multiple entries in the hat?
7:48 34 <Bota>: But Karrius, I think so. The campaign settings on paleowiki did it with quotes.
7:48 46 <Daniel_Draco>: oh yeah, lemme find that code
7:48 51 <Daniel_Draco>: I'll test it with includes
7:48 56 *** _ joined #rc pjIRC@45F129A2.7F706742.1B26F90E.IP
7:50 54 <Daniel_Draco>: yup, it works with includes
7:51 51 <Daniel_Draco>: the code is all within a <choose> tag, and the options within the choose tag are separately enclosed in <option>
7:52 07 <Daniel_Draco>: example:
7:52 28 <Tarkisflux>: so we can set it as a random thing on the main page, and give new things multiple entries to increase exposure/
7:52 41 <Daniel_Draco>: ys
7:52 45 <Bota>: Sweet.
7:53 42 <Tarkisflux>: then i'd say 2-4 weeks of multiples for new favored's, and just leave everything else up there in rotation unless we feel like there's too much
7:53 53 *** _ quit (Z:lined (ban evasion)) pjIRC@45F129A2.7F706742.1B26F90E.IP
7:54 08 <Daniel_Draco>: nono, this is random each time the page is loaded
7:55 14 <Bota>: Yes, but he's saying to rig it so that new stuff has a greater chance of being pulled 'randomly'
7:55 17 <Tarkisflux>: yes i thought that was what you meant... and what part of what i said is incompatible with that?
7:55 27 <Daniel_Draco>: oh, nvm, I misread
7:55 33 <Daniel_Draco>: yes, that'll work
7:56 41 <Daniel_Draco>: so, how many multiples, and for how long?
7:57 01 <Bota>: It should depend on the overall size of the pot.
7:57 05 <Tarkisflux>: well, do we have any interest in capping the total entries in the list?
7:57 48 <Karrius>: Not a good idea, IMO.
7:58 03 <Tarkisflux>: the capping, or in general?
7:58 17 <Daniel_Draco>: I think we should have every featured article in the list at all times
7:58 18 <Karrius>: Capping the number of FAs
7:58 53 <Tarkisflux>: k. then how much more likely do we want new articles to be chosen?
7:59 19 <Bota>: I don't think we should cap the total number of FAs. Good stuff is good.
7:59 23 <Daniel_Draco>: I say we have a number of multiples equal to how many other possibilities there are
7:59 51 <Daniel_Draco>: so if there's one article with multiples, it's 50% that, 50% anything else
7:59 51 <Tarkisflux>: that's going to present difficulties if we have 2 new things up DD
8:00 02 <Daniel_Draco>: not really
8:00 08 <Tarkisflux>: 33 each?
8:00 19 <Tarkisflux>: 33 new 1, 33 new 2, 33 anything else?
8:00 26 <Daniel_Draco>: if X, Y, and Z have multiples, then they're each 25%, and everything else is collectively 25%
8:00 29 <Daniel_Draco>: exactly, yes
8:01 06 <Tarkisflux>: yeah... it's just not what wrote. sorry, fixating on silly math details.
8:01 29 <Karrius>: Hold on, I'm confused
8:01 32 <Karrius>: What are multiples, again?
8:01 46 <Tarkisflux>: say we have 4 favored
8:01 51 <Tarkisflux>: and we add 2 new things
8:02 01 <Tarkisflux>: the new things get 4 entries each in the options list
8:02 06 <Tarkisflux>: for some period of time
8:02 09 <Daniel_Draco>: Karrius: newer favored articles get multiples on the random list for a period of time until they're not-so-new
8:02 31 <Karrius>: Hmm
8:02 38 <Karrius>: How heavily weighted is the problem, though...
8:02 44 <Daniel_Draco>: that's what we're addressing
8:02 46 <Karrius>: And probability is probability.
8:02 49 <Tarkisflux>: so you are as likely to get either one of the new things as you are to get something in the old set
8:03 30 <Daniel_Draco>: I proposed that, for example, if we have four FAs, one of which is new
8:03 31 <Tarkisflux>: yeah, and DD is proposing that you split the percentages equally between each individual new thing and the set of old stuff
8:03 58 <Daniel_Draco>: then the new one is 50%, and the other four are each 12.5%
8:05 03 <Daniel_Draco>: if there are five total and 2 are new, then the new two are each 20%, and the rest are ...sixty over four percent, I don't wanna figure it out
8:05 10 <Daniel_Draco>: erm
8:05 12 <Daniel_Draco>: wait
8:05 16 <Daniel_Draco>: hold on
8:05 25 <Ghostwheel>: 15
8:05 25 <Daniel_Draco>: no wait
8:05 33 <Ghostwheel>: %
8:05 45 <Daniel_Draco>: if there are five total and 2 are new, then the new two are each 33%, and the rest are collectively 33%
8:05 54 <Tarkisflux>: a better way to look at it DD is to just count the number of old articles, and then give the new ones that many entries
8:05 57 <Daniel_Draco>: so, 11%
8:06 01 <Daniel_Draco>: yeah
8:06 51 <Bota>: So one new gets 50, 2 get 33, 4 get 20, etc? And then the remaining is split proporionally?
8:07 01 <Bota>: *each
8:07 03 <Tarkisflux>: are there any technical limitations to the <choose> function that we need to work around, or is it infinitely scaleable?
8:07 05 <Tarkisflux>: yeah bota
8:07 08 <Daniel_Draco>: yup
8:07 17 <Daniel_Draco>: it's infinitely scalable AFAIK
8:07 20 <Daniel_Draco>: although
8:07 31 <Daniel_Draco>: in using it with very large lists, I noticed central trends
8:07 40 <Daniel_Draco>: it's not truly random, and it shows
8:08 09 <Tarkisflux>: that's a reason to not have a never ending favored article <choose> set in the main page
8:08 19 <Daniel_Draco>: I wonder if nested choose functions are possible
8:08 20 <Daniel_Draco>: hold on
8:08 24 <Daniel_Draco>: I'll test it
8:08 43 <Daniel_Draco>: it would certainly help avoid central trends, since it's smaller lists
8:10 23 <Tarkisflux>: DD, can you transclude <choose> lists? and use that to avoid main page clutter?
8:10 35 <Daniel_Draco>: probably, yeah
8:11 46 <Ghostwheel>: Question: Should optimized builds gain favor too?
8:11 58 <Daniel_Draco>: I dont' see why not
8:12 04 <Ghostwheel>: *nod*
8:12 22 <ImmortalHavvy>: When will the Environments page be made?
8:12 24 <Karrius>: EVERYTHING is open for favor
8:12 26 <Karrius>: That's the point.
8:12 30 <ImmortalHavvy>: Oh wait, wrong channel.
8:13 04 <Daniel_Draco>: alright, so nested choose functions do not work, testing now with an include replacing the interior choose function
8:13 59 <Daniel_Draco>:
8:14 03 <Daniel_Draco>: it works!
8:14 22 <Daniel_Draco>: we give the new favored articles their own entry in there
8:14 38 <Daniel_Draco>: the old ones go into the included choose function
8:15 12 <Daniel_Draco>: no need for multiples
8:16 20 <ImmortalHavvy>: Can User: pages be favored? :P
8:16 29 <Daniel_Draco>: pfeh
8:16 35 <Tarkisflux>: and if we start seeing centralizing trends we can split the old ones up even further
8:16 49 <Daniel_Draco>: ayup
8:16 51 <Tarkisflux>: bbiab
8:17 03 <Daniel_Draco>: not familiar with that acronym...
8:17 43 <ImmortalHavvy>: be back in a bit
8:18 06 <Daniel_Draco>: ah
8:24 51 *** Aarnott quit (Quit: ajax IRC Client)
8:25 01 <ImmortalHavvy>: And it is down to two ops in here.
8:25 17 <ImmortalHavvy>: Err, one;
8:25 48 <ImmortalHavvy>: Karrius: Should there be a registered channel for the Rating Committee?
8:25 54 <Daniel_Draco>: ahem
8:25 57 <Daniel_Draco>: two
8:26 09 <ImmortalHavvy>: Oh; I twas right originally then.
8:26 19 <Daniel_Draco>: unless Bota and Sulacu are not actually idle, in which case it's four
8:26 20 <ImmortalHavvy>: err, still wrong.
8:26 23 <ImmortalHavvy>: :/
8:26 29 Bota is still here.
8:26 34 <Karrius>: I don't think the channel is necessary
8:26 37 <Karrius>: This is a one-time thing
8:26 48 <Karrius>: And excuse me for quietness, extremely tired and trying to prepare for tomorrow and not sure what to do
8:26 51 <Karrius>: But brb, food
8:28 03 <Ghostwheel>: Five? Ten?
8:28 10 *** Wolf_Dancer quit (Quit: ajax IRC Client) Mibbit@DA54BEA5.28C6D644.FE4F31ED.IP
8:28 34 Bota is also off to make food; 10 or so.
8:28 49 <Ghostwheel>: Cya
8:35 56 <Daniel_Draco>: test
8:35 59 <Daniel_Draco>: oh good
8:36 09 <Daniel_Draco>: I was afraid I'd disconned >_> everything else disconned for me
8:36 54 <ImmortalHavvy>: It might have disconnected on your end. :P didn't here.
8:37 41 <Daniel_Draco>: if it disconnected, then you wouldn't have seen what I said!
8:38 41 <ImmortalHavvy>: :P
8:38 47 <Ghostwheel>: We can't see what you're saying that
8:38 48 <Ghostwheel>: *though
8:38 51 <Ghostwheel>: You prolly d/ced
8:38 58 <Daniel_Draco>: oshit
8:39 08 <ImmortalHavvy>: We are just guessing what you are saying.
8:39 23 Daniel_Draco quit (Quit: ajax IRC Client)
8:39 26 <ImmortalHavvy>: How are we doing right now?
8:39 28 <Ghostwheel>: O.o XD
8:39 33 <ImmortalHavvy>: :O
8:39 40 <Ghostwheel>: ROFLMAO
8:39 53 <Daniel_Draco>: ahem
8:39 57 Daniel_Draco takes a bow
8:39 58 <ImmortalHavvy>: +++ Havvy is know known as Daniel_Draco
8:40 38 <Ghostwheel>: Þ, If that had actually happened, I'd have sent it to
8:40 56 <ImmortalHavvy>: They don't accept such common contrivances as that...
8:41 00 <Daniel_Draco>: isn't particularly active anymore, is it? >_>
8:41 01 <Bota>: backz
8:41 30 <ImmortalHavvy>: We have this though:
8:43 58 <Ghostwheel>: ...Only 5?
8:44 07 <Ghostwheel>: Ah
8:44 08 <ImmortalHavvy>: per page;
8:44 10 <Ghostwheel>: Only 108?
8:44 32 <ImmortalHavvy>: Well, its only really known by those in #mibbit and the moderators;
8:45 11 <ImmortalHavvy>:* pages aren't generally publicized.
8:45 49 <Karrius>: back
8:48 05 <Daniel_Draco>: so, Karrius, any other things to address?
8:53 03 <Karrius>: I don't think so
8:53 20 <ImmortalHavvy>: Then shall the channel be dispanded?
8:53 25 <ImmortalHavvy>: s/p/b
8:53 36 <Karrius>: Yeah, thanks, and sorry for being so distracted
8:53 44 <Daniel_Draco>: no worries
8:53 53 <Daniel_Draco>: I'll record the minutes
8:53 58 <Daniel_Draco>: by which I mean I'll save the backlog
8:54 07 <Daniel_Draco>: oh shit
8:54 14 <Daniel_Draco>: there's a line limit on the backlog
8:54 16 <Daniel_Draco>: oh well
8:54 24 <ImmortalHavvy>: I can get the full backlog.
8:54 30 <Daniel_Draco>: excellent
8:55 08 <ImmortalHavvy>: You want it somewhere?
8:55 49 <Daniel_Draco>: probably put it on the forum page where the meeting was announced
8:56 09 <ImmortalHavvy>: Okay.
8:56 17 <Daniel_Draco>:

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki