Forum:Proposal: Bug Policy Revisions

	This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

As the admins know, and as most of you are aware, over the past couple weeks I have been overhauling and implementing new material and policies to the Bug Verification Project. These revisions were a part of the original course I had planned when I began the project, but just never got to them due to school and other time consuming activities. As a direct result, the project stalled and got backlogged along the way. In the past couple weeks I've managed to make a significant dent in the progress of the project, but I'm nowhere close to having things finished.

This proposal that I am putting forward will be for making several large and very changes to the integrity of the project, and to our general bug policy. I will copy and paste parts of the proposition section from my original bug policy revision in the Adminstration forum.

Proposition[]

There are really 2 types of bugs in the games, those that relate to Items, the Ingame Environment, and creatures. These types of bugs can happen at any point in the game, and are fairly easy to reproduce and prove or disprove.

The second type of bug is related to specific quests, characters, or points in the game. These are hard to reproduce, and take A lot of time to prove/disprove because it often requires multiple playthroughs and or returning to a previous save point.

Limmie and I have both discussed solutions to the problem of what I've come to call Verification Backlog. We think that in regards to this we should implement two solutions.

• First is that we should extend the verification time-frame on bugs relating to quests/specific points in the game from 2 to 4 weeks.This will give users a better time-frame in which they can attempt to reproduce these bugs.
• Second, we would like to extend/recruit/assign a specific group of people to help reproduce and prove/disprove bugs that are called into question. This is something that we would like to do after the New Year starts in order to have everyone we need on board from the start, and not be distracted by the chaos of the Holiday Season.
  • This will also mean that I will go in and modify the Bug Verification project to reflect more as official policy. I also believe we should take a harder line towards bugs that are based on Items/Environment/Creatures and remove them when the time runs out, those bugs should not take a lot of time to reproduce, and should not sit on the Verification page for 2 weeks.
• Third Create and implement a Verified Template, the Platform template really doesn't play a good role as a verification tool, we need a definitive template that will indicate something has been verified. This will be the most sweeping change.

Because of the breadth of this proposal we will have 4 separate voting sections for each of the 4 Proposals.

---bleep196- (talk) 18:55, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Extension of verification period from 2 to 4 Weeks[]

Poll finished on 7:43 pm February 5, 2013 (UTC). A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken. You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section: Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal. Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal. Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain. Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes[]

1. I've always kind of thought the period short, after all, it's not likely for someone to verify one bug out of thousands in such a short period.--TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 20:52, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
2. strikes me as a good idea. Richie9999 (talk) 21:20, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
3. I support this. A longer verification time means that bugs should have a greater chance of being verified before being removed simply because no one got to it in time. --Skire (talk) 21:22, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
4. It certainly gives users more time to check the bug. Energy X 23:03, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
5. 18:22, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
6. 2 weeks has proven to be completely insufficient timespan to conclude the proper testings.
   Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}

No[]

Neutral[]

1. The verification period is two weeks because a lot of people visit the site when a game first comes out. With that much traffic, not a lot of time is needed to verify bugs. As the game gets older and older, more time is needed, so I don't think a change to the time period is required. --Kastera ^(talk) 21:45, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
2. Two weeks seems sufficient for verification, especially if now have a dedicated project for it. As Kastera said, new titles won't require more time due to the influx of users. ^{nihil novi sub sole} 22:55, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Recruitment/Creation of users specifically dedicated to verifying bugs[]

Poll finished on 7:43 pm February 5, 2013 (UTC). A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken. You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section: Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal. Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal. Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain. Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes[]

1. I've done this myself on a couple of pages, and I think it's a good idea. Those that dedicate themselves should know that they'll have a lot on their plates.--TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 20:52, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
2. Another solid idea. I try and check bugs that pop up as they show up when possible. Richie9999 (talk) 21:22, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
3. Could make bug digging more reliable. --Kastera ^(talk) 21:45, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
4. An ad-hoc bug committee sounds good! --Skire (talk) 21:47, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
5. Verification seems pointless if we aren't counting on trusted users to do so. ^{nihil novi sub sole} 22:53, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
6. I am wondering as to why has nobody thought of that. It *must* work. Energy X 23:03, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
7. 18:22, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
8. 
   Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}

No[]

Creation and implementation of a Verified Template[]

Poll finished on 7:43 pm February 5, 2013 (UTC). A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken. You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section: Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal. Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal. Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain. Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes[]

1. An excellent idea, the console icons aren't really that concrete as to whether or not there has been verification. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 20:52, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
2. This is a great idea in my book, lately, most of the times when bugs are added the person adding them adds the console tag without the verify tag, having something better for it would be perfect. Richie9999 (talk) 21:24, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
3. 18:22, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
4. There's currently no way to differentiate an already tested bug from one that isn't, which leads (and in fact, has led several times already from my experience alone) to bugs being tested several times. This template is particularly useful for iffy but true bugs.
   Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}

Neutral[]

1. I'd personally like to see what the 'verified' template would look like before were scrap the console template. There's no use in digging up a water main if you don't know where the leak is. --Kastera ^(talk) 21:45, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
2. I'm still not sold. We are not tagging each incoming bug with the verify template, so this template would only be used when verifying a suspicious bug. Result: Either good bugs would be tagged with verify, resulting in more work, or we would have to add this template to non-suspicious new bugs, again adding a lot of work. It has merit, but I think it will end up being more inconvenient than helpful. ^{nihil novi sub sole} 23:30, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
3. I don't know about this. It might ease the users work to find a specific bug, but what of the the previous poll, then? Energy X 18:27, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

No[]

1. All items must be assumed true unless stated otherwise. If a bug is doubtful, use {{Verify}} to get it verified. Another template for this purpose is completely unnecessary. --Skire (talk) 21:55, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Excluded votes

1. Too much extra work. All bugs are assumed in good faith unless they seem suspicious. This would result in many true bugs that do not have this tag added to be re-checked, which will be an endless amount of extra and unnecessary work. ^{nihil novi sub sole} 22:58, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Additional Comments[]

About the second vote - would it be good to have like this:

• 3 people for FO1
• 4 people for FOT and FO2
• 4 people for FO:BOS (if there are any at all...)
• 6 people for FO3
• 8 people for F:NV

Of course, numbers can be modified, but is this what it had been in mind? Energy X 19:51, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Well this is a vote just to initiate an effort for it. Once the vote concludes we will work out putting up a sign up sheet of sorts for the actual part of people volunteering to verify bugs. ---bleep196- (talk) 21:15, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

I will vote on these soon but I don't see the exact need for most of them to be voted upon. These are hardly changes to policy, but modifications in practice related to bugs. --Skire (talk) 21:20, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

To an extent yes, but what I am trying to do is get them set in stone as policy. ---bleep196- (talk) 21:23, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

I see. Also, I noticed a few mentions of bug policy changing. I don't see any specifics about what policies will be implemented by this vote. What exactly do you mean by "This will also mean that I will go in and modify the Bug Verification project to reflect more as official policy." and "I can do this myself by using the Bug Verification Project page as a base template."? --Skire (talk) 21:40, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

That part was actually extracted from the Admin forum. Some of this was copy and pasted from the original post.---bleep196- (talk) 22:48, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Right, but are we voting just for a policy (to be decided and approved later) to have its own page, or is there an actual policy text for the bugs that will be added? --Skire (talk) 16:37, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

Well I clarified a little more on the seperate proposal page I made for the addition of a Bug specific policy page. It's here. ---bleep196- (talk) 21:37, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

Items 2 and 3 don't need a vote. Get the word out for volunteers. And let's get that template made. I don't ask for a vote every time I make a new template to use. Let's just do it.

As for 1 and 4, we'll let the votes go, but 4 really should have had discussion first so we were voting on the actual new policies. I would recommend just rewriting this as a vote to change the time frame from 2 to 4 weeks and open another forum with your proposed new policy page for folks to look at, with a vote to follow after review. The Gunny   21:51, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Just a question for the verified template. Would this replace the platforms template, or could there possibly be a way to almost merge the two together? I fully support the verified template just also fell the platforms when they are present is equally important. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 21:58, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Ok. A few things about a verify template. One, it would not replace the platforms template. The platforms template is there for a different purpose. Two, adding a verified template would ease management of bugs here. I understand Sig's point, but without something on previously verified bugs, we can easily have situations where people are verifying bugs already verified and wasting effort. A clear notice that a bug has been verified will avoid this.

To this end, I just changed the verify template to check the unnamed parameter {{{1}}} to see if it's defined as |verified. If it is, it adds ^[verified], rather than checking the date and adding the verification categories. Please see [[User:The Gunny/sandbox4]] for the revised template and [[User:The_Gunny/sandbox#Render]] for it in use. Comments? The Gunny   22:18, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to look at what happens with the bug policy with the next game. Listing minor to moderate bugs on day 1 of the next games release makes little sense to me as they're likely to get fixed with Patches (although I can perhaps see an argument for game breaking bugs)... After patches stop it makes a bit more sense. Any other thoughts on this? Agent c (talk) 22:22, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

I agree, most of the bugs that have staying value (in other words don't get fixed via patches because either A, the team can't find the source or B the bugs just aren't worth the effort to fix or C as you already mentioned the game breaking bugs) won't become apparent until after the first couple weeks. During those first couple weeks we are going to have to be patient and just assign verify's and wait for the patches to start. Once the patches start rolling out then we can really start on the verification process. ---bleep196- (talk) 22:56, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

In address to followers concern, the Verified tag would be attached to ALL bugs currently not marked as needing verification. At this point it would just be a matter of going through and adding the template in, which thanks to the bug charts we now have shouldn't be too difficult. ---bleep196- (talk) 23:01, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bleep, regardless of how you choose to set up your "taskforce" remember that I can handle any PS3 work and I'd love to join up (I could use some more project work on my Wikia resume). In addition, I don't understand entirely what option 3 entails, please clarify? 01:13, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

Option 3 entails creating a seperate and distinct template that will mark bugs that have been verified as such. The reason I have brought this to the table is that the Platforms tags aren't really a good indicator of whether a bug has been verified or not especially since most anons and users just include a platform tag with the bug from the start, some just to indicate where they found the bug, others just to avoid having the verify tag placed on it. When implemented the new template will be attached to all bugs not currently marked as needing verification. ---bleep196- (talk) 18:11, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

^[verified] The Gunny   20:32, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

Nice gunny, but dang when I enter edit mode the way you posted that blows my mind with how complicated it looks. ---bleep196- (talk) 21:34, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that after a doubtful bug is verified and confirmed the {{Verify}} themplate is removed and there's nothing to indicate to a posterior verifier that the bug is indeed legitimate, leading to him adding yet another {{Verify}}. We used to employ the platform template as an indicator, but that was completely inefficient. It is unintuitive and people often added the platforms while adding the bug, which lead to self-verified bugs.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 20:38, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Just in case anyone missed it, the {{Verify}} template has been changed to accept the verified parameter. Usage is {{Verify|verified}} and will look like this:

• Bug, bug, bug. ^[verified]

That is all, carry on.  The Gunny   20:50, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Result[]

Assembling recruitment group and adding a verified template is ok. I consider people with their name in the Bug Verification Project also a part of the recruitment group and hope they're willing to spend some time on this verification project. Verified templates have been added mostly already by Bleep196. Increasing extension period vote also passes, from 2 to 4 weeks. Seperate Bug policy is still under discussion, we can come to a decision next week I think. Jspoel 21:00, February 9, 2013 (UTC)