Guild Wars Wiki talk:Reporting wiki bugs

Discussion
I moved the "report a bug" section out of the talk page and into the article space ... the way it was setup originally, there was no place to discuss the page! (it was a redirect from the article space to the talk page). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


 * I strongly believe that the article name should be something more specific. I think if the article was something like "Bugs on the wiki" then there would be less mistaken posts. Although there might be occasional ants. LordBiro 19:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


 * Reporting wiki bugs for a more formal title encompassing the main words bugs and wiki?
 * Speaking of ants, Gares' advice for the day: Never pass out drunk next to a fire ant hill. Ouch &mdash; Gares 19:34, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


 * I have no argument with using the name Guild Wars Wiki:Reporting wiki bugs. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Namespace?
Shouldn't this article be in the "Guild Wars Wiki" namespace? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I think so. Maybe "Guild Wars Wiki:Reporting bugs"? (I prefer non-imperative article names names for non-policy articles.) --Rezyk 16:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I think we need to be careful to specify that this section would be for wiki-related bugs and not in-game issues. Regardless of the name of the page, I'd caution to put a notice on the page explaining this fact, and pointing the reader to a game-support page. --Emily Diehl 17:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I added some additional instructions to the page. Provided the user reads it, the additional information should point them in the correct direction if it's not a wiki bug. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I made the title a little more distinct and added a commented line so users do not overwrite the description when editing. &mdash; Gares 17:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Good idea. I was also considering making the header information a template, similar to what is used on Guild Wars Wiki:Sandbox, so that the header information is less likely to be accidentally edited.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I was just looking at that when I hit the edit button. It would look a lot less "cramped" if it was just one line, i.e. template. &mdash; Gares 18:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Process?
Originally posted on article: ''How are bug reports handled? Once a bug is fixed, or it is known as in this case to be an request for features, is the article edited? Does an Administrator archive the request, does the "owner" stirke out the request? Is there more detail on how to process/edit the article, or do we need to write that article?--Glamtre 12:03, 15 March 2007 (EDT)'' This is a good question ... we don't really have a process yet as far as I know! For now, I'll start a precedent by archiving issues once they are resolved. But, I think we should flesh out the procedure a bit more here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:26, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Permission problems to page http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Chilling_Winds
Forbidden You don't have permission to access /wiki/Chilling_Winds on this server.

image not updating
my image is not updating @ http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Image:User_Fred_K_Avatar_Fred_K.jpg

no matter how many times i upload a new version, it stays as the old one, or revert either ~ Fred K 06:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ok nevermind it finally happened, after like 15 uploads and revisions, is this something that does not update immediately or something on wiki? ~ Fred K 06:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Something that doesn't update immediately. In the future, either give it about 10 minutes, or if you go to the edit page, in the address bar change "edit" to "purge" (in this case it'd be http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Image:User_Fred_K_Avatar_Fred_K.jpg&action=purge ), and that should force it to update. - Tanetris 06:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, &action=purge often won't work with images not updating, as the caching problem seems to be further on the server side, not MediaWiki. If an image is not updating, quite often you may have no other option but wait for a bit until the server decides to show the right picture. --Dirigible 12:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But if you use a resized image on a page this will show the new version immediately. poke | talk 13:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to add a big flashy sign on the upload page saying that this problem can occur? I think it will help other users like Fred K to understand that they don't have to upload images 10+ times for it to show. -- [[Image:User Corrran sig.png|CoRrRan]] (CoRrRan / talk) 17:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

New bots
It just me, or does this page get alot of those new bots on it?-- §  Eloc   §  16:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not you. (At least, I hope not! ;-) ) I've noticed the increase of these as well, but besides using the ConfirmEdit-tool, I'm not too sure what we can do about it... -- [[Image:User Corrran sig.png|CoRrRan]] (CoRrRan / talk) 16:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya, also check out GWW:NOTICE as I've looked at several of them to see their pattern.-- §  Eloc   §  16:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protect?
Think we should semi protect this page as it seems to get vandalized by the new bots quite frequently? Like, why not make it so that IP Adresses can't edit it?-- §  Eloc   §  23:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think this page is being targeted by spam bots any more often than any other pages. Reporting bugs is something best unprotected because we don't want to prevent anon users from letting us know if there's a bug when you're using this wiki while not logged in. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed or not fixed
I wonder if we could have the checkmark and X for fixed and not fixed issues. It would help archiving wise, plus it would help us figure out if its; reported (white checkmark), fixed (green check mark), not fixed yet, but reported (both white checkmark and X). Anyone support this/think its good? Dominator Matrix  05:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Something like:

for reported but unalbe to fix at this time, for fixed stuff and  for reported? -- Shadowphoenix   05:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, red, Yes, and tick Dominator  Matrix  05:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I like mine better lol :D -- Shadowphoenix  [[Image:User Shadowphoenix Necromancer.png|19x19px|Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-;]] 05:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Plus do yours break the section parts? The no/yes do ~.~ Dominator Matrix  05:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally Emily archives herself, and she probably knows best when an issue is resolved and when not. poke | talk 09:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
I have to say I was disappointed that problems are being archived before any sort of response from Emily. -- Wyn 05:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If they have been archived and should not be, move the relevant sections back. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 05:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or just bring the topic up again.. poke | talk 06:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I took it to Emily's page. --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 06:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

template bug with recharge
If I you use the template codes, you will see it:

All three symbols are showed on the screen, but the title of the recharge symbols shows "energy". ´Shouldn't it be "recharge time"? Yullive 13:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed, just a minor mistake in the creation of the template rather than a bug. -- Kakarot [[Image:User_Kakarot_Sig.gif|Talk]] 13:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done! Quick and well support. ;) Yullive 14:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, you could have fixed this yourself by editing recharge, and changing the relevant text. :) Biscuits [[Image:User Biscuits sig.png]] 15:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"not a bug" flag
What do you think of having something similar to noarchive for here, to make the actual bug/bug reports stand out. This would mark irrelevant posts, leaving the actual issues to be more obvious. I'm thinking something along the lines of marking them "Not a wiki bug". Or maybe moving them to a "Reported, but discarded as not a bug" section. It seems a better solution than leaving spurious reports in-place, but also means they don't need to be removed. Biscuits 23:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So we'd not be archiving things like if someone posted here with a bug to GWs? Or do you mean things that people think are bugs on the wiki, but actually aren't? &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  02:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah. There are only a handful of "open" reports at a time, so the page is hardly cluttered, and the "bug sans bug" bugs are quickly and easily sorted out. calor   (talk)  20:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Name
Would changing the name of this page to "Reporting wiki software bugs" help avoid the apparent confusion about the purpose of this page among the general public? &mdash; Why 00:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not. -- FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 00:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would. -- [[Image:User_Lacky_Blue_Paw_Sig.png|15px|link=User_talk:Lacky|My Talk]] Lacky 08:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't.. Leave the page as it is, that's less messy. poke | talk 09:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)