Forum:Bug pages

Alright, it's time we do something about the various bug pages. They are probably the most unusable and poorly written/maintained articles on the whole wiki. I've just ripped 55kb of text (out of previously 77kb total) out of the Broken Steel bugs article which was either redundant/useless info and/or written in first person, and the other bug pages are in pretty much the same state. Not to mention the Fallout 3 bugs/Proposed page, which is completely useless since nobody ever copies bugs to Fallout 3 bugs anyway.

Ok, enough rambling. Basically I'm looking for suggestions what we can do to generally improve the bug pages, make them more useful etc. Go wild :) -- Porter21 (talk) 17:05, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions
My suggestions: Just my 2 cents. -- Porter21 (talk) 17:05, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Create a unified intro template (like Template:Policyintro) which emphasizes the following points:
 * First-person is not acceptable.
 * Platform needs to be given (PC, PS3, Xbox 360).
 * Not every small one-time glitch needs to be listed (basically repeat The Vault:Content policy).
 * Bugs need to be confirmed by other editors on the talk page before being added to the article. To this end, semi-protection for bug pages should be considered.
 * Restructure the bug articles. Structuring by platform does not work, most bugs are not platform-specific. Instead, structure by type (quest bugs, character bugs, general bugs etc). Then simply add small icons for the affected platform at the beginning of each bug entry.
 * We should consider whether bugs specific to, for example, a certain character or quest really need to be mentioned in the general bug article or whether they should only be in the article about said quest or character (in the example). The latter would essentially reserve the bug articles for bugs affecting groups of articles (like e.g. multiple/all characters etc).
 * A related consideration (if we apply the former) is whether high-interest bugs/exploits should still be included in the main article, even if they are specific to a certain character. An example for this would be an exploit which allows you to get unlimited XP from a certain NPC etc.

At the moment all I see are problems, and, other than deleting a bunch of stuff and policing new stuff full-time, I don't have any bright ideas yet. I will keep thinking.--Gothemasticator 21:10, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that people enjoy posting bugs a lot. I can understand it's an easy way to have some new content to add to a page, so the incentive is there.
 * The main problem with whatever we do is probably going to have to address that. How can we de-insentivize adding bugs?
 * I don't think post on the talk page and wait for confirmation will work. It's not working now, and I don't see why it would start to work.
 * Most editors are ignorant enough about tech in general to not be able to distinguish between a real bug and a glitch not worth mentioning.
 * I also don't know how to change this.

Well, if we want to get into the analysis part of it, here are the reasons why I think there's so much interest in adding bugs:
 * Bugs cause an emotional response, be it amusement, curiosity, frustration, satisfaction at having tricked the system or something else. This in turn creates a desire to share the experience with others.
 * People are looking for help. Be it to find better methods to use an exploit or solve that problem that is detrimental to their playing experience.
 * As you already said, for a lot of people it's not that easy to tell a bug from an intended mechanic. Partly due to not being versed in programming and not being experienced gamers, partly because they can only make assumptions about the developers' intents in the first place. I've been on the developer side of this for long enough (I used to be a modder) to know that quite a number of things that are really bugs are welcomed as intended mechanics, while in turn intended mechanics are occasionally regarded as bugs because they are not intuitive to the specific person's view of playing the game.

However, this is straying from the point of this discussion a bit. People will be people, nothing to change about that. While the state of the bug pages (I'm talking specifically about dedicated bug pages like Fallout 3 bugs by the way) is partly down to the aforementioned factors, I think the following points are more directly responsible for the state the pages are in:
 * 1) For a long time, there were no notability thresholds for bugs. I recently wrote down some when creating the policies (see The Vault:Content policy but before, there was nothing to go on.
 * 2) Most admins have no interest in the bug pages. There, I said it, but you know it's true ;)
 * 3) At the time shortly after the release of FO3, there was quite a mismatch between the number of admins and the tasks to be done. There is no one to fault for that; I'd simply consider it the "growing pains" when all of a sudden the number of visitors increases drastically. Bug pages are edited frequently in the days after releases; combined with the general influx of new articles and information it's hard to stay on top of them when there are only few admins which are already rather busy with trying to maintain a semblance of order.
 * 4) Due to the aforementioned two points, the bug pages were left to "fester". It's really the best way to describe it; it's a phenomenon you'll encounter at a lot of pages. People will, for the most part, add content following the pattern and quality of the already existing content. For instance, on Broken Steel bugs the editor(s) who made the first entries in May included the date when they encountered the bug. This made sense in the first few days after release; it made no sense afterwards. Nonetheless, people kept adding the date when they encountered the bug they entered to this very day. It's similar with first-person entries; once you drop the ball on removing these, an exponential number of first-person entries follows.
 * 5) Last but not least, there is a certain uncertainty to removing bugs. Most people are hesitant to remove content which they have no personal knowledge of. It's similar to cultural references actually; non-references to obscure books or movies are far less likely to be removed than non-references to well-known works. In the case of bugs, the uncertainty stems from two factors: 1) the feeling that although you have not encountered the bug it may still exist and 2) platform differences; even if you haven't encountered the bug yourself, maybe the other editor plays on a different system?

So, to address these points:
 * 1) We need to establish that not every little one-time glitch needs to added to the bug pages. It can be done; we did it with getting people to not add random encounter info to all FO3 location articles.
 * 2) Well, nothing to be done about that. Although I'd appreciate it if the pages were watched more closely; if not out of a personal interest, then at least out of a desire to ensure the general quality of our wiki.
 * 3) Nothing to be done about that the latter part either, although I believe we won't be facing the same growing pains again when FNV comes out. A fair number of (semi-)inactive admins will likely return when it's released.
 * 4) This is what we mainly need to address. We need to clean up the pages and stay on top of them. Once cleaned up and properly structured, the articles will also be far easier to maintain. It was the same with Fallout 3 random encounters; it had been left in a state of disrepair for a long time but since it's been cleaned up and restructured there have been far less poor-quality edits to the page. Especially structure is important; poor structure leads to repetition and poor quality.
 * 5) This cannot be helped either but to an extent, it can be addressed with notability standards. I can't confirm every Broken Steel bug either, but I still could remove half of the crap on the page by simply applying "no one-time glitches" and "only bugs which are of interest to readers". You don't need to confirm bugs that don't need to be on the page even if they existed.

I guess the wall of text is long enough now :) Just to address one of your points, Gothemasticator, I'm not so sure that "post on the talk page and get confirmation" wouldn't work for the dedicated bug pages. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't - but it can't hurt to try (and maybe apply semi-protection to encourage it). -- Porter21 (talk) 14:39, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Well-explained, Porter. And, it is true I was thinking mostly about the Bugs section on individual pages. However, you are entirely correct that a well-organized page with some clear instructions helps with subsequent editing work. Guidelines can be referred to, and a good format itself encourages better content addition.

I've actually been thinking of beginning to take more action in the Bugs department. I will be watching your Bug page improvements and trying to follow up with some good clean-up-type editing around the wiki.

On a side note, I don't know if wiki activity picks up or not around the holidays, but work is killing me lately and will likely keep taking its toll through the first week of January. I'll still be around, but I won't have the energy or brain power for anything systematic. See ya around the bug sections.--Gothemasticator 23:39, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Well, so far I've only created the intro template and added it to the FO3 add-on bug pages (plus I fixed some non-standard formatting in those articles). As usual, feedback is appreciated. I'm planning to use Broken Steel bugs as the testbed for finding a good structure since I've already cleaned that article up (for the most part). Guess we'll see how it goes after that.

I dread tackling the main FO3 bug page a bit; combined with the Fallout 3 bugs/Proposed page and its archive, it's 250k of text needing cleanup. I think we should do away with the whole "proposed" mechanism, it's not working anyway. -- Porter21 (talk) 23:59, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Progress
The Fallout 3 bugs page has been in pretty good shape since I overhauled it a few months ago - to my surprise. I thought it would just get overrun again. It seems that providing a good layout and format really does help people avoid the impulse to list endlessly. I made an initial stab at three of the five DLC bug pages, too. But they will need some more work.

It also seems to be true that the use of the verify template is working. I think our articles are more free of useless bug spam than I can remember them ever being.--Gothemasticator 06:21, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's definitely better than before. Thanks for the effort you've been putting in :) -- Porter21 (talk) 21:43, July 16, 2010 (UTC)