Forum:Quick issue form

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Quick issue form
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 14 October 2016 by Liquidhelium.

As I mentioned in the survey thread, I feel like the quick issue form was liked enough to pursue it - at least enough to have a proper discussion on it. So, I have mocked-up my idea. Currently the script is not installed on the wiki, but I can if wanted.


The procedure for the current script draft (with extra notes from me) is:

  1. User clicks the report quick issue button
    • Location TBD
  2. Form is displayed
    • It only has one editable field, which is limited to 500 characters
  3. User fills out form
    • If the form is closed, the field is preserved for the duration of the page, just in case it was closed by accident or if the user double checks stuff on the page. Leaving the page (including clicking a link or refreshing) doesn't preserve the field.
  4. User presses submit
  5. The form submits an edit via the API to RuneScape:Issues
    • This appends to the table on the page, including the data: timestamp, fullpagename, and the field - include username/ip?
    • As this is an edit, all normal edit restrictions apply, including pagehistory, abusefilter, and blocks (i.e. blocked users can't use the quick issue form).
  6. Form says "Thanks!", provides a link to the user to the tracking page, and doesn't allow another submission until the page is reloaded.
  7. Editors check the issue and act on it (or not), then remove the issue from the tracking page (currently manually, could be scripted).

The form should add something like

| <timestamp>
| [[FULLPAGENAME of page reported on]]
| <nowiki><user's message></nowiki>
|} (unchanged)
Alternative procedure

An alternative suggested by mol is to submit to the page's talk page instead of a central issue page. The hope is that this will encourage more users to engage in dialogue with more experienced editors and possibly become editors themselves.

  1. As above until user submits
  2. Form sends an edit via the API to Talk:PAGENAME (or relevant talk namespace)
  3. Form says "Thanks!", provides a link to the talk page for the user to track it, and disables further submitting until reloaded (as above)
  4. Editors check as above, replying on the talk page as required, and mark the template as resolved when done (manually, could be scripted)

In this case, the form would add something like

==Issue report==
|message=<nowiki><user's message></nowiki>

and editors would add |resolved=true to it when resolved (they could also change the section title).

The central issue page can track the issues using DPL.


Implementing the talk page version necessitated defining which namespaces it should work on. My thinking on defining this is pages that a user could (reasonably) easily end up on from a mainspace page. They are:

  • main
  • project
  • file
  • template
  • category
  • update
  • exchange
  • charm
  • calculator
  • map
  • transcript
  • property

The main ones excluded are:

  • user (I don't think people will like having reports on their talk page)
  • mediawiki (If you're proficient enough at wikis to get here, you probably know who to contact to get stuff changed)
  • help (we only have a few of our own pages here, they're usually auto-transcluded from
  • forum (lol)
  • module (per mediawiki, though this one could maybe be better justified to have it enabled)

To be decided by this thread
  1. Do we want to implement the quick issue form?
  2. Where do we want to put the button to access it? Options include:
    • In the sidebar - replace article ratings?
    • Next to the edit button, like the darkmode script toggle?
    • Bottom toolbar, near 'my tools'?
    • Somewhere else
  3. Where should the form post?
    • RuneScape:Issues (or whatever the central page should be called)
    • Talk page of the page with the issue
    • Dedicated discussion subpage of RS:ISSUES
  4. Name of the 'central page' - RS:Issues, subpage of RS:UH, etc?
  5. Anything to change on or add to the form?
Additions to thread intro


Support - I'm leaning toward replacing article ratings and posting to the talk page at the moment. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:56, September 11, 2016 (UTC)

Changing to adding a button in-line with the edit button in red (per fetus). Article ratings should still be removed, though.
From onei's point below, I'm liking using subpages of RS:ISSUES as discussion areas instead of talk pages. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 12:41, September 20, 2016 (UTC)

Support Could help improve some sections, However I must bring up the fact of vandals and such. Any ideas of how to stop people abusing it? Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 23:32, September 11, 2016 (UTC)

Currently no support for specific vandalism, but since its just an edit, normal block policy and abusefilters apply. If someone posts junk, it can be rolled-back and they can be blocked.
We could apply an extra ratelimit - 1 submission per minute or something?
I can't think of anything else to preempt at the moment - it can always be updated later to have some more prevention things if we see a pattern of things that shouldn't be reported. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:32, September 12, 2016 (UTC)


  • Submit to talk page via template, so feedback can be collected in one place with dpl (either a section on RuneScape:User help or its own page)
  • Take out "leave your account name" since I assume it'll be recorded automatically, and add a "please check back periodically in case users have followup questions"
  • Put button at the far end of the header to make it stand out (or red for even more effect?), rather than next to three other buttons

--Iiii I I I 07:27, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

I would imagine that it could grow quite large, so a dedicated page would be good.
Done and done. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:32, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

Support - 7eye's placement and colouration works for me. Mantag has a valid point, though: what about people abusing or spamming through the form? What about issues submitted (in good faith) along the lines of "typo here", would we want the talk pages (or central page) to be flooded with that? Finally, if we opt to send the submissions to the talk pages, how will editors know where to look for any submitted issues? A central RS:ISSUES page would probably be a good idea if only to list the talk pages that have pending (i.e. the status parameter is unresolved) issues, sorting them depending on A) the amount of submissions per talk page and B) chronology. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 16:36, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why typos can't be reported. A valid (if minor) issue that is very quickly and easily fixed.
The form shows them a link when submitted, but there might be some better ways to do it (e.g. a cookie that adds another button or message or something).
I thought it was a given that the central page would only show unresolved issues - but yes, that is what it will do. They'd probably be sorted by submission time only, but the sortable table will allow you to sort by fullpagename, user, or message instead. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:32, September 12, 2016 (UTC)


  • Iiii's placement and style is ideal.
  • I think the parent talk page is fine — Use DPL to congregate a master list of talk pages with open error reports. Amending RS:UH, or giving Open Issues its own page are equally ideal.
  • Maybe include a set of conflict escalations? Offer users a series of check-boxes for how severe an issue is, then allocate the placement accordingly. Typos and minor grammar requests can be placed on a centralized page, where they could be resolved in bulk if need be; leave major issues on parent talk pages.

Heaven Sent (talk) 11:36, September 13, 2016 (UTC)

Issue type escalation can be done, but we'd be relying heavily on people correctly categorising the stuff. I also kinda wanted to keep the form as simple as possible to maximise the number of issues reported.
Though, a two-option radio button might be ok. Something like "Basic (typo, grammar, minor reword/clarification/correction, etc" and "Advanced (significant reword/clarification/correction, broken template/script, outdated info, etc)"? Dunno. Not having it means we don't have to define the difference. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 15:10, September 13, 2016 (UTC)


  • 1. Should we do this? - Yes
  • 2. Where is da button? - Next to the edit button, that area already draws attention and editing/reporting an issue is putting maintenance into the page, so it would make sense that they were close to eachother.
  • 3. Where should the form post? - RuneScape:Issues (or whatever it's gonna be). As far I've seen talk pages, they are mostly questions/comments about the item/npc/w.e, unrelated to editing itself. For me, mixing page maintenance and random talk sounds a bit odd.
  • 5. Suggestions? - Add a checkbox to mark an issue as major issue? I like the idea of keeping the issue form simple. Lucky chaotic claw.png Metal Angel cut your wrists sample text 16:08, September 13, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I feel that this form is very similar to the existing rating system. The rating system has turned out to largely unsuccessful and I am concerned that a quick issue form would be likely to fail for the same reasons. Right now people are not using the rating system. It could be that users don't notice it, though it is displayed relatively prominently in the sidebar. If you do implement the quick issue form, I think we should have it accessible with "red button next to the edit button" option to try and address this, rather than just replacing it where ratings is in the side bar. It could also be that people are aware that we have a rating system; but are just not interested in taking the time to give feedback on pages, even if that only involves clicking a button and optionally adding a comment. If that is the case then people are not going to be bothered to use a system where it is mandatory to write a comment.

If a quick issue form was more successful than ratings and did result in a lot of user responses then I would be concerned about our ability to action them. Even with filters for vandalism, I'm guessing that we would need to moderate out things that did not require a page to be edited e.g. people being mistaken about improvement being needed, questions about the article's subject, a problem with images on the page, complaints about ads etc. The remaining feedback would presumably contain suggestions that would involve a lot of time to fix, as well as simple things like typos to correct.

Do we have experienced users who would be willing to take the time to deal with quick issue form responses? Ratings' comments have not been available to editors in general to view and take action on, but we do have a range of other avenues where people can give feedback which is accessible to other editors e.g. RS:UH and RS:AR, talk pages, RS:MAINTENANCE and maintenance templates and categories, and projects/tasks. Generally I would some say some reported issues are fixed, but sometimes issues go unanswered and that makes me question whether the community would be responsive to quick issue form feedback. If users are finding that their issues aren't being fixed after they report them then I think that people will quickly give up on using the system.

Coming back to all the existing methods of getting feedback I mentioned above; how would a quick issue form be integrated alongside these? Though I don't want quick issue form to be the replace ratings in the side bar; I don't think we should continue to have both ratings and a quick issue form as they're fairly similar. I agree with Metal that individual talk page are probably not the most suitable place for feedback to go and I would prefer a central place for it all to go. Not sure about making the quick issue feedback a subpage of RS:UH as that page is more to do with editing help, but should probably be linking each other somehow. Perhaps when reviewing feedback we should consider adding the appropriate maintenance categories to pages with major issues which are not immediately fixable, could the quick issue form report be linked in the template to provide more detail on the issue?

TL:DR: I am concerned that a quick issue form is not going to be that successful, but it is an improvement over what we have with ratings and I support replacing ratings with this. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 18:44, September 13, 2016 (UTC)

We have a rating system? OMG! --LiquidTalk 22:42, September 13, 2016 (UTC)
Vote to ban Liquid for being a full 2 years behind the times. cqm 07:21, 14 Sep 2016 (UTC) (UTC)
-Gotta add to this that I had no idea what that rating system was for, and when I questioned my siblings they had no idea either. In quick glance, it looks like an wikia ad that should be ignored. "Help us grow RuneScape wiki!" looks like wikia ad too, but I'm surprised that it is used by community (at quick glance it looks like it's used by us, but idk) Lucky chaotic claw.png Metal Angel cut your wrists sample text 10:37, September 14, 2016 (UTC)
It is a Wikia-made thing, but the page it links to we can slightly customise - though I don't think we've done anything with it yet. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 12:41, September 20, 2016 (UTC)
The sidebar is a place with a lot of ads, so I don't blame people for not noticing. It also doesn't help that the submitted ratings are not public and are a pain to get to, so no one bothers looking.
I want to make the issue form fairly simple so that people that don't know how to wiki aren't scared to submit improvements. In order to use the other places (RS:UH etc) you need to know where they are and, to some extent, how to edit. I aim to mitigate that with issue submission - responding to issues we should at least relax our usual insistence on signing and such (could also have an additional script for easy responding). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 12:41, September 20, 2016 (UTC)

Support for this and ditching the ratings system which was never as helpful as I'd hoped. I'm slightly concerned that we're sort of re-inventing article comments, which are themselves being replaced with Wikia's Fandom's new discussions somewhere in the future iirc. However article comments and discussions are both terrible as they stand and nothing close to what would work for us, so lets do this instead :) cqm 07:21, 14 Sep 2016 (UTC) (UTC)

Many, many years ago, there was an old bug ticketing system that used subpages of a centralised page iirc. Instead of using talk pages and inevitably losing some, what about using a central page with a listing of the most recent questions/activity (think Yew Grove without the archive) and then having each discussion on a subpage? We can then redirect them to the actual page/open it in a new tab once the form is submitted and have them follow it if they're logged in. cqm 07:00, 15 Sep 2016 (UTC) (UTC)
I like this a lot. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 12:41, September 20, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - RS:CP could be useful perhaps? User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 12:17, September 30, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I feel like I haven't been editing this wiki for so long I much to say, so I'll just comment. But I do remember in the old days (cough) clicking on the "Random Page" over and over again to find typos or mislinks or something in those pages that we just don't normally come across. Having a quick issue form would definitely be useful for this, though it definitely needs to be somewhere obvious for it's users to notice (not the ratings thing cause I did not know that thing existed until today... really looks like an ad) Dragon longsword.png Cire04 TalkAttack.png 15:42, October 10, 2016 (UTC)

Closed - There is consensus to implement a quick issue form. There is also consensus to get rid of the current article ratings system. There is a rough consensus for implementing this form in the side bar where the current ratings system is, but the final decision will be left to the people working on the project during their implementation and testing. All other minor details will be left to their discretion as well.

Gareth asks that any users interested in working on this project with him talk to him, preferably on discord. His handle is @Gaz. --LiquidTalk 19:33, October 14, 2016 (UTC)