Forum:That Beta Space

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > That Beta Space
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 22 January 2013 by A proofreader.
Short, sweet, to the point

I think it's time for it to go. We're done with it, everything has been moved and it's edited next to 0 (of that next-to-0, 0 of it was truly necessary).

So far, the only decent reason I've heard for keeping it is from Cook, who basically said just in case we need the old revisions.

But why keep an entire namespace for just that reason?

I suggested to him that we create a new wiki to import all the old pages, and he said it's "not the worst idea" (and that made me feel fluffy inside).

Cook hasn't got back to me and I've seen no mention of losing this burden we call the Beta: as of yet.

I feel like I should point out this YG wasn't meant as simply "this or nothing"; more of an open discussion for how/when/if at all. I just happened to open the thread with my suggestion. MolMan 18:50, December 16, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Let's make a new wiki, import, and then kill the Beta Space on this wiki. MolMan 16:39, December 16, 2012 (UTC)

Question - What would importing accomplish? I don't understand. Why import to a new wiki? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:17, December 16, 2012 (UTC)

To keep old revisions we have in the Beta space. From what I understand, once we remove the namespace here, those revisions are gone for good. Really just to please Cook the Information Hoarder. MolMan 17:29, December 16, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Why don't we just delete all pages but keep the beta-space, leaving it unused? That way sysops have access to the old revisions and it's not like having an unused mainspace has any disadvantages. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 17:34, December 16, 2012 (UTC)

That seems more arduous than necessary. MolMan 17:36, December 16, 2012 (UTC)

We have MassDelete for a reason - I do not like getting rid of potentially valuable historical content for nothing. MassDelete will near-instantaneously delete all of these articles, but allow them to be undeleted for reference if the situation so demands. Ronan Talk 18:38, December 16, 2012 (UTC)

Gotta be honest... All I want to see is all the Beta: pages gone; I don't care how. MolMan 18:40, December 16, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - If we want to keep the revisions, couldn't we just get a bot to use Special:MergeHistory and then delete the beta pages? ɳex undique 18:47, December 16, 2012 (UTC)

Seems like the best of both worlds to me - keep the page history in a obvious place and allows us to delete the namespace. I can't say I'm particularly bothered if we can't retrieve the revisions, but it might come in useful one day. cqm 01:53, 17 Dec 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Freaking delete and move on - How is a bunch of random revisions of beta crap useful? If it's that meaningful to someone they can undelete the articles and read them at their leisure, deleting again when done. Let's just delete them all, simply and easily. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:49, December 16, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know... But there's some people who want to keep it, ask them. MolMan 18:50, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
After reading what Cook said... I still say mass delete and move on. Maybe I just fail to see how revisions are useful - in fact that's exactly it. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 01:42, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose new wiki - Biggest waste of time. Just delete the beta space: who would ever need to check an edit from those pages anyway? HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 21:23, December 16, 2012 (UTC)

Not the worst idea - The reason I've been hesitant thus far (and what people aren't understanding) is that once we delete the namespace, it's completely gone. They won't be undeleteable, they won't be in your deleted contribs, and there will be no way to access them in any way unless we later decide to restore namespace 120. We lose revision integrity if we have information on the mainspace page that can't be sourced to a particular user at a particular time. Obviously it will need to get removed at some point (apparently now), but we'd be making an irreversible mistake if we just deleted the pages and closed the namespace. We have a few options:

  • Import betaspace to another wiki. Relatively easy, although it's very hard to import a 138MB file. Fragments the contributions across multiple wikis, though.
  • Temporarily move beta pages to mainspace subpages, then delete. Might seem a bit convoluted in the short term, but it's the best long term option available.
  • Delete the beta pages but keep the namespace. No thanks.

1 or 2 is fine with me. I've already exported NS 120 for personal use, but I get a time out when I try to import it. I also want to point out that this is not just me hoarding stuff: you'll thank me later when we haven't irrevocably lost 40,000 edits. I'll also try to tie up the loose ends in the namespace, like links to it and (beta) templates/images. ʞooɔ 21:30, December 16, 2012 (UTC)

If we're going with one of your ideas, I'd be much more in favor of number 2. I'm not in favor of fragmented contributions. Best to keep all of on one wiki. Blaze_fire.png12.png 03:15, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

Change 'beta' to 'beat' - and keep all music articles there. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:43, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

Extreme bukkit support - Because Category:Music tracks just doesn't cut it. cqm 01:53, 17 Dec 2012 (UTC) (UTC)
I don't even... The fuck...? Dude... Facepalm MolMan 02:14, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
Bahahaha. This would work. *Nod* sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 02:16, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
NO!! Bad! Bad fergie. MolMan 02:19, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
Don't suppress her voice man. The wiki is a place where everyone is free to express themselves however they see fit, so long as it falls within a strictly defined framework of decency, which your previous comment is somewhat infringing on, might I add. The f-word is generally frowned upon in highly public places like this. You are on thin ice. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:31, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. It is best to use Urbancowgurl777 instead of fergie. I hear she particularly likes being called cowgurl Wink. cqm 03:02, 17 Dec 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Merge history - It seems this is the best solution to save the edit history and deleting the whole Beta namespace. Tedious though. Explore and enjoy the world! TIMMMO Work it with all my heart!++Discuss Sign 10:18, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Merge it onto the mainspace articles? That would be bad news. ʞooɔ 11:45, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
Why? Explore and enjoy the world! TIMMMO Work it with all my heart!++Discuss Sign 11:55, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
Well...the revisions would be imported chronologically, so if both the mainspace and beta versions were edited since the fork, looking at one of the diffs would show you changes between the main and beta versions, not actual changes made by the editor. ʞooɔ 23:27, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Don't ask me why, but according to RC, we're still getting about a dozen edits to that page daily. Might want to look into that. Michagogo (talk) 21:29, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Likely due to random pages. ʞooɔ 23:27, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I'd suggest against merging edit histories as most of the initial three edits to a given beta article are not actual edit times. Those would be just edits I made to various XML files that I split up at least two dozen times in order for them to appear correctly when uploading. However, it's best to just not merge any history or create subpages for the sake of keeping revisions. I'd also suggest against creating a separate wiki to hold the revisions as we didn't support it when creating the Beta namespace.

I am for the outright deletion of all beta articles but not the removal of the namespace due to future beta events that will take place in the upcoming years. Of course, another suggestion is to ask Wikia to remove the Beta namespace from being marked as a content namespace and this will remove it from RandomPages. Frankly, that's the best solution to removing the inflated page counter but it would still leave me and RyanBot with a horrible amount of beta spam in contributions. Ryan PM 07:45, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

Also, RyanBot is still responsible for 4529 articles as of this writing. That list needs to be gone through and remove those with less than 5 revisions and those that only had bot revisions after revision #3 or maintenance work since MassDelete is not an option at this point. Ryan PM 08:42, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

Support mass deletion of beta namespace pages - It'll get rid of pages that are not needed (and clean out Wanted Files), without causing some future catastrophe that would result if revisions were lost. Moving it to another wiki seems like a good way to introduce errors everywhere, and moving it to subpages also seems like a way to ask for errors. 222 talk 00:26, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

What errors would be introduced with a move to another wiki? ʞooɔ 09:55, December 20, 2012 (UTC)
Idk, someone said the importing/exporting was buggy. 222 talk 10:50, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

Go for it - I understand history on some pages could be useful, but I agree that keeping the pages just because of that is pointless. I'd be all for put them into a separate wiki, but honestly I just want them gone.

  1. REDIRECT User:Fewfre/signature.css
Figured I would add that what I hate the most about the beta namespace, is whenever you look at a equipment category page, half of them are Beta.
  1. REDIRECT User:Fewfre/signature.css

Support - I keep reading this and I realise that I haven't actually made a comment yet on it. Yeah, I support the mass deletion. I am also fully in support of keeping the namespace just in case there's another beta. In any case though, I'd prefer for us to go with Cook's second option, "Temporarily move beta pages to mainspace subpages, then delete. Might seem a bit convoluted in the short term, but it's the best long term option available." For starters, it doesn't seem to convoluted. I like the idea. The pages will be in mainspace, and then the admins can see the revisions if needed. This can easily be done with a bot. Blaze_fire.png12.png 16:03, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

If we keep the namespace I don't think we'd need to move the pages to mainspace, as the edits will still be there for any admin to look at. The only reason that was suggested is because the proposer is trying to delete the Beta namespace, in which case all edits are lost. --LiquidTalk 16:12, December 20, 2012 (UTC)
I can live with the beta space still existing so long as it isn't content. Ya it'd annoy me, but at least gone from the public's view. MolMan 20:14, December 20, 2012 (UTC)
Gone from the public's view and gone from the Broken file links category and WantedFiles/Pages. Agree with Mol. Blaze_fire.png12.png 19:35, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Cook's 2nd option - We don't want these revisions to be lost completely. There needs to be an archive of these files somewhere. HaloTalk 16:40, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Numbah 2 really makes sense. I honestly had no idea you'd get a crash attempting to import the files, Cook. MolMan 20:14, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Due to the Premier Club, specifically the Silver and Gold packages, it's pretty much been confirmed that we're getting at least another beta of some sort. Blaze_fire.png12.png 20:16, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

Then that just furthers my support of Cook's second option. This will allow us to recycle the namespace and get rid of the older pages that don't need to be there. MolMan 20:20, December 20, 2012 (UTC)
So, should we list all the official proposals and try to get consensus on one of them? I'd love to get rid of these combat beta pages soon. Blaze_fire.png12.png 06:48, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - What about things only present in the beta? Like Beta:Melee armour trader and those other guys. Also, there have been previous betas (RS2 and RSHD if I am correct, if anyone has any information on those) and there will be more (Premium Club), so... perhaps just keep the betaspace after all? User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 13:45, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Unique content belongs in the mainspace. Betaspace, however, may be useful should future beta usage come into fruition. We should learn from our mistakes if we do intend to use betaspace again, though. --Henneyj 19:47, December 21, 2012 (UTC)
AFAIK, there was no beta for RSHD. This leaves only the two biggest updates in RS history as getting their own beta. You can't exactly call me skeptical for expecting one not to happen again in the near future, but I'm beginning to think that if this latest bullshit does hold its promise, we'll need to keep a recyclable namespace for betas. I still want the pages gone.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Mol Man (talk). 19:58, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - In regards to needing the beta space for other betas (which have been confirmed by Jagex), I oppose this. In my opinion, using the beta space was a bad idea: look at us now, having to create threads on this and all being confused on what to do. I suggest we use the switch infobox later for beta stuff, so it won't be as messy. I still support my reasons in deleting the beta space, but now I'm heading towards importing data onto another wiki. Also, typing on an iPhone is awful. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 21:48, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

First off: iPhones are awful. They're game devices with an ability to call. Second, the beta space may be messy, but it's the best idea to be presented for this organisation. Switchfobox is far from working, it is probably more confusing for the people whom we care about: Anonymous editors. They don't know how that crap works. It will be messier than anything. Third, we only need to have this thread once (we actually don't even need it, I'm just impatient). Once we've made a decision on what to do, we can do it next time. And the next time. And the next time. Fourthly, I removed an extraneous space from your paragraph. MolMan 22:03, December 21, 2012 (UTC)
This thread is now about iphone v. android and also apple v. everything else. Thanks, kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:51, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Apple for the win! I love edible machines! JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:45, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
They'd be awesome if they were game devices with an ability to call. bad_fetustalk 06:29, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
I believe you're talking about the nokia ngage. The greatest device ever. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 20:19, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

comment - Whatever you do, make sure there is an easy way to get the info back. When thieving activities was merged into thieving training, an error was made so the thievable chests were gone from the wiki. It was slightly convoluted getting to it, but I was glad it still existed in history. Narfblat (talk) 06:55, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

Not really something to fret over. That's actually the purpose of the thread: How will we be preserving the history? MolMan 19:38, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

Keep beta space - For future (2013) betas... HaloTalk 02:55, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

A big bump

Bump - I think I'd like to slightly redefine this thread because the main issue isn't getting as much discussion as I'd have liked. It's not about Apple vs everything; not even about getting rid of the Beta namespace. Let's pretend I never suggested deleting the entire namespace itself. I made the thread with a main intention of getting some ideas because I was relatively dry. Now that I've had a look at what everyone has had to say I would really like to change the question being asked:

What are we going to do with these 4600 odd Beta pages?

They need to be gone (or at the very least un-content'd) because they are a huge extra load of maintenance that isn't beneficial considering the fact that they're redundant. So let's not keep ourselves 4600 more pages to maintain. By the way, if you didn't know, stripping Beta: from being content removes the pages' inclusion from Special pages like Special:UncategorizedPages; however they still swarm other Special pages, so just that doesn't cut it. So we need em gone but we also kinda need to keep their history. I didn't think much of it other than "just in case", but I now fully agree with ʞooɔ on keeping our revision integrity.

Also, in response to keeping this namespace for the alleged future betas, we have no idea what the nature of these betas will be. That sentence that seems to strike as a promise (Priority access to any and all RuneScape closed betas in 2013. ) doesn't guarantee anything. This could just be a marketing ploy to reel users in based off of "feedback" from the EoC. I don't know. I haven't seen any other other mentions of any betas to be released, but feel free to show me I'm wrong. Furthermore, even if we are getting more betas, we have no idea what the nature of them is. The Combat Beta was pretty warranting of a new namespace due to the mass amount of pages that were going to have significant changes done to their subjects. This was a big update and I don't expect another update of this magnitude that would require vast use of the extra namespace.

As a little aside: I'm not trying to get the namespace deleted with that, just something that really needs to be considered and that I haven't seen considered yet. I still want it to be un-content'd (at least when we're not making good use of it) and for the current pages to be deleted.

So let's go back to the Main Beta main problem: those pages that exist right now. I'm on the side of keeping the pages' histories with my favorite method being the second one Cook introduced: Temporarily move beta pages to mainspace subpages, then delete. I like this idea because it gets the pages gone and in a simple place to find should we ever need it — I assume it'll simply be a subpage in the format PAGENAME/Beta. It also allows us to safely remove the Beta: namespace, but I don't want to talk about that. Let's not care about the namespace just all those pages.

So here's the options we have so far:

  1. Import the beta pages to a new wiki to delete them here
    My original proposal (mostly, I removed the delete the namespace part). Not very good with our other options; it fragments the history and is apparently not feasible with users getting a timeout from the large file. Still, it was "not the worst idea"
  2. Delete 'em, and be done
    Kinda the same as moving them to subpages, but the fact that they'd still be in the beta namespace leaves loss of history possible if we decide to be rid of namespace
  3. Temporarily move beta pages to mainspace subpages, then delete
    Best I've heard thus far as explained above
  4. Merge history
    Probably the worst, it would ruin the purpose of the history because it would go chronologically by submission (which can overlap between beta and main) meaning that we see the changes between two versions, not what was actually changed.

Of course we will need to take into the account the number of beta pages that have already been deleted (only those deleted on or after November 20) as well as pages that lack any human edits or any edits of significant value (such as a user reverting a vandal being the only 2 edits or any maintenance only edits).

We've been saying for a while now to not edit the namespace because it's a wasted effort considering we are to delete it "soon". Don't consider me impatient for wanting it done; it will have to get done eventually and we're going nowhere for right now because (as far as I've seen) there hasn't been any particularly strong consensus in any direction other than us all seeming to agree to want the pages gone. I don't want this to be closed as no consensus (and I'm thankful that no Admin has) because that won't be doing us any good; left with what are unofficial false positives clogging our maintenance pages because they'll get taken care of "soon".

Let's get this done. For the Wiki!

TL;DR: Discuss an effective method for removing the BetaSpace pages assuming that the namespace itself has any chance of deletion; deletion of the namespace itself should not be discussed and can be brought up in another thread and preferably when there is more information disclosed about future betas

Support 3 - which was originally #2 when presented by Cook, but I liked it so much that I said "+1" MolMan 20:55, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Support 3 - Easily the best suggestion for keeping the information and deleting the namespace if we decide to do that. Blaze_fire.png12.png 21:57, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Support 3 - Fine, if someone wants to script it. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:59, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Moderate support 3, weaker support 2 - Apart from the pages about the traders who stocked free armour/weapons, I don't think there's much more to be salvaged from there. Just deal with them quickly so that 1) they don't appear via the normal search on the wiki, 2) they can be deleted easily. 5-x Talk 22:12, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

It's not about transferring information, it's about attribution. Also, I hope everyone is actually reading my text wall. There for a reason peoples :I MolMan 22:16, January 3, 2013 (UTC)
I did. And I'm glad you revived the discussion. I don't want this to die without consensus, and then have it be brought up again, rinse, and repeat. Still supporting number 3. Blaze_fire.png12.png 22:25, January 3, 2013 (UTC)
@ Mol Man: I read every single word. We might or might not need space for future betas, it's not very important now and certainly not possible to predict. You see, I'm more concerned about the accessibility of wiki content than rather fruitless discussions about namespace nuances. What is the core of the entire activity here is providing easy access to information and the possibility to add new information for and by people playing the game. Sorry for slight offtopic, clarified my point of view. 5-x Talk 22:31, January 3, 2013 (UTC)
Understandable, I only mentioned reading the entire thing in my response to you because anywhere else in the wall would leave it unnoticed or placed unnaturally. lol MolMan 22:34, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Support 3 - I'd be happy to script it too @Fergie/Everyone. Hair 22:26, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Support 3 - because we need to have them somewhere. -- Cycloneblaze (user - talk - contribs) 21:45, January 4, 2013 (UTC)

Do nothing/just delete the beta pages - Just delete the beta pages without moving. I'm opposed to option 3 because the premise of option 3 is that we're going to delete the beta namespace. But, if we don't delete the Beta namespace, then we don't need to do move anything at all since the page history will be sitting right there for anyone to see. Jagex has said that Gold level Premier Club members will get priority access to future betas so we can be fairly certain that we will need this namespace again at some point. I just think that it's a huge hassle to move everything into Mainspace and delete the namespace only to recreate it later. --LiquidTalk 00:04, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

The premise of option 3 is not that we'll be deleting the namespace, but that it has any chance of being gone. With that said, I think the chances of us actually using the namespace again are rather slim; I already mentioned there's no way of telling whether or not we will get another beta (which have only been given a chance for this year, not any other) or what the nature of such a beta would be. If the beta were such that many items would be receiving a change to their mechanics, we would need to recycle the namespace. If anything, however, these "any and all betas" (to quote that update) would most likely be related to the HTML5 updates, in which case we would have absolutely no need for an extra namespace or even extra pages. That sort of colossal update to RuneScape wouldn't change anything gameplay related, only the engine on which it is run; basically the beta would be to make sure everyone is running exactly the same as before. With there being nothing else foreseeable and our only evidence being 2013, HTML5, a colossal update, and access to *2013* betas, we need to consider whether or not we'll really need this namespace in the future. MolMan 18:01, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
In short, we should play on the safe side. MolMan 21:52, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Adrenaline potion is missing 177 revisions (previously name recover special) as a result of the page being moved from the beta namespace. Whilst I'm not particularly interested in keeping the page in it's previous form, I don't see why so many revisions have been made largely unavailable, and I would doubt this is an isolated case. Seeing as the purpose of this thread is to keep the history of pages, is this a side issue? cqm 14:57, 9 Jan 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

The revisions have been restored... This is exactly what we don't want: pages with revisions (deleted or not) mixed in between beta and mainspace pages. They won't reflect any of what an editor may have actually changed. And because this was done entirely with a move, you'll get to see with your own eyes why option 4 is terrible. MolMan 21:52, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Old revisions always need to be kept, I believe. Because contributers have only donated their work under CC-BY-SA, so they should be given attribution. The only place this is done is in the page history. Bronzedagger (talk) 01:05, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

So which are you supporting? Blaze_fire.png12.png 04:07, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
Beta pages shouldn't be deleted if they contain the only record of who contributed certain bits of text in the current articles. But I never used Beta pages and don't know the history of how they were used, so I don't have any other use for them. Bronzedagger (talk) 03:04, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
Beta pages were set-up by importing the latest revision of the relevant page in the mainspace. In truth it would have been better to import the entire history so when we came to move it back we could just delete the mainspace pages and the history would be nice and linear. Sadly, this wasn't really feasible with what I believe was over 6000 pages, even with a bot doing all the work.
With regards to CC-BY-SA, I believe the last contributor to the article can claim ownership of the article if we need to do anything legal based, so hopefully this isn't really an issue although it's somewhat untested when we look at the current situation with the Jagex wiki. I do think the CC-BY-SA notice used in the editing interface is a little misleading, but that's taking this a little too much off-topic. cqm 11:50, 15 Jan 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
We'd still have the revisions and the page history available, just the page would be deleted. MolMan 22:35, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support 3 - Out of all the idea from before and now, I like this one best. As you mentioned, we do not know the nature of future betas, and even if we do re-use the namespace, it wouldn't hurt to clean up the current beta namespace in such a way that we could delete it if we wanted to. And thanks for reviving the discussion.

  1. REDIRECT User:Fewfre/signature.css

Closed - There is a general consensus that keeping the pages around clutters the wiki's RandomPage and categories. There are technical problems with the original proposal to import pages to another wiki, so much that the nominator withdrew his original position and consensus built against doing that.

There has been discussion about keeping the Beta namespace for future betas and just purging it of content between betas. There was no real consensus for this discussion.

There has been discussion about deleting the Beta namespace outright versus keeping it, but it is minor.

There has been discussion about using the MergeHistory tool. Technical difficulties with diffs render this option unusable.

Even before the bump, more people supported a variant of "MassDelete pages, then undelete later" and settled on Cook Me Plox's "MassDelete pages after moving them to the main namespace, then undelete later". So that's what the wiki shall do.

 a proofreader ▸ 

20:43, January 22, 2013 (UTC)